so your argument is...don't vote for Obama because Latinos are racist?

Wow.

Count me as someone who never really believed Obama had ever pulled "even" with Clinton in NH.  I think it's more likely that it's a 7-10 point race right now.

Which is right about the 10 point pop I'd expect out of Iowa.  It's important for media expectations, IMHO, for NH to still be viewed as Clinton's firewall going into Iowa.

Healthcare plans aren't magic.  It's a real-life laboratory to see how well an individual mandate will work.  Most of the concepts in Hillary's (and Edwards and Obama's plans, for that matter) are theoretical...we don't really know yet what components really work and which don't.

universal coverage means everyone has healthcare coverage.  Only in a single-payer system is this true.

Certainly there is some merit to looking at mandate schemes to try and broaden the coverage pool, but it still leaves people out.

they didn't just stick to the healthcare and experience jabs either.  Those are both very defendable, solid policy attacks.

Then someone decided to get cute with that kindergarten slam...and now the "Hillary's wanton attacks" storyline gets written.  Dumb.  Hillary is lucky that Jay Leno and friends are on hiatus...the nighttime talkers would be eating that up.

is that it's hard to see how he translates an IA win into the early state momentum to capture the nomination.  If Clinton finishes second to Edwards, she's likely to stay on top in NH.  If Obama beats Clinton for second, he could bounce to a win in NH (if he stays within 8-10 points of her).

Not to mention, there's no way on God's green earth that Edwards will win SC.   It seems really unlikely that African-American voters (50% of the vote) will vote for someone other than Obama or Clinton...and one of the 2 (if not both) will still be viable at that point.  Not to mention the Feb 5 states (like NY, NY, IL) aren't exactly likely Edwards wins in any scenario.

Clinton...she takes IA and sweeps to the nom.  Obama...takes IA and NH, wins SC...and goes from there.  It's tough to game out for Edwards at this point, unlike Kerry in 2004, where you could see him taking NH if he surprised in IA.

this was a reply to the comment above.

It's a pretty simple fact.  A single payer heathcare insurance system is truly universal...because everyone is automatically covered.

The major Dem candidates all have plans that come a lot closer to universal coverage than what we have today, but they all leave some groups out.  

It's perfectly fair to argue that Clinton has a better plan, or will cover more people, but it's not universal.  Using Massachusetts as an example...they have an individual mandate, but there's still a significant percentage (10% or so) without coverage.  That wouldn't happen in a single payer system.

Universal HealthCare = Single Payer.  Anything else will leave some groups uncovered.

have "universal" healthcare plans.  Only Dennis Kucinich does...it's called single-payer.  Everything else leaves some folks out.

bother to release polls 2 weeks after they are in the field?  We're less than 5 weeks away...2 weeks ago data is practically worthless.

Making every vote count...in varying percentages based on viability, etc.

What could be more fair?

He's going to both.

There are several other debates between now and Iowa/NH...not to mention, we're actualy having policy arguments!

I'm kinda bummed...I was going to be in LA on the 10th.

but the longer quote makes it abundantly clear that Obama is talking about the lack of black guys with exotic names like Barack Obama in Iowa, rather than Iowans knowledge of foreign policy.

It's not very insulting to note that Iowa isn't exactly a multicultural wonderland.