The Book On Obama

Update:  Obama is having yet another horrible day (as noted in the updates to our previous article) due to his inability to think on his feet and articulate Axelrod’s thoughts.   Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have been particularly tough on Obama today.  Hillary has skewered Obama by lecturing him on presidential demeanor and responsibility. 

At some point there will be a book detailing the inner workings of the Obama campaign during these difficult days as they scan the horizon to see flocks of buzzards circling Chicago headquarters.  Get ready for leaks from Obama central as self-serving rats begin to squeak in order to avoid responsibility for the chaos and meltdown at Obama Inc. 

——————

For decades Hillary Clinton has been tested and tried and she has triumphed. Hillary opponents have tried every type of trick, from voodoo dolls to books, to make her stumble but Hillary keeps on ticking. Earlier this year 2 more books were written about Hillary which some hoped would doom the Hillary campaign. Those books barely sold and were laughed into the discounted bargain bins.

While no other Democratic candidate on the national stage has been as tested as Hillary for the most part they are somewhat well known. All except one.

So far in this election cycle the only source of Obama information has been the 2 books Obama wrote – about himself. It’s rather grotesque, the obvious self-facination involved in a relatively young man writing, not 1 but 2, autobiographies. The other presidential candidates are authors as well but usually have written books of substance and issues before indulging themselves in authoring memoirs.

Obama has been the author and sources for most of what is known about him. He is not the most reliable source of information. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Obama created composite characters in his hagiographies and the L.A. Times among other publications has questioned many aspects and facts in Obama’s adjective laden books.

Later this month the Obama monopoly on information will be challenged. Obama will not be happy. An Obama biography is about to be released. The book challenges most of the carefully crafted Obama myths.

On the stump, presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama suggests his political career was an afterthought. He tells of returning to Chicago from Harvard Law School to be part of a civil rights practice and teach law.

However, a new book reveals a reason Obama joined a politically connected law firm: to give him entree to the powerbrokers in Chicago’s elite liberal political community who helped elect Mayor Harold Washington — a job the new lawyer had his eye on.

The above sheds light not only on the early ambitions of the now demure Obama but also on the Obama-Rezko connection. It is because of this well-connected law firm that Rezko was able to gain over a hundred million dollars in government subsidies for a business neither he nor his company had any experience nor talent in.

And those demure denials of wanting to be president? Are they as believable as anything Obama has also said?

Obama actually pondered a political career early on, even telling Craig Robinson, his future brother-in-law, he might get into politics after Harvard and “maybe I can be president of the United States.”

This supplemental, more opportunistic narrative comes as Obama is relying intensely on his biography to propel him to the White House. It is delivered in a copy I obtained of Obama: From Promise to Power, by Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell to be published in August.

Last June 19, Obama offered an audience at the Take Back America/Campaign for America’s Future conference a riff from his stump speech. “I joined a civil rights law practice, and I started teaching constitutional law. … And after a few years, people started coming up to me and telling me I should run for state Senate. So I jumped in the race.”

What about the aw-shucks, sweet guy personality?

But another view is offered by Mendell, who covered Obama during his 2004 Illinois Senate race, which is covered in detail in his book. Spending large amounts of time with Obama, Mendell writes about what he calls Obama’s “hidden side: his imperious, mercurial, self-righteous and sometimes prickly nature, each exacerbated by the enormous career pressures that he has inflicted upon himself.”

What about that Iraq speech and Obama’s accusation that others acted out of political calculation?

Mendell also writes on a central premise of Obama’s presidential candidacy: that he had the judgment to oppose authorizing the Iraq war and that his key rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, did not.

Obama decided to oppose the impending war “in part as a political calculation that he hoped would benefit him among Democrats,” Mendell wrote.

Obama has said that the more people know him the more they like him “to know me is to love me“. Obama is about to find out just how wrong he is.

Share

81 thoughts on “The Book On Obama

  1. A couple of the bloggers at daily kos in the last few days have fallen out of love with Obama and decided to not vote for him. The Edwards people over there are hot on Obama’s trail, because they think that if they take Obama down, people will flock to Edwards.

  2. I have been waiting for this book to come out for a while.

    I think it will finally present the right view of what kind of person he really is. He has, since I got over my infatuation of him after the Democratic convention ’04 speech, come across to me as an extremely ambitious person, who is willing to go quite far to reach his goal.

    I read a really long article(can’t recall from where, maybe the times online) a while back, where it really portrayed how everyone on his staff and himself was so nervous regarding his speech, writing/rewriting, testing with the monitors, how he was so stiff and wasn’t able to relax and get into the ‘groove’ before ‘showtime.

    It really emphesized how important this speech was, I guess now to later be able to run for President!
    He really let all the praise get to him I think, and he jumped into this race actually thinking he could win. Not being patient enough to wait till he gets more experience and credibility.

    And to top it off, in my view, ‘everyone’ was talking about how Hillary would run. And he STILL jumps into the race, he must have one of the biggest egos around thinking he can take her on.
    And people talks of Hillarys ambition…… unbelievable, I hope this will finally end all this nonsense.

  3. Gorto: He is relatively young, and 10 years of hard work and accomplishment would erase the memories of this (and allow him to clean up his Rezko skeletons.) There is nothing wrong with burning ambition; it seems to be a characteristic that would-be presidents share. Fortunately, in a democracy, the people have power to check overweening ambition, and this guy is way too big for his britches.

  4. you know guys everybody knows about hillary’s family but what about obama’s siblings? don’t he have uncles and sisters in africa? i know his mom i read died in 1992. just curious. all i know is his immediate family, wife and 2 kids. none of his siblings?

  5. Today’s Rasmussen has some interesting numbers.

    Clinton 43
    Obama 21
    Edwards 12

    Clinton continues to build momentum in primaries. The most interesting numbers are Obma’s favorability, it has taken a free fall!!

    Among democrats
    Favorable(unfavorable)
    Hillary 82% (16%)
    Obama 66%(30%)

    Among general public:
    Favorable(unfavorable)
    Hillary 49% (48%)
    Obama 48%(45%)

    Rasmussen’s comments
    Among all voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 48%. Those figures are in the middle of the range she’s occupied all year. Obama is viewed favorably by 48% of all voters, unfavorably by 45%. Those are the weakest ratings for Obama in 2007. In mid-July, he was viewed favorably by 54% of all voters.

  6. great numbers kostner. i saw those figures earlier on rass. i do have premium membership on rassmussen. i suppose to get the numbers before the general public knows the latest polls on the site but that has not been the case yet. great numbers all around. this confirms the nbc/wsj poll then.

  7. That Obama book sounds like a fair, even-handed portrayal. None of that stuff bothers me when looked at alone (I don’t give a hoot if he or Hillary are super-ambitious, or that he can be prickly in private), but it’s how it conflicts with what he’s said about himself. As the post notes, he’s trying to get the nomination on his biography, because he knows he fails the experience test when up against HRC.

    BTW, kostner, those unfavorable numbers for Obama are frankly a shock to me, because they’ve climbed so fast. If he’s just as “polarizing” as Hillary, then a big rationale for his candidacy is gone.

  8. terrondt,

    As a premium member, can you do me a favor since I’d like to write a diary on Obama’s rising favorable numbers.

    I tried to get a history of Obama’s favorable/unfavorable, but only premium member has such privilege. Could you publish his and Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable over the past few months?

    If they have a break-down among GOP/DEM/IND, could you also provide the data.

    Obama’s number of 48:45 is terrible for such a neophyte.

  9. He really comes across as a brat/frat boy at times. He seems so arrogant and childish, like he doesn’t understand why people are not taking to him. “To know me is to love me” BS.

    Oh well, I just hope he fades away….

    I’m one of those people who believe in law of attraction, so I try not to focus to much on what I don’t want(in this case Obama), and instead focus on what I do want(in this case Hillary). That is partly my explanation as to how Bush at all could have won, so much anger(focus) towards him. That, and voter fraud. : ) Often the elections are tipped in the direction of the candidate who gets the most attention, so we should be in favor of the candidate we want to win, not against the candidate we want to loose.

    Mother Theresa is quoted as saying “If you invite me to an anti-war rally, I will not come. Invite me to a peace rally and I will”, she understood. We can look back in the race and see when the Hillary campaign pretty much ignored Obama, he slowly found his way into oblivion.
    When they attacked him with that Geffen comment, Obama gained some:they gave him attention, and he grew(you feed it, it grows)

    So I prefer it when we focus on Hillary and the good things, and it will keep on coming. (just my 2 cents)

  10. I just checked pollster.com and saw a link the Rasmussen’s new GE match-up numbers. The only lingering problem for Hillary is that she runs about even with Rudy while Obama and Edwards have small leads over him.

    But having her run competitively against Rudy at least lets her shoot holes in the electability argument. I also don’t think she’s even come to close to peaking, and that article on Politico about her drawing moderate women is great news. I hope the trend continues right through to November 2008!

  11. Edwards is now calling on all Dem candidates to return money from Rupert Murdoch because of his purchase of the WSJ and Dow Jones. I assume he’s targeting Hillary because she’s the only Dem who got money from Murdoch.

    What do you guys think? I’m no fan of Murdoch, but I frankly don’t care if he gave a contribution to HRC. There are lots of blogosphere types who hold the Murdoch association against her, but I doubt this will resonate among the larger primary electorate.

  12. paula,

    Edwards is an idiot. Instead of scoring points by pointing out Obama’s reckless rhetoric, he’s flouting this Murdoch stuff.

    It’s just silly. Nobody cares about Murdoch, not even the primary electorate.

    Edwards’ campaign is even more incompetent than Obama’s.

  13. Yes, it seems like he keeps targeting his campaign to the netroots and not trying to broaden his appeal one iota. That’s never been a formula for winning the nomination.

    I just don’t get why anyone gives a flying fig if she got money from Murdoch. It’s not as if she sold her progressive credentials down the river or anything. I do think it’s interesting, though, how an increasing number of conservatives (David Brooks, Rich Lowry, etc.) are appreciating her strengths even though they’d never support her, of course.

  14. Paula,

    Looks like we can’t really count on Edwards to derail Obama, even in early states such as Iowa.

    Edwards is an idiot.

  15. Well, y’all, I don’t know how much of an effect this new book with have on OB’s candidacy, but I certainly don’t think it will help a lot. He’s certainly not above the political grind as he’d have everyone believe…he’s just a product of it. I agree with Paula regardin ambition…you have to have it to be Pres and nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Except, in Obama’s case it has greatly clouded his judgment. He’s mighty inexperienced to be President…what is it? Maybe 2 years in the US Senate. He was born in ’61, and while there’s nothin’ wrong with young people, I want a President who knows where they were the day JFK was murdered. The politics of the ’60’s taught us a lot…about social change and international engagement. He’s not exactly a seasoned scholar here. I cannot see how he can understand the Black experience in this country with such a limited view of the civil rights movement. I guess what I’m saying is that if you didn’t live through the turbulence of the 60’s and 70’s, then you ought to have some major qualifications that compensate for that. As far as I can tell, he’s really got very little that actually qualifies him for the Presidency as opposed to Senator Clinton who has incredible depth and breadth of experience.–MollyJ

  16. Paula, I concur wholeheartedly with your observation on the Politico article. It is gratifying to see one publication break out of the groupthing logo block analysis of MSM and tell it how it is. First, the notion that she is too polarizing is crumbling as she travels around the country and people get a chance to see for themselves who she really is. Second, the notion that the country will not elect a woman as president is dispelled by what people see with their own eyes in the debates, namely a leader who has the knowledge experience and wisdom to get move the country in a new direction that will benefit everyone. Third, the notion that moderate women will support Hillary is confirmed by polling data. This is hardly surprising, given the fact that she is committed to the issues that women in general are most concerned with, and has the courage to take action, while others merely talk about it. Fourth, as Admin points out she has been subjected to the most intense partisan scruitiny of any candidate for a generation now, has remained a credible leader much admired around the world. I seriously doubt that her rivals could withstand that same degree of scrutiny. Fifth, her likeability numbers are improving, as people get to know her, through personal interaction, and the recent biography by Bernstein, which is a mixed bag in one sense, but is also humanizing. I distinctly recall something he said in an interview, namely that her commitment to the social justice advocated by her religion is real, and she has the ability to change the world for the better. Sixth, the job of President is not an entry level job. It is the hardest job in the world, particularly now. At the end of the day, I hope the people of this country are practical enough to know that it is not something you can turn over to a rookie, a class action trial lawyer who talks about poverty but fails to walk the walk, or god forbid a Republican who is committed to markets, open borders and ultimately a have and have not society. In sum, Hillary is the kind of leader that comes along once in a generation and it is important to our future that she be elected as our 44th President.

  17. BREAKING: From politico, ANOTHER MAJOR GAFFEE BY OBAMA.

    The latest Obama story, from an interview with the Associated Press, isn’t on the wire yet, but get ready: It’s an interview* in which Obama initially rules out the use of nuclear weapons entirely, then seems to take it back:

    ”I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, ”involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, ”Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

    Strikingly, this, like the dictator remarks, doesn’t seem to be a calculated, on-message foray. It’s an authentic answer, and a huge departure [UPDATE: See the question below; it’s still a striking thing to say, but not with the same sweep], if he means it, in which the point of having nukes is that you could use them. But it’s also probably pretty close to the way a lot of Americans, and Democrats, actually think about nukes.

    This whole shadow debate between Obama and Clinton has wavered back and forth on one axis: Clinton is trying to use it to show that Obama is personally unready, while essentially agreeing with him on policy details; Obama is using the fact of a disagreement to paint himself as the candidate of change when it comes to policy.

    So where does this one fit in? Is it a damaging sign of unreadiness? An inspiring mark that he has a truly different view of the world?

    Relevant section of the AP story after the jump.

    *UPDATE: Obama’s campaign says the story lacks the context of the quote, which was a question specifically about nuking terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That’s a much narrower context, and doesn’t imply the same kind of grand strategic revision.

    Here’s the original question, from campaign transcript: “In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden.”

    By DENNIS CONRAD Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) _ Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ”in any circumstance.”

    ”I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, ”involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, ”Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

    The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf earlier this week that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf’s permission if necessary to root out terrorists.

    However, when asked by The Associated Press after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied:

    ”There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss.”

    When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.

  18. Folks, Just another instance in the never ending saga of the unraveling of Obama. Do ya think he knows he’s goofin’ up? How long will he hang in the primary races? I guess we should be grateful because everytime he screws up it just highlights how much more qualified and experienced Hillary is.–MollyJ

  19. mollyjrichards: What I think has happened was Obama’s team recognized that Obama needed to be substantive to make the sale given that Hillary is so formidable. They went where they had not dared, and they got what they feared: a loose cannon.

  20. There is another article in NYpost called Obama Bombs, it’s a thing of beauty!!

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/postopinion/editorials/obama_bombs_editorials_.htm

    ” Leaving aside the possibility that the Pakistanis might actually use an A-bomb or two against invading U.S. forces, what does Obama propose to do with Pakistan should he happen to capture it?

    Or, more likely, reduce it to an ungovernable mass of warring tribes and factions, united only by a seething hatred of America?”

    Naive?

    Sen. Clinton was too kind.

    If he’s serious, he’s dangerous.

  21. oops, Admin I would LOVE an edit button as I seem to have messed up my comment, my ps. comment was supposed to come at the very end, now ruining that quote, here it is:

    Leaving aside the possibility that the Pakistanis might actually use an A-bomb or two against invading U.S. forces, what does Obama propose to do with Pakistan should he happen to capture it?

    Or, more likely, reduce it to an ungovernable mass of warring tribes and factions, united only by a seething hatred of America?

    Naive?

    Sen. Clinton was too kind.

    If he’s serious, he’s dangerous.

  22. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say, and he’s got a lil knowledge…very little. –mollyj

  23. Well, John Edwards is a wimp!……finally i have to say this; I have kept my mouth shut up on him but he is just so completely anti-business but all pre-laywers.

    Dow Jones as a business was doing not so well….old ideas etc…it needed new blood. While unfortunately it was Rupert Murdoch who got the final deal while others could not match it, I have to say that he will at least invest what is needed to bring it more 21 st business. Rupert is not a likeable person but his family and sons have brought in news ideas.. If you do not like that dow jones is Murdoch owned, then you do not like MYSPACE as space as.

    And as I understand it, his sons will inherit his company. One of them is very active in fighting global warming….Is that good or bad?

    And also until recently i did not realise this and I am not defending Rupert here.
    You cannot be anti-murdoch and then go see a move like “little miss sunshine” which ws produced by ones of his subsidiaries.

    So go figure….As long as it opernly delcared, I do not care whether Murdoch gave his money or not.

  24. mp,

    Don’t get riled up by Edwards. He is irrelevant at the moment. He wants Hillary to fight with him. It’s crazy. There’s no need to respond to him at the moment.

    Edwards needs to find a new hairdresser and a new strategist!

    BTW, another excellent poll is out for Hillary. Pew Research

    Hillary Clinton has widened her advantage over Barack Obama to nearly two-to-one and has drawn support from her nearest rival from groups that had been among his strongest backers: independent-leaning Democrats and political liberals.

    The current survey finds 40% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic now say they would like to see Clinton win their party’s nomination while Obama is the choice of 21%. In a little over three months, Clinton has more than doubled her advantage over the Illinois Democrat from nine-points in March to 19-points in the current survey. Trailing even further behind are Al Gore (12%), who has not announced his candidacy, and John Edwards (11%), who continues to lose ground.

    Clinton has made significant inroads into voter groups that had broadly supported Obama earlier in the year. For example, Clinton now leads Obama by more than two-to-one (41% vs. 17%) among Democratic-leaning independents.

    And while college graduates favored Obama over Clinton by 31% to 24% in earlier Pew polling, Clinton has opened up a 34% to 23% advantage here as well. Still, less educated Democrats remain Clinton’s strongest backers

  25. From HillaryHub.com

    New Pew Poll just released. Pay attention to last sentence
    in particular. Also, 30% of respondants are engaged to
    the campaign. This shoots down Biden’s claim of only
    8%.
    Hillary Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead over Barack Obama. The current survey finds 40% of registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say they would most like to see her nominated as their party’s presidential candidate. Obama is the choice of 21% while Al Gore is favored by 12% and John Edwards by 11%. Pew’s April survey had found Clinton with a more modest 34% to 24% lead over the Illinois senator. Over this period, support for the former first lady has increased most among independent Democrats, liberals and moderates, college graduates, middle-aged and older voters.

    This also validates the other polls showing Hillary at 40%
    or more.

  26. BREAKING: Hillary has just responded to Obama’s nukes comment.

    “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

    See more on talkingpointsmemo.com

  27. In recent primary history about 1/3 of registered voters
    actually vote. So if the Pew poll shows the campaign
    already at 30%, we are probably looking at a ceiling
    of about 40%, maybe 45%. That is not much room for
    other candidates. The Pew poll had Gore in the race
    with 12. Lets assume with him out of the race, the
    bulk of the numbers would be picked up by the top
    4 candidates. Perhaps, 3 points each.
    If the additional 10-15% voting populace became
    engaged and break evenly among the candidates
    then Hillary breaks the 50% barrier.
    I firmly believe, if this trend continues into September
    this will happen by October 1.

    The early caucus and primary state polls are important
    but Democrats are looking for winner. If Hillary breaks
    the barrier, it bodes well for the campaign. The discussion
    about her electability will be pretty much over.

    So the target number is 50%, plus. There is a lot work
    to do.

  28. Obama’s no dummy. I can’t help but wonder why he keeps making foreign policy boo-boos. It has to because he’s not ready for prime time. Change is great, but many people (such as I) are yearning for someone who brings so much more to the table.

    I mean, can any of you imagine Hillary making that nukes remark? Never in a million years.

  29. Paula, BO is no dummy. But his staff hasn’t worked with
    him on his adlibs. He has general policy instincts, but
    they are not refined. They have not been tested with
    an electorate. His campaign for the senate was void
    of such issues. Now he has to confront these issues.
    Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Hillary have been tested.
    They are not going to make the same mistakes. Edwards doesn’t have to answer these questions; he is out of
    congress.

    So, this year, I Biden would be tripping over his tongue.
    He must be happy BO is in the campaign and doing it
    for him.
    S

  30. Unfortunately, the news out of Minnisota is taking the news
    away for BO’s blunders. Much of what he is saying will
    not get MSM coverage.

  31. One further point, Politio and The Hill are carrying BO
    Nuke blunder. Not the Huffington Post. The pet
    candidate has screwed up again and they are covering
    for him.

    While many of you blog on Daily Kos and Mydd, I feel
    its more important to be on Huffington Post. They
    draw so many MSM users and are “highly” regarded.
    I just don’t know what can be done.

  32. God I love it! More nails in O’Reagan’s comments. Some on Kos (ugh!) were calling him Bahawk now. And Edwards isn’t all too bright, he will deserve to lose this. But be careful on criticizing Obama, the racist card is now being used pretty loosely. I think his camp is getting pretty desperate. I notice the critique on Hillary keeps getting lamer as the days go on. I think they are trying to find something to go on but their arguments are crumbling.

  33. I could barely contain myself. This guy is going down – way too quickly!!
    Go Hillary Go!!!
    ===================================================

    Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons

    By Steve Holland
    44 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.

    Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.

    Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, told a reporter after a Capitol Hill event that he would not use nuclear weapons in those countries, an aide said.

    “His position could not be more clear,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

    That position came a day after Obama vowed he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

    Obama struck the tough tone after Clinton accused him of being naive and irresponsible for saying in a debate last week he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of hostile nations Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela in his first year in office.

    Clinton’s position was that she would only meet those leaders after careful lower-level diplomacy bore fruit. Obama said she represented conventional thinking in line with that of the Bush administration and would not bring the fundamental change Americans need.

    The New York senator and former first lady quickly pounced on Obama’s remark about nuclear weapons at a Capitol Hill news conference.

    “I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons,” she said.

    “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non use of nuclear weapons,” she said.

    The sharpest disputes of the Democratic race have come as Obama, aiming to become the first black U.S. president, struggles to close a big polling gap on Clinton.

    A new poll by the Pew Research Center said Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead over Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, with the support of 40 percent of Democrats to 21 percent for Obama.

    Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, also criticized Obama, saying that over the last several days, “Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”

    “We are facing a dangerous and complicated world. The next president will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in American history to address these challenges,” Dodd said.

    Nuclear deterrence has been a tenet of American foreign policy since the Cold War.

    Obama, outlining his foreign policy ideas in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, said the United States and Russia should work together to “de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons,” and avoid rushing to produce a new generation of atomic weapons, while still “maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent.”

    (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)

  34. Edward is the only one who hasn’t attacked Obama. I suppose he has plans to run as Obama’s VP – just incase Obama wins the nomination:(-

  35. Gasp!

    WASHINGTON – John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company

    Edwards led the Democratic candidates’ boycott of Fox’s plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.’s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company’s executives

    “The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” Edwards said in a statement.

    Gee, I wonder why Edwards would be jumping on this faux-issue. Couldn’t have anything to do with Hillary opening up a big lead in the polling and the Yearly Nutroots Convention starts…today

  36. Iowa: Now it’s Giuliani, Clinton on top

    National frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani topped a new Iowa poll by American Research Group, a survey that differs significantly from a poll last week of likely caucusgoers in the leadoff nominating state.
    Clinton, the Democrats’ leader in national polls, received support from 30%, according to the new Iowa survey. The New York senator received 22%, good for second place, in last week’s poll of Iowa Democratic caucusgoers, sponsored by KCCI Channel 8 in Des Moines.

    LAST WEEK: Edwards, Romney lead Iowa poll
    USA TODAY ON POLITICS: Parsing the polls

    Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has led in most early Iowa surveys, received support from 21% in the ARG poll, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 15%. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was in a close fourth place with 13%. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden received support from 3%. No other candidate received support from more than 2%.

    Fifteen percent were undecided in the poll of 600 likely Democratic caucusgoers taken July 26-30. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

  37. I’m happy to say that I called last weeks KCCI numbers
    an anomaly. I think you will find the same in NH and
    SC. When national polls trend upwards, instate polling
    generally follows.

    Secret: Edwards can’t attack BO. In ’04, he was
    considered a foreign affairs neophyte. The same
    holds true today. A “two America’s” campaign is
    mutually exclusive of a foreign affairs campaign. Each
    has their own constituencies that are for the most
    part incompatible. Edwards call of Murdock is like
    BO playing in the sand box while everyone else are
    being CIC.

  38. Women will help Hillary edge out Rudy

    By: David Paul Kuhn
    Aug 1, 2007 06:25 PM EST

    Clinton now wins moderate women 62 percent to 28 percent over Giuliani in a Zogby poll.
    Photo by AP

    SAVE
    Digg
    del.icio.us
    Technorati
    reddit
    SHARE
    COMMENT
    PRINT
    EMAIL
    RECOMMEND

    All year long, Republicans looking for reassurance about their prospects for 2008 have had a bright spot. Despite the loss of Congress, despite an unpopular war in Iraq, despite a president with plummeting approval ratings, the GOP front-runner continually beat the Democratic front-runner in polls testing a hypothetical general election contest.

    But now, Republicans have one more thing to be depressed about. A couple of recent polls show Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) beating former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) if they are their party’s nominees 15 months from now, according to surveys by the Gallup Organization, The Wall Street Journal/NBC News and Zogby International. Perhaps more noteworthy is the reason why: a migration of ideologically moderate white women into the Clinton camp.

    The argument that Clinton could win the Democratic nomination but remain a long shot for winning the White House has rested heavily on two pillars: that Clinton is too polarizing and that Americans are not ready to elect a woman as president.

    Both those pillars may be crumbling. While Clinton has long enjoyed an advantage among Democratic women, the latest surveys suggest she is drawing support from other women — including those who in the past have tilted Republican and earlier in this election cycle were showing no particular enthusiasm for Clinton.

    In a hypothetical race between Clinton and Giuliani posed in mid-May, for instance, the two split women evenly, with 45 percent, Zogby found, while Giuliani won the men’s vote by 51 percent to 41 percent. By mid-July, Clinton had improved to 54 percent with women against Giuliani’s 35 percent, even as the men’s vote hardly shifted. This accounted for Clinton winning the overall vote in this matchup by 47 percent to 41 percent. A July Gallup vote echoed the trend.

    The movement is even more eye-opening when narrowed specifically to moderate women — a key voting bloc in recent elections and one Clinton’s team is giving special attention.

    Moderate women favored Clinton 49 percent to 41 percent in the May poll. Clinton now wins moderate women 62 percent to 28 percent over Giuliani in the Zogby poll. The margin of error, when isolating data to look at such small groups, is as high as 8 percent. But the gains are nonetheless statistically significant.

    In part, Clinton’s improvements are due to Giuliani’s troubles. The GOP front-runner’s lead has gradually diminished within the Republican electorate, dropping equally among men and women, for reasons that are not fully evident. Many political analysts have long believed that Giuliani would fade once conservatives focused more closely on his socially liberal positions on abortion and gay rights — and once controversies in his personal life received more national exposure. While Giuliani has received some tough media scrutiny in recent months, Clinton has received considerable positive press due to strong performances in recent debates.

    “Every time there is a debate, people say one thing about her: ‘Yep, she’s presidential,'” said Harvard public policy lecturer Elaine Kamarck, who served in Bill Clinton’s administration. “That would be important to a lot of moderate women who would not automatically support a woman. She becomes increasingly credible as a president, and the other thing is the continued collapse of the Republican Party.”

    The first female candidate may be proving herself feasible with women, ironically, by projecting a more traditionally masculine political profile.

    “She has been absolutely correct that she had to convince people she could be commander in chief, and that sometimes comes at the expense of warmth,” Kamarck added. “That’s the trade-off, but I think she’s making the correct trade-off.”

    Neither Clinton nor Giuliani may, in the end, be their party’s nominee. But the recent polling hints at something many supporters of Clinton’s Democratic rivals say they doubt: her potential strength as a general election candidate.

    Zogby’s July 20 poll produced a near-reversal of the May 20 poll, which had Giuliani defeating Clinton 48 percent to 43 percent. Recent Gallup polling also shows her now defeating Giuliani, 50 percent to 46 percent, an improvement over past polls produced overwhelmingly by gains among women.

    Wednesday’s Journal/NBC News poll shows Clinton defeating Giuliani, as well, 47 percent to 41 percent. In March, it was the reverse: Giuliani led 47 percent to 42 percent over Clinton. Like in the Zogby and Gallup polls, the shift is among women. Giuliani won men by 47 percent to 43 percent over Clinton in March in the Journal/NBC News poll, but women split between them. In the most recent survey, Giuliani still wins men by roughly the same margin. But Clinton now wins women, 54 percent to 36 percent.

    “The big question for her campaign is: What took so long? There should be a natural affinity for women because she shares their gender,” said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who focuses on gender. “The task for Republican opponents moving forward will be to convince moderate women that she shares their gender but little else.”

    Democrats have focused on women as their electoral swing bloc since 1984, often failing to achieve their aim. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to win white women, with 48 percent, according to exit polls.
    Due to Hillary Clinton’s problems with men — she wins only 32 percent of white men, a low for a Democrat reminiscent of the Reagan era — and without a third-party candidate yet in the race, she may have to win a clear majority of white women. No Democrat has accomplished that feat since Lyndon Johnson.

    “It’s going to be almost impossible for her to switch the mind of millions of men who have a problem not with a woman president but with that woman president,” said Conway. Clinton “will have to do better than her husband did with women in 1996 and Al Gore did with women in 2000,” Conway continued, “because she can’t count on the bare minimum of the male vote.”

  39. kostner i will try to. i have to learn to copy and past the links onto here if i can. can ya tell me how? the rassmussen premium internals. it would be a pleasure to do if i can freakin know how to post the link or i will just post the numbers manually.

  40. terrondt,

    don’t input manually, it takes too much effort. I’m not in the mood writing that diary as I’m watching Obama meltdown unfolding. LOL.

    You can copy and past the link, but sometimes it will take a while for it to show up.

  41. Secret, in rebuttal to Conway I believe many white men will come around if they understand two things: first, that Senator Clinton is highly respected by senior military officials; second, that she favors disengagement from Iraq, in a way that does not create a petrie dish for terrorism. The most effective vehicle I have found for changing opinions on the subject have been her examination of the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group (12/7/06) and the recent efforts to ensure an orderly withdrawal of combat troops. There is a maturity of judgment here that white men, who have often borne the responsiblilites of leadership will recognize and respect. As for Obama, I have lost track: is it strike three or four?

  42. As Obama twists in the wind over foreign policy, we must not overlook the possiblility that Edwards will gain momentum, and may even surpass him. Yes, I know that sounds far fetched at this point,
    but there is some smart money in my part of the country that is betting on this scenario. The truth is Edwards is a novice as well, and in his consumate ignorance, he is more worried about Murdock than Iraq, Pakistan or Nuclear weapons. Hillary runs circles around these clowns, and it is obvious to anyone who pays attention.

  43. good morning all. i see that hillary is going to the yearly kos gig. im a little nervous about that. they are obviously not her best fans. i guess if she can’t win a lot over at least get some respect. given the venom they spew at her on the daily kos blog i won’t be surprized if they boo her like crazy. anyway GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!

  44. terrondt: There will be one of two outcomes. She will bowl them over with her compelling presence (and I’ve seen her in person, so I know that is quite possible), or she will walk out of their with kossacks spewing venom. I think she wins either way. On the one hand, she tones down the Kossack venom. On the other hand, she can tell other people that the nutjobs at daily kos don’t like her. (By the way, I am a Kossack of longstanding, but the current crowd is a mere shadow of its former glory.)

  45. Regarding Edwards, the New York Post has counterattacked. Here is what they say:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

    “John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul’s companies.”

    “The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.”

    Edwards is hardly worth taking notice of but again his campaign seems not to have anticipated this reply.

  46. admin: That was a sharp eye, and it is a most useful piece of information for my little dust-ups at dkos. Many thanks.

  47. Edwards campaign is in wilderness. Nobody CARES about Murdoch. Rass has a new poll on this.

    While the sale of the Wall Street Journal captured business headlines for weeks, the story failed to capture much public interest. Just 9% of Americans said they followed the stories Very Closely and another 22% were watching Somewhat Closely. Sixty-four percent (64%) did not follow the Murdoch-Wall Street Journal stories.

    Pluralities had no opinion about Murdoch, the impact the sale will have on the paper, or why Murdoch made the acquisition.

    Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of Murdoch, 29% have an unfavorable opinion, and 46% have no opinion of him.

  48. Regarding the lastest IA poll.

    Don’t sweat! Polls in early states, especially IA are all over the map. It is fluid, but make no mistake, IA is going to be very tight.

    From the experience of 2004 election cycle, the state polls will likely follow national polls and reflect Hillary’s widening lead and Obama’s screw-ups over the next few weeks.

    I recall when Kerry was swiftboated, the national poll showed a dip, but some state polls still showed he’s gaining, only after a few days, the state polls started to take notice. The same happened at convention. His national polls did not improve at all after speech, but state polls showed some improved, and all those netroots were ecstatic, only after a few days, those polls were proved to be outliners.

    Buckle up, Obama will likely get some good polling data simply because of the nature of statistical noise. Hill has led in too many polls!

    LOL.

  49. kostner: The polls are all over for Iowa because it is a caucus state. The screening questions are different from pollster to pollster. The best we can do is look at trend lines within a single pollster.

  50. terrondt: new rass tracking poll clinton 45% to obama’s 21%.

    Wow, I hope Obama flaps his gums some more. As she approaches 50%, the tired “majority of Dems don’t want Hillary” argument will have to be retired.

  51. Take Rass’ tracking with a grain of salt. But Obama is really hurting himself, no doubt. I’d like to see some poll in early states to back up.

  52. Hey, admin: My fellow Kossacks have explained to me that what makes Edwards’s taking money Murdoch different is that Edwards gave his money to charity. When I asked if Murdoch made a profit from Johnny Boy, they said the burden of proof was on me to prove that he did. I asked in return what difference it makes: either Edwards made a profit for Murdoch and effectively padded Murdoch’s bottom line, or he failed to make a profit for Murdoch and proved he can’t make the sale.

  53. kostner, I agree with you on the Iowa polls. I still like HRC’s strength on some of the questions, though, particularly leadership, experience and electability. Those are solid across the board in state and national polls. Also, the fact that Obama leads on likeability in this poll reminds me of Bush. Remember how he was the guy people wanted to have a beer with? Well, look where that got us, lol.

    BTW, pollster.com has a good series on poll screening. The percentage of people who vote in primaries or caucuses is so small, the screening for likely voters gets pretty narrow and can account for the wide variations in results.

  54. From Staff to DCDemocrat: according to the story Edwards was asked for evidence that he gave the money to charity but has so far declined to provide those receipts. By dailykooks standards told to you, demanding evidence, Edwards should provide the evidence then.

    In either case the argument Edwards made [http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070802-media-consolidation/] against accepting donations from Newscorp, including good Democrats that happen to work at that company, was due to “media consolidation”. If anything Edwards has aided that media consolidation by hawking his book through the company he now condemns.

    Also, why is Edwards only challenging Presidential candidates to return the money? Why not Al Franken and other Dems?

    Edwards’ other excuse for demanding the refusal of contributions: “The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party.” So Edwards in a business deal with these people is not pretending to be friends?

    Here is the full Edwards junk: Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal. Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party. In an email to supporters, the campaign asked Democrats to speak out against this unfairness.

    As part of his opposition, Edwards challenged all the Democratic presidential candidates to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and to refund any contribution they have already taken.

    “News Corp’s purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media — all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets — not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.

    “Moreover, given Fox News’ consistent efforts to demean Democrats — they have attacked the character of Senator Obama, Vice President Gore, and many others — no Democrat running for president should accept campaign money from top News Corp executives. So, today, I’m challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and return any they’ve already taken, beginning with Rupert Murdoch. The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party.”

  55. My take on Edwards, just ignore him!!!

    Edwards’ campaign is in tailspin. I just don’t get it. Instead of getting into the heated discussed topics in national security/foreign policy, he’s attacking Murdoch, which nobody really cares.

    According to today’s Rass. poll:

    While the sale of the Wall Street Journal captured business headlines for weeks, the story failed to capture much public interest. Just 9% of Americans said they followed the stories Very Closely and another 22% were watching Somewhat Closely. Sixty-four percent (64%) did not follow the Murdoch-Wall Street Journal stories.

    Pluralities had no opinion about Murdoch, the impact the sale will have on the paper, or why Murdoch made the acquisition.

    Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of Murdoch, 29% have an unfavorable opinion, and 46% have no opinion of him.

    This is just bizarre, he seems to live in a vacuum, does not know what ordinary people really talk about. He can not capitalize on Obama’s missteps. While Clinton is rising and Obama is stagnate, Edwards’ number is also slipping. Today’s Tracking poll:

    Clinton 45
    Obama 21
    Edwards 11

    I don’t believe he and his campaign are effective at all.

  56. Search Site: Home Politics Business & Economy Lifestyle Current Events About Us
    Premium Members Only
    Rasmussen Reports Home
    Daily Snapshot
    Scott’s Page
    2006 Senate Races
    2006 Governors’ Races
    Daily Updates
    Bush Job Approval
    3-Day
    7-Day
    Economic – 3-Day Tracking
    Rasmussen Index Summary
    Ratings – U.S. Economy
    Ratings – Personal Finance
    Economy – Better/Worse
    Personal – Better/Worse
    U.S. in Recession?
    Daily Data Bank
    Economic – 7-Day Tracking
    Rasmussen Index Summary
    Ratings – U.S. Economy
    Ratings – Personal Finance
    Economy – Better/Worse
    Personal – Better/Worse
    U.S. in Recession?
    Daily Data Bank
    Favorables for Democratic Presidential Candidates
    Joe Biden
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/17/07
    32%
    38%
    6%
    26%
    23%
    15%

    06/17/07
    30%
    41%
    7%
    23%
    23%
    18%

    03/01/07
    33%
    35%
    7%
    26%
    23%
    12%

    01/09/07
    35%
    38%
    8%
    27%
    24%
    14%

    11/11/06
    33%
    36%
    10%
    23%
    21%
    15%

    Hillary Clinton
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/31/07
    49%
    48%
    22%
    27%
    14%
    34%

    07/24/07
    52%
    47%
    25%
    27%
    16%
    31%

    07/10/07
    52%
    46%
    25%
    27%
    13%
    33%

    06/20/07
    49%
    48%
    20%
    29%
    18%
    30%

    06/13/07
    48%
    47%
    21%
    27%
    15%
    34%

    05/22/07
    47%
    51%
    22%
    57%
    16%
    35%

    05/01/07
    50%
    49%
    23%
    27%
    14%
    35%

    04/03/07
    48%
    50%
    25%
    23%
    13%
    37%

    03/06/07
    50%
    48%
    22%
    28%
    14%
    34%

    02/20/07
    52%
    47%
    26%
    26%
    15%
    32%

    02/06/07
    50%
    48%
    21%
    29%
    14%
    34%

    01/25/07
    49%
    48%
    22%
    27%
    15%
    33%

    01/11/07
    50%
    48%
    22%
    28%
    16%
    32%

    12/19/06
    48%
    49%
    24%
    24%
    19%
    31%

    12/07/06
    50%
    48%
    26%
    24%
    16%
    32%

    11/27/06
    50%
    48%
    24%
    26%
    13%
    35%

    11/05/06
    52%
    47%
    24%
    28%
    15%
    32%

    Chris Dodd
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/19/07
    20%
    42%
    2%
    18%
    25%
    17%

    06/17/07
    22%
    39%
    4%
    18%
    21%
    17%

    John Edwards
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/25/07
    54%
    39%
    15%
    39%
    23%
    16%

    07/19/07
    47%
    46%
    13%
    34%
    24%
    22%

    06/25/07
    52%
    43%
    14%
    38%
    22%
    21%

    06/17/07
    54%
    38%
    15%
    39%
    21%
    17%

    06/07/07
    52%
    38%
    14%
    38%
    18%
    20%

    05/17/07
    55%
    33%
    19%
    36%
    18%
    15%

    05/08/07
    55%
    42%
    15%
    40%
    25%
    17%

    04/24/07
    56%
    34%
    15%
    41%
    18%
    16%

    03/26/07
    57%
    35%
    17%
    40%
    23%
    12%

    03/13/07
    47%
    45%
    13%
    34%
    23%
    22%

    02/22/07
    49%
    43%
    12%
    37%
    27%
    18%

    01/30/07
    53%
    38%
    15%
    38%
    22%
    16%

    01/04/07
    54%
    37%
    17%
    37%
    21%
    16%

    12/21/06
    47%
    41%
    15%
    32%
    23%
    18%

    12/05/06
    47%
    42%
    17%
    30%
    23%
    19%

    11/15/06
    48%
    38%
    15%
    33%
    21%
    17%

    Mike Gravel
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/25/07
    17%
    33%
    3%
    14%
    22%
    11%

    05/08/07
    12%
    32%
    2%
    12%
    22%
    10%

    Dennis Kucinich
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/29/07
    23%
    38%
    7%
    16%
    22%
    16%

    06/17/07
    21%
    39%
    7%
    14%
    21%
    18%

    05/10/07
    22%
    43%
    7%
    15%
    24%
    19%

    12/15/06
    23%
    33%
    7%
    16%
    19%
    14%

    Barack Obama
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/31/07
    48%
    45%
    19%
    29%
    20%
    25%

    07/24/07
    53%
    41%
    21%
    32%
    22%
    19%

    07/12/07
    54%
    37%
    20%
    34%
    22%
    15%

    06/22/07
    53%
    37%
    17%
    36%
    21%
    16%

    06/05/07
    50%
    44%
    19%
    31%
    27%
    17%

    05/15/07
    58%
    36%
    23%
    35%
    22%
    14%

    05/03/07
    55%
    37%
    18%
    37%
    24%
    13%

    04/10/07
    59%
    34%
    24%
    35%
    20%
    14%

    03/22/07
    54%
    36%
    22%
    32%
    20%
    16%

    03/03/07
    55%
    37%
    25%
    30%
    23%
    14%

    01/30/07
    50%
    37%
    19%
    31%
    21%
    13%

    01/04/07
    52%
    31%
    20%
    32%
    19%
    12%

    12/21/06
    51%
    32%
    23%
    28%
    19%
    13%

    12/05/06
    52%
    33%
    25%
    27%
    22%
    11%

    11/05/06
    46%
    29%
    27%
    19%
    17%
    12%

    Bill Richardson
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    06/19/07
    33%
    39%
    8%
    25%
    29%
    10%

    05/29/07
    32%
    42%
    7%
    25%
    32%
    10%

    04/26/07
    32%
    26%
    4%
    28%
    20%
    6%

    04/12/07
    30%
    30%
    6%
    24%
    23%
    7%

    02/27/07
    32%
    27%
    6%
    26%
    18%
    9%

    01/23/07
    35%
    27%
    6%
    29%
    21%
    6%

    12/15/06
    27%
    28%
    8%
    21%
    17%
    11%

    12/01/06
    30%
    34%
    7%
    23%
    25%
    9%

    Democratic Presidential Candidates Key Stats GOP Presidential Candidates Key Stats Favorables for Other Major Political Figures Favorables for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Favorables for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Favorables for Other Major Political Figures

    Historical Favorables for GOP Presidential Candidates

    Historical Ideology for GOP Presidential Candidates

    Historical Ideology for Other Political Figures

    Historical Ideology for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Ideology for Dem Presidential Candidates

    ©2007 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

    Advertise With Us | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

    Media Interviews & Advertising Sales: 732-776-9777

    Advertisment
    this is the link for the favorable list of clinton

  57. Search Site: Home Politics Business & Economy Lifestyle Current Events About Us
    Premium Members Only
    Rasmussen Reports Home
    Daily Snapshot
    Scott’s Page
    2006 Senate Races
    2006 Governors’ Races
    Daily Updates
    Bush Job Approval
    3-Day
    7-Day
    Economic – 3-Day Tracking
    Rasmussen Index Summary
    Ratings – U.S. Economy
    Ratings – Personal Finance
    Economy – Better/Worse
    Personal – Better/Worse
    U.S. in Recession?
    Daily Data Bank
    Economic – 7-Day Tracking
    Rasmussen Index Summary
    Ratings – U.S. Economy
    Ratings – Personal Finance
    Economy – Better/Worse
    Personal – Better/Worse
    U.S. in Recession?
    Daily Data Bank
    Favorables for Democratic Presidential Candidates
    Joe Biden
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/17/07
    32%
    38%
    6%
    26%
    23%
    15%

    06/17/07
    30%
    41%
    7%
    23%
    23%
    18%

    03/01/07
    33%
    35%
    7%
    26%
    23%
    12%

    01/09/07
    35%
    38%
    8%
    27%
    24%
    14%

    11/11/06
    33%
    36%
    10%
    23%
    21%
    15%

    Hillary Clinton
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/31/07
    49%
    48%
    22%
    27%
    14%
    34%

    07/24/07
    52%
    47%
    25%
    27%
    16%
    31%

    07/10/07
    52%
    46%
    25%
    27%
    13%
    33%

    06/20/07
    49%
    48%
    20%
    29%
    18%
    30%

    06/13/07
    48%
    47%
    21%
    27%
    15%
    34%

    05/22/07
    47%
    51%
    22%
    57%
    16%
    35%

    05/01/07
    50%
    49%
    23%
    27%
    14%
    35%

    04/03/07
    48%
    50%
    25%
    23%
    13%
    37%

    03/06/07
    50%
    48%
    22%
    28%
    14%
    34%

    02/20/07
    52%
    47%
    26%
    26%
    15%
    32%

    02/06/07
    50%
    48%
    21%
    29%
    14%
    34%

    01/25/07
    49%
    48%
    22%
    27%
    15%
    33%

    01/11/07
    50%
    48%
    22%
    28%
    16%
    32%

    12/19/06
    48%
    49%
    24%
    24%
    19%
    31%

    12/07/06
    50%
    48%
    26%
    24%
    16%
    32%

    11/27/06
    50%
    48%
    24%
    26%
    13%
    35%

    11/05/06
    52%
    47%
    24%
    28%
    15%
    32%

    Chris Dodd
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/19/07
    20%
    42%
    2%
    18%
    25%
    17%

    06/17/07
    22%
    39%
    4%
    18%
    21%
    17%

    John Edwards
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/25/07
    54%
    39%
    15%
    39%
    23%
    16%

    07/19/07
    47%
    46%
    13%
    34%
    24%
    22%

    06/25/07
    52%
    43%
    14%
    38%
    22%
    21%

    06/17/07
    54%
    38%
    15%
    39%
    21%
    17%

    06/07/07
    52%
    38%
    14%
    38%
    18%
    20%

    05/17/07
    55%
    33%
    19%
    36%
    18%
    15%

    05/08/07
    55%
    42%
    15%
    40%
    25%
    17%

    04/24/07
    56%
    34%
    15%
    41%
    18%
    16%

    03/26/07
    57%
    35%
    17%
    40%
    23%
    12%

    03/13/07
    47%
    45%
    13%
    34%
    23%
    22%

    02/22/07
    49%
    43%
    12%
    37%
    27%
    18%

    01/30/07
    53%
    38%
    15%
    38%
    22%
    16%

    01/04/07
    54%
    37%
    17%
    37%
    21%
    16%

    12/21/06
    47%
    41%
    15%
    32%
    23%
    18%

    12/05/06
    47%
    42%
    17%
    30%
    23%
    19%

    11/15/06
    48%
    38%
    15%
    33%
    21%
    17%

    Mike Gravel
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/25/07
    17%
    33%
    3%
    14%
    22%
    11%

    05/08/07
    12%
    32%
    2%
    12%
    22%
    10%

    Dennis Kucinich
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/29/07
    23%
    38%
    7%
    16%
    22%
    16%

    06/17/07
    21%
    39%
    7%
    14%
    21%
    18%

    05/10/07
    22%
    43%
    7%
    15%
    24%
    19%

    12/15/06
    23%
    33%
    7%
    16%
    19%
    14%

    Barack Obama
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    07/31/07
    48%
    45%
    19%
    29%
    20%
    25%

    07/24/07
    53%
    41%
    21%
    32%
    22%
    19%

    07/12/07
    54%
    37%
    20%
    34%
    22%
    15%

    06/22/07
    53%
    37%
    17%
    36%
    21%
    16%

    06/05/07
    50%
    44%
    19%
    31%
    27%
    17%

    05/15/07
    58%
    36%
    23%
    35%
    22%
    14%

    05/03/07
    55%
    37%
    18%
    37%
    24%
    13%

    04/10/07
    59%
    34%
    24%
    35%
    20%
    14%

    03/22/07
    54%
    36%
    22%
    32%
    20%
    16%

    03/03/07
    55%
    37%
    25%
    30%
    23%
    14%

    01/30/07
    50%
    37%
    19%
    31%
    21%
    13%

    01/04/07
    52%
    31%
    20%
    32%
    19%
    12%

    12/21/06
    51%
    32%
    23%
    28%
    19%
    13%

    12/05/06
    52%
    33%
    25%
    27%
    22%
    11%

    11/05/06
    46%
    29%
    27%
    19%
    17%
    12%

    Bill Richardson
    Date
    Total
    Favorable
    Total
    Unfavorable
    Very
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Favorable
    Somewhat
    Unfavorable
    Very Unfavorable

    06/19/07
    33%
    39%
    8%
    25%
    29%
    10%

    05/29/07
    32%
    42%
    7%
    25%
    32%
    10%

    04/26/07
    32%
    26%
    4%
    28%
    20%
    6%

    04/12/07
    30%
    30%
    6%
    24%
    23%
    7%

    02/27/07
    32%
    27%
    6%
    26%
    18%
    9%

    01/23/07
    35%
    27%
    6%
    29%
    21%
    6%

    12/15/06
    27%
    28%
    8%
    21%
    17%
    11%

    12/01/06
    30%
    34%
    7%
    23%
    25%
    9%

    Democratic Presidential Candidates Key Stats GOP Presidential Candidates Key Stats Favorables for Other Major Political Figures Favorables for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Favorables for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Favorables for Other Major Political Figures

    Historical Favorables for GOP Presidential Candidates

    Historical Ideology for GOP Presidential Candidates

    Historical Ideology for Other Political Figures

    Historical Ideology for Members of U.S. Congress

    Historical Ideology for Dem Presidential Candidates

    ©2007 Rasmussen Reports Inc.
    Advertise With Us | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

    Media Interviews & Advertising Sales: 732-776-9777

    Advertisment

  58. The $334K in royalties is listed as donated to charity in his financial disclosure (p. 41).

    That doesn’t account for all of the monies received.

  59. Hey y’all, Maybe Edwards is runnin’ like a candidate with nothin’ left to lose. And on the murdock/wall street journal story…as to why it’s not getting the publics interest….The phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid” comes to mind, only now, “It’s Iraq, stupid.” Just a thought. Voters/people care about what seems to be most important to their lives at a given point in time. It’s the war, it’s jobs, it’s a number of things…but right now it ain’t rupert murdock. maybe that makes sense. But these daily jumps in the polls, like I said the other day, look at over all trends. Little daily jumps most times are little hiccups. –mollyj

  60. yeah, $800,000 from murdock and edwards have a nerve to bitch about a measley $20,000. lordy, obama and edwards is getting foot-in-mouth disease.

  61. ADMIN and others: When does Senator Clinto speak at the kos convention? Is there anyway a person without a tv (like myself) can watch. Guess i got to get in the modern age and get a tv on satellite one of these days…thanks…–mollyj

  62. terrondt: if he got an 800,000 in a book advance that is what people who care need to ask about…it’s fine for “profits” to go to a charity…but not all advances are against royalties…most for big book companies are not, in fact, therefore that 800,000 is “pocket change”–mollyj

  63. Kostner and others: Do you guys know about this CA initiative where the Repugs want to split the electoral votes by district …so that they could potentially take this state in the GE? I heard this on Air America, and was wondering what the deal is? This is scary…

  64. Hello all,

    Foxnews frontpage story ‘Obama speech fuels protest in Pakistan’.

    Foxnews likes to use sensational title, but if there’s really protest in Pakistan as a result of his speech, Obama is IN BIG BIG HOLE.

  65. Thanks for that news Kostner, What in tarnation did he think was gonna happen? At this point we;ll be in WWIII before the primaries are over. Like I said the other day, has a presidential candidate ever caused an international incident before? Somebody needs to give BO a scholarship to go back to school and study international relations. –mollyj

  66. Obama and Tencredo both criticized:

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

    Top Pakistan officials said Obama’s comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

    “It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”

    Another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, also came under criticism Friday by a Pakistani official after saying that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

    Tancredo spoke at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa on Tuesday.

    In Washington, the State Department disavowed Tancredo’s remarks, which some diplomats fear could damage U.S. ties with the Muslim world and hurt efforts to counter Islamist extremism.

    It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,” deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters, adding that the comments were “absolutely crazy.”

    In Pakistan’s national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would open debate next week on recent American criticism of Pakistan, including Tancredo’s remarks.

    In a speech Wednesday, Obama said as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

    President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al-Qaida havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

    “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again,” Obama said. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

    Pakistan’s state-run news agency reported Friday that Musharraf, asked about the possibility of U.S. military operations in Pakistan, said the country was “fully capable” of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

    Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

    On Friday, 1,000 tribesmen rallied in Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan tribal area, condemning recent military operations and chanting slogans against the United States.

    “We will teach a lesson to America if it attacks us,” local cleric Maulvi Mohammed Roman told the rally.

  67. Obama’s foreign policy adviser Samantha Power has released the following memo:

    It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

    Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

    Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

    Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

    On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

    Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

    * The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
    * The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
    * The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

    By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

    Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

    Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

    * Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
    * Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
    * Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

    By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

    Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

    Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

    Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

    Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

    Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

    Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

    Yes, it’s really long, lol, but any reactions?

  68. Molly, talkingpointsmemo.com has Yearly Kos videos posted. I assume they’ll have Hillary’s tomorrow.

  69. SO…the defense is, “I didn’t make any mistakes…it’s all part of my coherent, well-thought out foreign policy plan.” In other word, take the focus off my flub ups and put it on Bo’s opponents who are part of the old guard who got us in this shape in the first place by starting the Iraq war…

    So, what’s next? –mollyj

  70. I agree Edwards is non-issue right now. This guy can’t run a campaign. Even Daily Kooks are quiet about their favorite “populist”. They are slowly succumbing to Hillary’s lead, although begrudgingly. O Bomb A is their man now. Of course they still pray for The God of All Gods…Gore. It’s such bad news for Edwards in Iowa, this is what he was counting on, now his strategy looks like it went up in smoke.

Comments are closed.