Keep lashing out Hillary!  Don't let that rookie from Illinois get away with a thing!

she wouldn't be finished and no one is desperate but you.

oh boy - lets see - what dem prez lost iowa and nh and came back to win the WH?

hmmmm....

again, you guys concentrate on winning the pundits, we will concentrate on winning delegates.

Just needed to point something out...

...In 1992, Bill Clinton finished in single digits in Iowa and finished second in New Hampshire.  Technically, yes, Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire.  In fact, Clinton didn't win his first state until he reached my home state of Georgia.  All the while though, Clinton was steadily racking up delegates.

What I'm saying is that I could care less who comes in first in Iowa or New Hampshire.  I'm more concerned about the delegate count.  That's the only vote that matters.  You need 50% to get nominated on the first ballot.  If you don't have 50%, then the delegates are released and vote their own preferences.

out of you guys. she might be worth thousands of activist woman votes.

I don't think anyone is desperate or lashing out.  If it helps you to sleep dreaming such things then by all means, go ahead.

However, I do think that Clinton supporters are more aware of what they face.   2 months ago the Obama and Edwards campaigns showed they were going to stop at nothing.

At the same time, over the last 2 months every word out of Bill and Hillary's mouth has been dissected and carefully parsed by the press.  Meanwhile Edwards and Obama have been free to attack at will.

When Clinton attacks back, the media warns or backlash, or her opponents call her "petty".   There is a double standard at work there.

I think win lose or draw Clinton supporters are saying they are going to fight for their candidate, since it appears that that is what everyone else is doing.

Me, I don't see how Obama can win.  He isn't going to sweep the early states.  Clinton will have wins under belt headed into Feb 5 and then is over.   But still, I don't think Obama, or Edwards for that matter deserve the freedom to say and do that they will, while Clinton (or her supporters) just sit back and take it.

Just listen to Chris Matthews.

In one segment he tells us that the Republicans doesn't need to win the early states, that he can wrap it up in the big states later.

Then in the next he tells us the Democrats has to win the early states or else.

I don't get it.

I don't think that she would be finished if she lost both Iowa and New Hampshire, but I do believe she would be deeply damaged.  Nevadadem is correct in saying that voters seeing a front running candidate defeated twice in a row will be crippling.  Of course, her worst case is that the same person defeats her in Iowa and New Hampshire.  If say Edwards wins Iowa and Obama wins New Hampshire, her defeats will not be as damaging, IMO.  There would not be a new front runner then and all three candidates would be viable until the February 5th primaries take place.

I don't want a Democrat who thinks that guns should be banned, Mr. Obama is that person and now he blames Edwards for closing the Maytag factories in IA.

Edwards supporters: This is your time to come out and expose this fraud, stop being against Hillary. Obama is the one who is smearing him; Hillary never did.

No one is lashing out, he's now the frontrunner in a few states and that goes with the territory- as Clinton supporters have been told ad nauseam- so quit whining and being a crybaby about it.

Bill Clinton was not heavily favored to win the nomination when he ran.

Hillary , on the other hand , is seen as one of the strogest frontrunner in decades and if she loses Iowa and NH , it will be huge media news that wont play well for her.

No problem. Hillary's going to win Iowa. And New Hampshire. And everywhere else.