Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part I

Barack Obama is flipping out. He flopped in the South Carolina debate. He flopped in the new South Carolina poll. Instead of taking his losses on the chin, Obama is sticking his chin out and insisting he is right.

Is this any way to run a campaign?

Let’s recap.

Obama was asked this question at the South Carolina debate:

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would.”

John Edwards, sensibly following Hillary’s lead answered the question by saying: “Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.”

In an interview with right wing journalist Byron York immediately after the debate, Joe Biden also agreed with our Hillary:

Afterward, other candidates echoed Clinton’s criticism. Sen. Joseph Biden, who has emerged as the clear-eyed antiwar realist in the Democratic race, told National Review Online that the idea of a president meeting with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and others was “naïve.” “World leaders should not meet with other world leaders unless they know what the agenda is, so you don’t end up being used,” Biden said. “When I went to meet with Milosevic before the war, the condition I met with him was that no press would be available, I’d only meet him in his office late at night, and I wouldn’t dignify being seen with him.”

Instead of exhibiting good judgment and common sense by retreating from his position, Obama has dug in his heels. With a Bush-like defiant posture, Obama continues, contrary to all evidence, to insist he is right. The flop has him flipped.

What is the current Obama campaign defense for his flop debate answer? It is odd. It is unhinged. It is detached from reality. But make no mistake, it is the party line defense because Obama himself has prattled it. Here it is:

“Look, one thing I’m very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than anyone else in this race, Republican or Democrat. “And I don’t base that simply on the fact that I was right on the war in Iraq. But if you look at how I approached the problem. What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.”

Just how flipped out is the above response? Obama seriously thinks that because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6 years old (he was there until he was 10) somehow makes him presidential timber? Because he has family overseas he is presidential timber? That agreeing, without preconditions, to meet with dubious (to say the least) world leaders demonstrates quality judgment? Maybe Obama thinks Hawaii, where he lived as a young man, is a foreign country. How else to explain living overseas as a pre-teen signals a future claim to occupancy of the Oval office?

[So ridiculous are the claims of superior judgment in foreign policy by Obama that they actually managed to breathe some life into the corpse which is the McCain campaign: McCain took exception to remarks in which Obama asserted his foreign policy judgment was superior to any of the candidates in the race, Republican or Democrat, partly because he has lived overseas and had a multicultural upbringing. “Well, I also think I’m the most qualified to run the decathlon because I watch sports on television all the time,” the Arizona senator said with sarcasm between stops in this leadoff primary state.]

But there is another aspect of the Obama narrative that is so untethered to reality it is laughable:

Asked about his foreign policy credentials on ABC News’ “Good Morning America” in January, Obama said his “experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I mean, I’m somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. You know, I majored in international relations.”

Well, that certainly makes us feel at ease. He took classes in “international relations.” That’s the ticket to the Oval office. Next Obama will be saying he was a cheerleader at his school too.

The Obama strategy then is to somehow sell to Americans as a compelling narrative, his “experience” as a 6 year old living overseas, family members overseas, and his classroom studies as qualifications for election to the presidency. Never has so little been used to fool so many for so much – the Presidency.

For the time being, Obama has decided to bark as his supporters demand. Is there a historical precedent for such delusion at such a high level? Let’s go back in time to a long ago debate and a years later talk about another big debate blunder:

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: … There’s no question I did not adequately explain what I was thinking. I felt very strongly, and I, of course, do so today, that regardless of the number of Soviet armored divisions in Poland, the Russians would never dominate the Polish spirit. That’s what I should have said. I simply left out the fact that at that time in 1976, the Russians had about 10 to 15 divisions in Poland. [snip]

JIM LEHRER: Let’s go back at the time you said that. I’m sure you’ve replayed this in your mind a million times. I don’t have to remind you what happened. You gave that answer, and then there was a follow-up, and you repeated it, so my question is did you have any idea that you had said something wrong?

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: Not at the time. Not at the time, [snip] So at the time, I did not feel that I had made an error. In retrospect, obviously, the inclusion of a sentence or maybe a phrase would have made all the difference in the world.

JIM LEHRER: When did you realize that you had made a mistake, or at least or do you honestly believe you made a mistake, now, sitting here now?

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: Well, I can see that I made a mistake in not adequately explaining what I had in mind. [snip] So when I finished the debate, I felt very comfortable. But the press focused in on that one exchange, and I happen to think that most of the press distorted the facts, and overly emphasized something that was not the most substantive issue in the whole debate.

JIM LEHRER: Do you happen to remember that just as the debate was over, when you first talked to your aides, your family, or whatever, did anybody say to you, Mr. President you made a mistake, you did bad on this one statement.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: The first comments by my staff were that we had done very, very well overall. But then when the press, in their own analysis —

JIM LEHRER: Immediately, you mean right after the debate.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD: The press that were making the post debate analysis focused in on that, and made very adverse comments about my comment. Well, when that press reaction became the dominant one, of course, the whole feeling that I had won this debate overall changed quite dramatically.

Gerald Ford did not learn his lesson in time and lost the election because he stuck to a ridiculous position stated at a debate. Obama has not learned his lesson and insists on sticking to a ridiculous position he stated at a debate.

Why is Obama self-destructing this way? We will examine that question later today as we continue to explore the flop that flipped.


47 thoughts on “Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part I

  1. I think what happened in the debate was just over-eagerness to respond to a question that defined him over and against George Bush. Hillary knows the process and filled in the detail. Obama could have just said after the debate that, of course, Hillary was right, and he just assumed that everyone knew the process. That would have been that.

    But no, the Senator, had to demonstrate what a lightweight he really is and throw a little fit about how he was RIGHT and Hillary was WRONG. No, he can’t let go of it. Like the smart boy in a class who get an answer wrong, he has to revisit over and over, telling everyone that not only is he still smart, but he also was right in the first place.

    We have found Obama’s Achilles’ Heal.

  2. Hi Admin,

    Excellent analysis. Can we cut and past your entire and/or partial articles on this site to other places? Sometimes, we may not want to emphasize it’s from Hill44.

  3. DCDem:

    There’s breaking news on talkingpoitnsmemo. Gates confirmed to Hillary the withdrawl plan is underway. This is extremely important, it shows Hillary’s gravatis in battling pentagon. Please, please write a diary on this(my account will take a few days to get activated). Make sure the headline catches the eyebrows.

    This is reinforce Hillary’s image. When Hillary is battling GOP, Obama is stabbing in her back.

  4. Kostner: Honesty is the best policy. Intellectual Property law is in large part intended as a protection of the consumer. In other words, with written material, the reader should know the origin of information. This means that even when there is consent from the writer to use the material, in order to protect the consumer the obligation is full disclosure.

    BTW, Obama has just made an additional statement. It undercuts many of his supporters who refused to acknowledge that Obama understood or heard the “preconditions” portion of the question. “The question was would you meet them without preconditions,” he said of the YouTube question above. “You’ll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from” the Bush administration’s. He speculated that she’s trying to “walk back” her stance.”

    Obviously this story continues.

  5. admin,

    We’ll cite the materials are from Hill44. But can we cut and paste and entire article if it’s deemed necessary.

  6. I, too, think Barry jumped at the question, but I also say he said what he thinks on the issue. I think the better issues here are that Hill’s critical thinking skills- her understanding of the nuance of foreign policy is THAT much better, and that if people were not already thinking Barry is inexperienced, this exchange would be a non-issue.

    Hill did a great job of forcing the press (and potential voters) to admit that they, too, have doubts about his experience and, therefore, competency.

  7. Kostner: I wrote a diary, then I went to dkos. ROOK already had posted on the topic. It’s up, and I recommended it.

  8. Not a problem Kostner.

    OkieAtty: The doubts are there and now they are highlighted. To adapt a Homer Simpson saying “It resonates because it’s true.”

  9. So, if Obama is right that Hillary’s echoing the Bush administration’s approach to diplomacy, then all the other Dem candidates are, too, because they agree with her.

    Looks like he’s all alone here. I wonder if he realizes it?

    BTW, I’m psyched Hillary’s going to be on Letterman!

  10. I’m noticing a surge in Obama web ads placed in articles focusing on Hillary. He must be spending quite a bit of money.

  11. HillaryLandRocks: My ISP is Verizon. My web e-mail client has an ad for to click to purchase Obama gizmos. Obviously, he is modeling his campaign on Bush’s surge.

  12. HillaryLandRocks, I’ve seen that, too.

    Also, you all should check the thread on about Gates’ reply to Hillary. The posters largely give her kudos, but there’s one poor soul (an Obama supporter probably) who says, “No one who voted for the war is qualified to be president.” Too bad for him/her the vast majority of Dem primary voters care more about getting out of Iraq than what happened more than four years ago.

  13. admin,

    I guess you misread my initial intention. I was not trying to plagarize your materials. Just for tactical reason, sometimes it’s better not to emphasize the source of an excellent article coming from a site Obamaniacs deem ‘too partisan’. LOL. Anyway, I’ll take your advice.

  14. Kostner – that’s a good point. I have seen Dkos posters attack this site and criticize it since it is a pro-Hillary site. So I think you are right on – on this.

  15. DCDemocrat: Don’t forget to click thru w/o buying!

    Paula: a username of “party-of-one” says it all!

    Speaking of TPM, I see a rather grim-looking Obama and a headline about his calling Hillary “Bush-Cheney Lite” in a conference call this morning. This is starting to look like a meltdown.

  16. DCDemocrat,

    If you haven’t written any diary on dailykos. Maybe you can copy that TPM article. Obama sounds extremely desperate. Be sure to cite the following paragraph…

    Intrestingly, despite the fact that Obama’s criticism is fairly harsh in the context of Dem Primary politics, Hillary’s not responding right now, reflecting an apparent believe in her camp that they won this exchange and that responding would only aid his efforts to shift the debate to a discussion about her.

    Use that eye-catching headline such as: Obama: Hillary = Bush lite? The main purpose is to drive up Obama’s negativity even on nutnets’ world.


  17. I have been laughing at the spin that the Obamaniacs are pumping out on other websites (they refuse to believe any polls except the ones that show thier guy doing well, which are few and far between).

    I actually got banned from a site because I was too pro Hillary. There is a faction that must hate to win elections because they refuse to believe in Hillary. My wife and I are so impressed with her debate preformances and her overall intelligence, confidence and competence. I feel like if she were president I would be so pround and so confident in her . ability to lead.


    In regards to what you said about OBAMA magnifying this issue…I agree. And I also don’t understand WHY he has turned what could have been an easily forgotten gaffe into a MAJOR BLUNDER.

    Think about it. He could have, the next day, said “Hillary was right, and it was assumed that there would have been conditions placed on such a meeting.” But he shot himself in the foot. And I just cant imagine why.

    Is he really that inept?


    Or do you think he is going for the sympathy vote? I know that might sound ridiculous, but I just cant fathom why he would implode like this, unless he wants to be seen as “POOR VICTIMIZED OBAMA” by “BIG POWERFUL HILLARY CLINTON” .

  20. Clinton fires back, soon on CNN….

    SEN. CLINTON: “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?

    “I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.”

  21. kostner, I just saw that on talkingpointsmemo. So she IS firing back, lol, and her response is perfect.

    BTW, I suspect his “Clinton is Bush-Cheney lite” line isn’t going to resonate with more than a tiny number of very-left-wing Dem primary voters, and alienate others.

  22. Here’s more from CNN’s Web site:

    The New York Democrat also brushed aside suggestions the Democratic primary race was getting overly negative too early.

    “I think that we do have some disagreements, and those are obviously going to start coming out because this is a very intense period, for the primaries,” she said. “But I welcome that debate, because I think that we want Democratic voters to get to know as much about each of us as possible, to know where we stand on issues, how we would approach the important concerns we’ll face if we are president.”

  23. on mydd frontpage.

    Even Jerome is strongly standing behind Clinton. Ha ha. Obama is in a big deep hole.

  24. i just saw the obama’s spokesman axelrod and clinton spolesman wolfson debate on hardball. wolfson did ok i think. howcome the obama camp keep repeating the lie that hillary said she would never meet these dictators ever. she said not the 1st year and with conditions and not being used as propaganda.

  25. Just saw the clips on hillhub. Obama looks terrible, he’s a typical high school bully. Hillary looks extremely calm.


    William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
    Clinton 1, Obama 0
    Hillary won. Beyond the political and entertainment value of the spat between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton is right on the substance and Obama is wrong about the Iraq war.

    Leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is increasing the pressure on Barack Obama, calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for a statement he made during the CNN-YouTube debate Monday.

    Obama was asked if he would agree without precondition to meet the leaders of the Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela in the first year of his administration. He responded: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.” Clinton disagreed: “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse.” (The transcript is here.)

    After Clinton’s “irresponsible and frankly naive” comment yesterday, Obama shot back that Hillary Clinton was “irresponsible and naive” for having voted for the Iraq war without an exit plan. The Obama campaign also released a memo accusing Clinton of flip-flopping for criticizing the Bush administration on its lack of diplomacy and now saying she’d not meet with world leaders. The memo called Obama’s approach “tough but smart,” and Obama himself said the Clinton campaign was concocting a “fabricated controversy.”

    And he is wrong again.

    I’ve argued before that it makes no difference whether Obama has “experience” in national security — as the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Powell dream team made abundantly clear, experience is no guarantee of security. But beyond the spat, this is no fabricated controversy. National security is the most important issue of the campaign.

    Obama faltered in his answer and in his damage control because he failed the first test of diplomacy: Words matter. The question was whether he would meet with rogues and despots “without precondition.” He responded by describing a more general “notion” as “ridiculous.”

    That notion is ridiculous. But the question was more specific. What he should have said was this: Look, any meeting with the president of the United States is by definition substantive and symbolic, and any decision to meet with anyone should be weighed on its merits. But the notion that one doesn’t meet with any person or group, as a matter of principle — it cuts off options that as president I’d like to have.

    Obama’s style, and I like it, is to be direct. But in this case he was bested by Clinton.

    And his counter-strike, that Clinton was naïve for supporting the Iraq war when it was clear that there was no exit plan, is equally wrong. One can’t make decisions about war and peace based upon prospects of success; they are about national security and American interests. I hope in the future Obama won’t argue that he’ll only support military action when the experts or his advisers can assure him of either success or an exit strategy. That would be naïve. And military force can be very seductive when the briefing is really good: Look at Desert One, the Iranian hostage rescue in the last year of the Carter administration. Or all those cruise missiles Sen. Clinton’s husband fired.

    Obama is right that America needs a new course. I would even say that America needs a radical new course. When Clinton trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to speak for her on meetgate, I moaned. If there is something really depressing about the junior senator from New York, it is how she surrounds herself with all the failed A+ students of the last administration. Voters may find that distasteful.

    On the other hand, as I’ve said before, Hillary doesn’t make stupid mistakes: That’s why she’ll likely be the next president.

    Any words uttered by a president are consequential. President Bush, with his axis of idiocy, has shown how words can inflame and anger. That doesn’t mean the United States can’t be tough, or that Clinton has the answer. But in this spat, she wins. Obama would do well to better articulate his differences with Clinton. He’s going to need more precise weapons to win.

  27. terrondot, thanks for the heads up on the Hardball session . . . this guy Matthews is not just bad . . . he is terrible . . . he calls Obama President then calls it a slip and corrects himself . . . then he lets Axelrod open without interrupting him . . . then asks Howard for rebuttal and skoffs at what he says. . . he lets them engage . . . asks a few questions . . .takes a break . . .more. . . another break and then gives Axelrod the last word. Then, Matthews convenes a panel of journalists including his buddy Todd, and advances the ridiculous contention that it was a mistake to raise the issue of Obama’s wisdom in offering to meet with foreign despots who have American blood on their hands without conditions in the first year of his hypothetical presidency. Inspite of this, Howard did fine, he is better than the Axelrod. Nice try Matthews.

  28. discussion on a new IA poll.

    Candidate KCCI Poll (May) Pollster Average
    Edwards 27 (26) 27.8
    Clinton 22 (28) 23.8
    Obama 16 (22) 17.1
    Richardson 11 (7) 12.5
    Biden 3 (2) N/A
    Dodd 2 (2) N/A

    Edwards is in the lead, and Clinton is in 2nd place. I’m not trying to spin this, but I honestly like Clinton’s second place position in IA.

    IA is scarily close. We do need media develops a narrative that Edwards is leading in that state. I was actually quite afraid of Edwards’ potential collapse due to his nation-wide meltdown in IA. If he collapses, it’s very hard to predict where his hardcore supporters will go, they can go to Obama. If that’s the case, Hillary will have to deal with a blow.

    So Edwards’ strength in IA is cancelling out Obama. It also looks like not many voters in IA are impressed with Obama’s ads and his ‘hope’. Richardson is gaining, which suggests to me that people in IA are interested in experience and resume. This is definitely not good for Obama. If he finishes in 3rd or 4th, falling behind Richardson, he is toast.

    Hillary needs to finish a relatively strong 2nd place in IA. If she achieves this strategic goal, she’ll be almost unstoppable.


    Reid Wilson
    Thu Jul 26, 9:30 AM ET

    When FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly learned that JetBlue was sponsoring the YearlyKos convention, a gathering of prominent left-wing bloggers taking place next month in Chicago, he accused the company of supporting a site filled with hateful comments. For the bloggers at DailyKos, a strange ally emerged: Howard Wolfson, communications director for Senator Hillary Clinton. Appearing Tuesday on The O’Reilly Factor, Wolfson called DailyKos a “community, hundreds of thousands of people who go to the site every day, who talk to one another, who participate vigorously in our democracy.”

    It was one of the last steps in a comprehensive outreach program to the liberal netroots that has won Clinton praise in the blogosphere, and one that has, for now, neutralized what might have been a powerful tool in the attempt to undercut the Democratic frontrunner.

    Clinton is not the most popular figure in the world of DailyKos. Readers and writers at the widely-read liberal blog and the rest of the netroots are skeptical of her candidacy for president and of her ideological bona fides. But her campaign has slowly won over a growing number of fans through an outreach plan that appears long in the making. First, Clinton announced an endorsement from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, a popular figure among the netroots, on a conference call with bloggers. Then came Wolfson’s appearance on O’Reilly’s show. And Wolfson’s defense of DailyKos came just hours before Clinton testified before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on the Ballot Integrity Act, which would require states to use only voting machines with voter-verified paper receipts, another popular cause of the netroots.

    The Clinton campaign was “waiting to strike at the right moment,” said Todd Beeton, a contributor to MyDD, another popular liberal blog. “It was a very smart rollout.” The online outreach strategy, say online Democratic strategists, is nothing new for Clinton. In fact, it’s been more than a year in the making. Last year, Clinton hired Peter Daou, until then a columnist for Salon, to run her blogosphere outreach. Daou, widely considered among the best in the fledgling industry of blogger communications, faced a difficult task when he was hired in June: Make popular a candidate whose views did not always mesh with the netroots. Then, in August of last year, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a proponent of the war in Iraq, lost the Democratic primary to upstart Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate who ran with heavy backing from liberal blogs. Daou’s job had just gotten harder. The netroots had tasted blood and, out to bring down any who didn’t favor the end to the war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton seemed their most evident target. She, unlike Senator Barack Obama, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. She, unlike Senator John Edwards, would not apologize for her vote. Instead of engaging bloggers in a debate over her vote on Iraq – a debate she would certainly lose by galvanizing the netroots against her – Clinton has instead focused on recognizing common ground, said Conn Carroll, author of The Hotline’s blogometer. Others have stumbled, but Clinton’s discipline and focus have paid off. “She’s been gaining steadily in DailyKos and MyDD straw polls, and more importantly they haven’t launched any campaign against her like they did against Joe Lieberman,” Carroll said.

    The failure of a coordinated campaign against Clinton, much like that which brought down Lieberman in the Democratic primary, is not translating into votes for Clinton; rather, it is undercutting efforts by Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards to catch up to Clinton’s place at the head of the pack. Clinton can credit her ability to avoid antagonizing the netroots to discipline and an absence of missteps. Every candidate, it seems, loses his or her footing among the netroots at times. Blogger favorites Edwards and Obama are no exception: Obama ran into trouble when his campaign bobbled the handling of a supporter’s MySpace page, in Obama’s name. The supporter, who had gathered thousands of names for the campaign, deleted the “friends” after a dispute over money. Edwards, meanwhile, did not come to the defense as fast as the netroots wished of two bloggers the campaign had hired who were under fire for previous writing some found offensive. By avoiding mistakes and highlighting similarities on YearlyKos, voter verified paper receipts and other issues, Clinton “has definitely improved her standing among the netroots,” Carroll said.

    The New York senator’s performances in early debates are helping her grow online. Commentors on DailyKos during the debate sounded a steady chord. “The theme is, ‘You know, I’m not really a Hillary supporter, but she looks really good and she does really well,'” said Carroll. One Democratic online strategist said the DailyKos comment boards “looked like a Clinton press release.” Daou has a ways to go before he can claim Clinton is the online frontrunner she is in old-fashioned telephone polling. The latest DailyKos straw poll shows just 9% of respondents choosing Clinton, far behind Edwards’ 36% and Obama’s 27%. But that’s decent growth, as Clinton lagged with just 3% as recently as April. Clinton doesn’t need to win the netroots to win the nomination. All she has to do is keep them from uniting against her. In fact, keeping bloggers at arm’s length would help her, should she become the Democratic nominee, by allowing Clinton to maintain independence from those in her base with more radical ideas than independent general election voters. When the Republican nominee tells voters of Clinton’s closeness to bloggers, it will help her if they have booed her in the past. It could hurt should she be seen as too close to the DailyKos crowd. Clinton’s policy of appeasement is working to some extent. Clinton has not disparaged the netroots, she minimizes policy differences and reminds bloggers at all times that they are both enemies of President Bush. By doing so, says Beeton, “she’s making herself an acceptable option.” By doing so, Clinton continues her dual primary and general election campaigns, minimizing her exposure to risk while maximizing her appeal to the netroots base.

  30. I’m bummed out by some polls I just saw on Now, both were before the debate and its aftermath, but I’m kind of disappointed nevertheless. The Hotline poll has Hillary only ahead of Obama by 9, and the Battleground poll has her losing to Rudy by 6 but Obama beating him by 9, which you know the Obama folks will shout about from the rooftops.

  31. kostner,
    You are right if she finished a strong No.2 in IA – and wins in NH – then SC – she would be unstoppable indeed!!
    Go Hillary Go!!!!

  32. kostner, i just saw the new research 2000 poll in iowa and while im a little dissapointed hillary is 5 points behind edwards im glad obama is 3rd. it’s going to be a tough state for hillary. i would love to win it but a good second is ok. edwards has been living in the state since 2005.

  33. terrondt,
    Aren’t you pleased Hillary is beating Obama in IA? I am hoping eventually she will edge out John who practically lived there since 2004

  34. Paula, terrondt,

    From my bottom of my heart, I really don’t like to see Hillary pull ahead in IA, especially at such early time. This is not spin. Here are the reasons:

    As a supporter, I have two big fears for her chance in IA.

    The first fear is that Obama will somehow overtake her, but it looks like voters in that state are not shopping for ‘hope’, they’re more interested in experience and resume(look at Richardson’s strength).

    The second fear is that if she somehow maintains a small lead in many IA polls before caucauses, media will paint any narrow loss as a huge blow. IA is extremely close, so sitting in second place instead of first is definitely not bad. You want media to paint a narrative that Edwards is leading in Iowa, not Hillary.

    You don’t want Edwards to collapse in IA due to his nation wide meltdown. Since it’s difficult to predict where those supporters will go if he collapses. Since the race is close, if any of these supporters go to Obama camp, that will tip the scale.

    So I’m happy for a close second place in any IA poll.

  35. Kostner,
    I agree with your reasons and I myself now think it serves her purpose to stay as a strong second that first!!!

  36. kostner –
    “When you are at the top – there is no where else to go but down”
    I suppose that is more true in IA!!

  37. kostner, I agree with you about Iowa. I was just a little stunned by the Battleground poll showing Obama doing so much better than Hillary vs. Rudy.

  38. Paula,

    You really can’t draw any conclusion from one poll, to be honest. If that’s the case, Obama should have wrapped up long time ago. He lost to Rudy in NY, CA, OH, and FL in SurveyUSA and the lastest Quinnipac poll. Hill beats Rudy in all those polls.

    Don’t anticipate smooth sailing, but I’m really happy tonight since the strategic goal of driving up Obama’s negativity is right in the making. His net positive #s are my big concern. You need time, and his constant mistakes to drive up those negativity numbers. 5 months should be sufficient though.

  39. Hey, Everybody! I’ve been busy today, so I haven’t been around, but one prominent Kossack over at daily kos (Delaware Dem) has written a diary saying he’s forsaking Obama over the Bush-Cheney comparison, but a lot of Kossacks clearly are unhappy with Obama’s tactic.

    Hey, Kostner: I owe you a diary.

    sandy1938: I think Hillary’s psychological expert scoped out Mr. Obama, and they were looking for a moment to exploit a vulnerability they found.

    HillaryLandRocks: I went back over there a little while ago, and the Obama ad was down, but I’ll follow through on your excellent advice.

  40. Regarding polls. Now is the time to influence the debate not worry about numbers. We can move the numbers.

    More importantly, as someone has pointed out here already, Obama is now advertising heavily. On just about every website today there are multiple Obama advertisements. Obama has been advertising heavily in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina – the ads are clearly not working. Let Obama waste his money.

    Let’s stay focused.

  41. I’m wondering what is his burn rate? He seems to be spending quite heavily. Those ‘voter registration’ ads in Iowa certainly is moving his numbers down. LOL.

Comments are closed.