Voices without Votes » Fred Thompson

Return to 1999

Aggregated from: Gray Falcon — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:14:38 +0000

So, following the government-worshiping ritual last Tuesday, Barack Hussein Obama will become the 44th President (and not sure which Emperor in order, not that it matters) of the USA. Given the current state of the country, and its standing abroad, I'm not sure whether to say “‘Grats” or “Sorry.” Maybe both.

I viewed the prospect of either Obama or McCain gaining the presidency as distasteful, both as a libertarian and as a Serb. Neither is a friend of human freedom, so I won't belabor that point. Unlike most of his fellow Republicans, McCain has consistently supported Clinton's Balkans adventures during the 1990s, from Bosnia to Kosovo. One of his partners in those crimes was Joseph Biden, then Senator from Delaware, now VP-elect.

I could write an entire column about all the things Joseph Biden has said and done pertaining to the Balkans. In fact, I did write a column about him once. At the time, I asserted that Biden's belligerent ranting was less of a sign that “liberal” interventionism was making a comeback and more of a “last roar of an establishment whose time has passed, and while still capable of mischief it cannot fundamentally change the course of events.” But lo and behold, that establishment seems to be back in power, and under the banner of “change” no less!

Let's see now. In addition to cheering the murderous terrorists of the KLA and their “independent state of Kosovo,” Biden also called for a “Japanese-German style occupation” of Serbia. He is also said to have advocated that “all Serbs should be placed in Nazi-style concentration camps” back in 1999, during Senate debate on the NATO attack on then-Yugoslavia, and called the Serbs “…a bunch of illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists” on CNN's Larry King Live.

Apparently, a Croatian friar has taken credit for guiding Biden to the “truth” about those wicked evil Serbs. Isn't that great, knowing that a foreign cleric can influence an American lawmaker so? Then again, his task wasn't hard. Being a Serbophobe - as opposed to, say, anti-Semite - has never been a career-killer in Washington. Quite the contrary.

Within the postmodern morality in which the American politics operates, there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling the Serbs “degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists,” since they are an officially designated villain. The entire narrative of the American Empire rising to “liberate” the world from itself in the aftermath of the Cold War rests on the myth of Serbian Evil.

Biden could not get away with saying things like this about the Jews, or Americans of African origin, or Muslims. But Serbs are fair game. Everybody knows they are evil, right?

It seems that every possible group of people has some sort of agency in Washington, whether they have a grievance now or think they may have a grievance in the future and doesn't hurt to be prepared. The Serbs do not, even though they've been on the receiving end of American “benevolence” longer and harder than the Iraqis or the Afghans. This is why there is little or no response to Serbophobic drivel routinely spewed by politicians and lobbyists (and now the future Grand Vizier). This is why no one in the U.S. mainstream cared about Biden's comments, or how positively Hitlerian they sounded (not to mention having not even a passing acquaintance with the truth).

Now all we need is Dick Holbrooke back in the State Department, and as far as Washington is concerned, it will be 1999 all over again.

Fred Thompson Speaks to Americans

Aggregated from: PoliGazette — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:00:45 +0000

The Republican National Committee recently released quite an interesting video of former Senator Fred Thompson. In the video, Thompson sits calmly behind his desk, looks into the camera directly, and addresses the American people in a reasonable, calm manner, without too much ado.

It’s one of those strangly calm videos, that are considered ‘outdated,’ yet, many do appreciate such videos and, as such, they can have a bigger impact than slick advertisers expect.

“You’ve got a few minutes?” Thompson asks at the start of the video?

“It’s time for those of us who are concerned about our nation’s future to focus on what’s at stake in this year’s elections. This is a time of great challenge for our country: we know that somewhere in the world our worst enemies either have or are trying to get their hands on the most dangerous weapons known to man,” he goes on to say.

“Small rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons and threatening our allies. Large nations are engaged in massive military buildups.

“At home we’re guirding for the possible onset of a recession.”

“If this wasn’t America,” Thompson says in the pro-McCain advertisement. “I might be worried.”

“Very soon we’ll go to the polls to set a path that will determine who we will respond to these challenges. That’ll be a decision that we’ll make not only for ourselves, but very possibly for generations to come. John McCain’s entire life has been devoted to defending those principles that made our country great. His life has been one of duty, honor, dedication and sacrifice,” Thompson goes on making the case for McCain.

“He has been involved in every major domestic and foreign policy issue for three decades, and has fought to reform Washington in ways that would change our country for the better,” the former Senator now actor says.

“Responsible change,” Thompson said defining conservatism in a new yet old way, “is the essence of conservatism.” That line could very well be the most important one of the entire ad, by the way. I sincerely believe that conservatives in the entire Western world can make a political comeback by emphasizing not the freedom part of conservatism, but the responsibility part. Responsible government, responsible spending, a responsible foreign policy and, yes, demanding responsible behavior from citizens.

“We must change in order to preserve what’s best about our country,” Thompson further explains. “We have always been able to accomodate constructive change without turning our back on our first principles.

“We must do it again.”

“However, that does not include staking everything in the eloquence and experience of one who is toed the extreme partisan line his political life,” he goes on attacking Barack Obama, “as much as he tries to blur that fact now.”

“This is the choice we have in this election. Lets hope that for our nation’s sake that we choose well,” Thompson concluded.

Watch it:

Click here to view the embedded video.

To a very large degree, Thompson’s video is highly refreshing. It, of course, contains an attack, or criticism, at Barack Obama, but it is mostly a calm video, of a calm conservative explaining the choice, as he sees it, currently in front of the American people. It’s not a dirty ad, it’s not a fast, slick ad. It’s calm; the senior statesman addressing his fellow citizen.

Will it pay off: my guess is it won’t. Many voters will undoubtedly rather watch slick, fast ads, in which nothing is said.

But those who are more interested in a calm debate, may be influenced by it, if because nothing else, than because the approach of the ad is refreshing in its traditional style, changing the tone of the debate considerably.

Where to Point the Blame for the Financial Crisis

Aggregated from: The Strong Conservative — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:16:00 +0000

Obama and the Democrats seem intent on pinning the current financial crisis on the Bush Administration and the Republicans. In some ways, the Democrats are right in that the GOP and Bush share in the blame for the crisis, but when pointing fingers they should notice that 3 are point right back at themselves. How appropriate, because it is government and ineffective regulation that is truly the culprit in this financial dilemma.

There is no lack of regulation in the financial industry, just pick up a copy of the 1933 Act or 1934 Securities Act and you'll see, better yet pick up a recent addition of the tax code and you'll be lost in the monstrosity of government regulation.

Back in 2003, Bush appointee John Snow pushed for greater oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, the two giant GSE's that are in the middle of the mess. Schumer opposed Snow, as did Chris Dodd:

"I am very hopeful,'' said Dodd, the committee's second- highest-ranking Democrat. Lawmakers "realize it's important to get the GSEs off the radar screen and outside the cross hairs and get them back to doing what they should be doing, and that is providing affordable housing.'' GSEs are government-sponsored enterprise such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So who have been the biggest recipients of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae political fundraising? Democrats. The details are shocking: Dodd, Obama, and John Kerry are by far the largest recipients of donations. Dodd got $165,000, Obama $126,000, and Kerry $111,000. Of course, Republicans were also pigs at the trough, but not like the Dems. Obama also has key Fannie Mae people on his campaign staff.

Democrats, like Sen. Chuck-you Schumer wanted to expand Fannie and Freddie even as other tried to reign them in:

The direction he has set since taking over Washington-based Fannie Mae in December resembles a tactical retreat. Mudd, who holds a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University, has cut the company's dividend in half, frozen hiring, slashed the lobbying budget by one third, and presided over a 6 percent decline in its $852 billion mortgage holdings.

That slow-growth strategy has drawn rebukes from some in Congress, including Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, who backed a growth strategy they say created more affordable housing by expanding the pool of mortgage funds. These critics say the company is caving in under pressure from Republicans, some of whom cite warnings that the debt levels at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be too large, posing risks for the economy.

So why is the media not pointing this out? Why am I, a blogger, able to find this with a few easy Google searches? If a little investigation is done, it is quite obvious that the Democrats and Republicans share the blame for the crisis, but much of the problem can be pinpointed on government regulation and GSE's which distorted the true risk of the market. Capitalism works fantastically when it is allowed to operate freely within boundaries that protect consumers while fostering intelligent risk taking and entrepreneurialism.

Investors Business Daily also points the finger at government being at the center of the problem:

"[I]t was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

In the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gecko points out that greed has benefits and points out some poignant market realities, "America, America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions. Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company!"

He also describes government and inefficiency with perfection, "The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated."

He's exactly right. If institutions fail, it is creative destruction. The sky will not fall, but people may lose money and jobs. The danger is that if government continues to bail out companies that fail, further distortion of the market in regards to risk will result that will lead to a true catastrophe in the future. Let justice be done or the heavens fall, and don't bail out losers.

The answer to this crisis is not government or central planning or regulation, the answer is responsibility. The answer is innovation, true risk and value being transparent to investors and participants, and opportunity to succeed without government restricting growth.

A Global Review of the U.S. Election

John Liebhardt — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:31:08 +0000

This weekend's news included: The death of a postmodern novelist. Teetering Wall Street Banks. A hurricane wreaking havoc in Texas. Yet, the Jewish blogger PatriotMissive points out that the top five stories E-mailed from the New York Times this weekend are either accounts about Sarah Palin (who earns the top spots) or her running mate, John McCain.

Is America — and the rest of the world — going election mad? Inquiring minds want know.

A couple days ago in Australia, the Thinkers’ Podium began an interesting debate on the importance of Americans taking stock in what the rest of the world has to say.

If Americans are going to anoint their leader, the leader of the free world, then I don’t think it unfair for them to have to listen to the free world. That goes for Obama as well, who’s relative protectionism isn’t above criticism by non-Americans (while I loathe the Bush Administration’s FTA with Australia, particularly it’s intellectual property ramifications, I’m pro-economic-globalisation, pro-fair-trade).

Country First? Who’s not going to run that line and who’s seriously going to be say, putting China first? It’s a bit meaningless if you can’t demonstrably demonstrate that you are more for your country than your opponent, at least beyond a superficial nationalism. And while we are talking about nationalism, or at least patriotism, I guess we should be asking Palin to explain how her vision of Creationism taught alongside Evolution in public schools sits with the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

And then, Thinkers’ Podium sent out a Missing Person’s report on the old John McCain:

I miss old McCain. Really I do. Palin has done nothing of substance to differentiate herself from the Bush Administration. No respect for the constitution nor the enlightenment values that informed it, that’s for sure. And while she’s not nearly as fanatical as the extremes of Bush supporters, she’s by no means stands out in as far as cultural terms are concerned. Fiscally speaking, she’s not so different either as her spending and taxation record in Alaska demonstrate.

McCain would be the one in the pair to break with the norms of the Bush regime. More traditional conservatives were aghast when the Bush Administration started spending like there was no tomorrow and if it wasn’t for one thing, I’d believe that McCain would at least have serious fiscal reform in mind, if not other kinds of reforms.

Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam covers the controversy of what he calls “the right-wing, pro-Israel crowd” distributing 28-million copies of an anti-Muslim film to voters in swing states. One commenter said the film came wrapped inside her newspaper.

The Muqata parties like its 2004 with a rundown on Obama Waffles.

A lengthy analysis in Mideast Youth finds few reasons for Arab Americans to cheer in the 08 Presidential Contest.

We all know that what the Middle East needs is someone courageous enough to make the Palestinians and the Israelis do what needs to be done. But that courageous person is not out there. In the face of that continuing reality, the best option is not to support someone who “looks” like they can be fair and is more likely to be a bigger disappointment. The real option is support the person who is unfair and won’t disappoint, but who could just change.
Obama won’t change. If Palestine and the Middle East were really important, he would have given signals to that affect already. But he won’t. McCain and Palin could actually bring more change.

And, for those who see things in Republican and Democratic colors, the other reality is this. Even if McCain wins, both houses of the congress will be controlled by Democrats. So, what’s the difference if Obama wins or loses.

Gerald from the Kenyan Diaspora Pro-Democracy Movement posts a video from a Obama rally in Michigan.

From South Africa, the lively Times Blog spent two days covering the transcript of Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s first interview on U.S. national television. With more than 200 comments, I’ll post a few here:

From a born again Christian:

This is scary! I am a born again Christian and this woman is not ready for prime time. Dan Quayle looks like Winston Churchill next to this one. I was on the fence as to who to vote for. This seals it. I appreciate all the mom juggling career and family stuff, and she has my respect for that. But one breath away from the presidency?!! She says she is not speaking for God, then she speaks for God. She says she canceled the bridge to nowhere, but she kept the money. I’m voting democratic!

From Travis M:

Sarah Palin sounds much better than Obama. It is a real shame that everyone is scared of her being in office when he has less experience then she does. The only person to lead this country at this time is McCain.

Not even the sport of Hockey is free from criticism:

Palin does talk like a “hockey mom”!! My son played hockey and I was appalled by the violence that those so called “hockey moms” think is cool to encourage in the sport! Her views are no different from the Islamic extremist who use there man made “God’s Plan” as the plan for the rest of us! Palin is stale air!

For those who wonder if any South Africans leave comments in one of their country’s largest newspapers, here’s a comment that is clearly from a non-American.

Sarah, dear Sarah,realize that the Bush Doctrine was George’s SELF IMPOSED right to attack Iraq under the guise of going after the 9/11 terrorists in Afganistan. By doing so he has dragged the US into a bloody mess, costing over 4,000 lives to no avail. Even now your top MILITARY minds are saying that victory in Afganistan, the original target, may not be attainable. Good luck to America in your election, choose wisely.

BiblioPolit, who is from South Africa, reports that while Chuck Norris has endorsed John McCain for President, he will be supporting the Constitution Party’s nominee Chuck Baldwin.

Talking about campaign strategies, Sultan Knish, from Israel to New York City, explains the necessity and dangers of bringing the fight to Barack Obama.

Right now Republicans are feeling confident, too confident. The confidence is good as a way to energize the campaign and GOTV but it leads to the danger of overconfidence. The real challenge is not Obama, a lightweight campaigner who speaks in cliches and has limited appeal, but the behind the scenes dirty tricks and a media even more ruthless than ever about destroying McCain and Palin.

And so the double standard is in good and roaring form.

Moving on to the United State’s tricky relationship with Russia, director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, Paul Goble points out in his blog, Window On Eurasia, that some Russians think John McCain is out to get them:

Valery Markov, the first vice speaker of the Komi State Council, said that his republic had no intention of separating from Russia or “participate in the political games of US Presidential candidate John McCain,” who he said seeks to destroy the Russian Federation by promoting the recognition of all non-Russian republics (mariuver.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/). What is interesting is that Markov felt compelled or was compelled to make this statement.

Does anyone remember the War in Iraq? Palestinian Pundit prints an analysis (and adds ample comments) that violence in Iraq is down not because of the Surge but because the government of Iran has now fully backed the Nouri al-Maliki regime and negotiated ceasefires with its enemies. The question is why?

Nonetheless, the Palestinian Pundit comes up with a surprising conclusion:

Fiery rhetoric notwithstanding, it is becoming clearer by the day that Iran will continue to play a significant role as the silent partner of the Empire, as long as the Empire leaves Iran alone.

The “security” agreement that will allow the US to permanently occupy Iraq is a virtual certainty and it will be signed by Iran's man, Maliki. It appears that Iran does not mind permanent occupation of Iraq as long as Iran gets a commission for helping to police and “stabilize” Iraq.

For me this is a major re-think. For the first time in years I am now doubtful that USrael will attack Iran. A major deal has been struck quietly.

Lieberman and Thompson speeches from last night's Republican Convention

Aggregated from: Darryl Wolk Blog — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:02:00 +0000

Lieberman and Thompson speeches from last night's Republican Convention

Don't expect Lieberman to retain his chairmanship or ability to caucus with Democrats following the November election. For now his vote is required, down the road he will be turfed. Fairly decent speech though.
-Darryl

Fred Thompson delivers his best speech yet. Where was this speech when he was campaigning?
-Darryl

Fred Hits a Homerun

Aggregated from: The Strong Conservative — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:05:00 +0000

If Fred Thompson had given a speech like he did tonight, he might have won the GOP nomination. I don't know what his problem was during the campaign, maybe he didn't want it enough, but he sure nailed it for McCain tonight.

His best line was, "It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the Presidency?" Democrats, if they're honest, cannot say that of Mr. Obama.

Thompson did a great job of telling McCain's story, from his family background to his service in Vietnam, his record as a Congressman and Senator, and his record of achievement.

McCain isn't the perfect candidate, but he's a qualified, honorable man who is prepared to be commander in chief.

Global: The World Has a Say!

Amira Al Hussaini — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:16:55 +0000

A number of websites to poll readers from around the world on their choice of who the next president of the US should be have popped up recently. And while non-Americans do not have a vote in the elections, they are still having their say online.

Among such sites is Who the World Wants, which aims polls non-Americans, giving them the choice between selecting Republican Party candidate John McCain or Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama.

“This website is intended to finding out who the world outside the United States of America wants as a President for your country. Please, if you are a United States Citizen, DO NOT VOTE (you get to vote for real),” says the announcement on the site.

So far, the results show Obama as a global favourite, with 1,032 votes in his favour, against McCain's 685 global fans.

Another site sharing a similar idea is Who Would the World Elect? On this site, Republican Ron Paul is the forerunner, with close to 67,000 votes from around the world. Obama is a far second with 21,000 votes while former Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is a third, with around 6,800 votes. The site, which has so far seen 118,332 votes cast, also has a listing of where the votes came from, and for whom.

From Afghanistan, for instance, eight people have had their say as follows:

3 votes for Ron Paul
3 votes for Hillary Clinton
2 votes for Barack Obama

Australia too favours Ron Paul, with 1,267 votes for him. The other results are as follows:

710 votes for Barack Obama
176 votes for Hillary Clinton
97 votes for Dennis Kucinich
72 votes for Mike Gravel
28 votes for John Edwards
27 votes for Rudy Giuliani
13 votes for John McCain
11 votes for Fred Thompson
8 votes for Mitt Romney
5 votes for Chris Dodd
4 votes for Joe Biden
4 votes for Mike Huckabee
4 votes for Bill Richardson
3 votes for Sam Brownback
3 votes for Tom Tancredo
2 votes for Duncan Hunter
2 votes for Ralph Nader

For a full listing of how people in other countries have voted, click here.

What if we all voted? is yet another site, operating on the same principle. The site describes itself as:

a simple poll* of who the world would vote for in the upcoming US presidential election… if they could.

Obama leads the polls on this site and the full results can be found here.

Spot on

Aggregated from: Rantings of a Sandmonkey » American politics — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:53:06 +0000

At First, it was a snarky paragraph in an anti-Obama piece

But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for
example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who
says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone
like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold
your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can
support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take
the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a
Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon
backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling
to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and
think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling
to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made
from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if
only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'

But someone took it and ran with it in the comments section..

Biden: I have worked with chairs all over the world, and most members of Congress agree with my plan for how to make chairs
Bloomberg: I've put together a committee to survey voters on whether they want me to make their chairs
Clinton: I have the most experience in making chairs
Edwards: I will fight the chairmakers!
Giuliani: I can best protect you from the danger of chairs, just as I did in NYC
Huckabee: Chairs did not evolve, but were created
Kucinich: We should have a one-payer system for chairs
McCain: My friends, I believe we can sit together in our chairs and work out bipartisan solutions without torture
Obama: Together we can create chairs in a new way
Paul: Why is the government involved in making chairs?
Romney: Venture capitalism has made American chairs the greatest in the world
Tancredo: We must build a fence to keep out foreign illegal chairs
Thompson: I like a comfortable, yet presidential looking chair

Touche..

What the Huck?

Aggregated from: Pickled Politics » United States — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:37:52 +0000

Amongst all the Obama hype, its easy to forget that Mike Huckabee winning the Republican caucuses in Iowa is almost as important a story. The reason why Huckabee is important is that for the first time in many years there is a serious Republican Candidate who hasn’t signed up to a laissez-faire economic agenda. Instead he has spoken out against corporate greed and connected with people over their anxieties on things such as outsourcing and inadequate health care.

In normal circumstances it would have been almost impossible for a Huckabee type candidate to emerge. However with the field being fragmented and more conventional social conservatives such as Romney and Fred Thomson having their own flaws, Huckabee’s strong Christian background and endearing personality has seen him rise to the top.

In many ways, the rise/need of an economic populist was foreseen by two excellent conservative bloggers, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam in this article (their book on the same issues is coming out soon). They argued that as the Republican base was becoming more white working class, they needed to come up with more policies which appealed to that demographic such as those which promote the institution of the family and help the less well off, rather than looking after the Republican elite who are more concerned with tax cuts and free trade.

This is significant as if Huckabee somehow wins the nomination (and I’ve outlined a scenario below), it would probably be a lot easier for the Democratic President to pass legislation on issues such as universal health care. Even if he doesn’t, he’s demonstrated that there is a growing economic insecurity in working class America over outsourcing and income inequality even if the mainstream media doesn’t give it as much attention because it doesn’t really affect them that much.

On the whole It is still unlikely that Huckabee wins the Republican Nomination. Yet the conventional wisdom on Huckabee having no chance, was that once the candidates were eliminated, the rest of the party would get behind whoever was fighting Huckabee. However there is a scenario in which McCain wins New Hampshire but Romney and Giuliani continue to run thereby splitting the non-evangelical vote.

If as expected Huckabee wins South Carolina then he would have a real shot of taking Florida which would give him the most momentum going into Super Tuesday. Even if as expected, McCain wins the nomination, I expect Huckabee to have swept much of the South leaving McCain-Huckabee as the only viable ticket. Barring any major gaffes, I have a feeling that Huckabee is here to stay.

My early predictions for the US elections

Aggregated from: Pickled Politics » United States — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:13:46 +0000

I’m not predicting right now who will become President or even be the nominee for each of the parties: Democrat or Republican. But I think this is what will happen over the next few weeks.

[For the uninitiated: Right now each party is picking its nominee, with elections in each state (to attract a number of delegates). The party nominee who attracts the magic number of delegates becomes their presidential nominee… and then the fight for that begins]

On the Democrat side:
I think Obama may come second in New Hampshire but will win in South Carolina. After these three elections comes Super-Duper-Tuesday, when 27 states will hold elections. During that, I think Obama will attract slightly more delegates than Hilary Clinton but not be able to knock her out. To really do that, he will have to enlist John edwards as his running Vice-President mate (not sure if he can do that though yet).

Edwards will be pretty much out of steam after South Carolina, where he will come third…. unless he comes first or second in New Hampshire.

Clinton is probably plotting some serious mud she can sling at Obama in time for Super-Duper-Tuesday.

Republicans
Fred Thompson will be out before SDT. After that big 27-state election in early Feb, I suspect John McCain and Rudy Giuliani will show poor ratings but Giuliani will probably refuse to drop out then, believing he can still milk the terrorism angle to make a comeback. Eventually he will have to drop out. This will leave Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul as still the candidates with the strongest bases or momentum or cash to carry on.