State of Emergency

Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is watching his campaign fall apart. Obama is desperate.

The Obama remedy: Funds for paid media including radio, television and internet are allocated and spent lavishly; new hires are made by the campaign, misinformation and lies are the order of the day; and provocative talk escalating world tensions are yet another campaign ploy of the day.

Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago called Obama’s position on meeting rogue leaders, without preconditions, naive and irresponsible. Hillary Clinton was correct at the time. Now with Obama increasingly desperate as his poll numbers do not improve, or plunge, he has become reckless. His Bush-like recklessness threatens us all. Burning Flag

What exactly happened and what is Obama lying about?

The Obama campaign worked for weeks on a foreign policy speech. The Obama campaign publicized the speech as a major event because they were trying to get away from the previous Obama blunder regarding meetings, without preconditions, with rogue world leaders. The Obama campaign proudly and prominently placed their big foreign policy speech on the Obama website.

Obama’s speech went off like a bomb. An O bomb a.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times not only published the speech, she also published the accompanying “Fact Sheet” distributed by the Obama campaign. The Fact Sheet and speech transcript were labeled repeatedly as “Paid for by Obama for America”. This is a central fact in the whole Obama created controversy. Obama’s remarks in that bomb of a speech (which appeared to call for an invasion or at least attack inside Pakistan) were not off-the-cuff remarks. Obama’s speech was worked on and massaged for weeks before he delivered it. The Obama campaign not only provided transcripts of the carefully crafted speech but it also distributed a “Fact Sheet” to supplement the speech. In the transcript of the speech, the Fact Sheet about the speech and the actually delivery of the speech the ugly paragraph about Pakistan was included.

Here is what the Sun-Times and most media outlets published immediately after Obama’s bomb of a speech:

As commander-in-chief, White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would sponsor a U.S. strike in Pakistan to attack terrorists, sending a tough message to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf that if he does not act an Obama administration would.

Obama made the threat in outlining his most extensive, specific program yet to combat terrorism and to restore the U.S. image in Muslim nations in a speech to be delivered Wednesday morning in Washington. In an indirect reference to chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) over directly negotiating with leaders of rogue states–Clinton said last week she did not want to hand a “propaganda” opportunity to these leaders– Obama, according to a fact sheet distributed in advance of the speech, is ” not afraid that he’d lose a public relations battle against a dictator.”

The Sun-Times, then published the Obama campaign supplied transcript of the speech and the Fact Sheet, which both included the controversial paragraph about disregarding President Musharraf and attacking Pakistan. First the transcript portion:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Senator Obama said in his prepared remarks. “But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won?t act, we will.”

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Here is the Fact Sheet portion provided to media by the Obama campaign:


• Demand More from Pakistan. As was made clear in the recent National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has successfully made the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan a base to launch attacks into Afghanistan and beyond. As president, Barack
Obama would condition U.S. military aid to Pakistan on their making progress to close down the training camps, evict foreign fighters, and prevent the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base to strike inside of Afghanistan. In addition, if the United
States has actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will not act on it, an Obama Administration will. Obama also will increase aid to Pakistan for development and secular education to counter extremists.

Paid for by Obama for America

The clear implication by this crown of creation speech by the Obama campaign is that (a) Obama would attack inside Pakistan if need be and rub President Musharraf’s nose in this action; and (b) an implicit threat to remove Musharraf and redesign Pakistan’s government.

President Musharraf clearly read the Obama speech. Musharraf is a dictator. Musharraf seized power undemocratically in Pakistan via a bloodless coup in 1999. Musharraf saw the threat aimed at him directly, and he reacted.

The New York Times:

Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was on the brink of declaring a state of emergency in his increasingly volatile country but backed away after a gathering storm of media, political and diplomatic pressure, Pakistani officials acknowledged on Thursday.

Pakistani police officers removed a laborer who was killed by a detonated bomb at a scrap shop in Peshawar.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned General Musharraf about 2 a.m. Thursday in Pakistan, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said. Bush administration officials refused to discuss in public what was said, but one Pakistani official said that Ms. Rice exhorted General Musharraf not to declare emergency rule. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes.

“She thought it was an opportune moment to talk about a couple of things,” Mr. McCormack said without elaborating.

By the time of the conversation, Pakistan’s minister of state for information and broadcasting, Tariq Azim Khan, had said that General Musharraf was not ruling out declaring an emergency, which would give him sweeping powers to restrict freedom of movement and assembly, to suspend Parliament and to curtail the activities of the courts.

Such a step, officials in Washington fear, would further inflame the region and open the Bush administration to additional criticism from democracy advocates who say it has already been too willing to turn a blind eye toward General Musharraf’s failure to restore civilian rule.

In Pakistan, opponents of emergency rule, including some inside the government, warned that it would push the country into a deeper crisis, as the opposition parties, the judiciary, lawyers and civil society would react strongly against it.

“I fear the whole system will collapse and the country will plunge into a period of turmoil,” said one minister, warning of moves to impose emergency rule.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Khan cited both “external and internal threats” to the government, including the worsening security situation in the country’s tribal areas, where Al Qaeda and many Taliban militants are based.

No doubt President/General Musharraf was playing with dangerous internal Pakistani politics.

Other Pakistani officials suggested privately, however, that it was less the security situation driving the plan for an emergency than General Musharraf’s own political concerns as he tried to have himself re-elected to another term.

Earlier this week, General Musharraf told political supporters in Karachi that he would stand for re-election by the national and provincial assemblies as early as Sept. 15. But the public mood has soured on the general since he tried to dismiss the country’s chief justice five months ago. That move set off nationwide protests and was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

Opposition parties now seem poised to use the court to bring constitutional challenges against General Musharraf’s continued rule, particularly his decision to hold dual positions as president and army chief of staff.

Amid such political uncertainty, some of General Musharraf’s supporters had urged him to take greater control in the form of extraordinary powers.

As early as last week, close aides to the general and intelligence officials started hinting at the possibility of a “drastic step” — a euphemism for emergency rule — which has been instituted six or so times in Pakistan’s 60 years of independence. Some suggested that General Musharraf was increasingly finding himself in a dead end.

“The president is left with no other option than to clamp down emergency or a martial law to try to extend his stay in power,” an intelligence official said on condition of anonymity early this week. “It is only a matter of days.”

On Wednesday, General Musharraf canceled a long-planned trip to Kabul to serve as a co-chair of a three-day assembly of tribal elders and political leaders with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai. The news fueled speculation that an emergency decree was imminent.

He instead stayed home to conduct a high-level meeting of his close military and political aides on Thursday morning. Later in the day, Muhammad Ali Durrani, the federal minister of information, issued a categorical denial that an emergency was being imposed.

Obama recklessly provided Musharraf with a fig-leaf reason to impose the State of Emergency:

Citing recent comments from Barack Obama about possible U.S. military action inside Pakistan, the government of embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf warned yesterday it may impose a state of emergency due to “external and internal threats.”

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said statements from Obama and others raising the possibility of U.S. military action against al Qaeda in Pakistan “has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public.”

Obama last week touched off a firestorm when he gave a high-profile speech threatening: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Chicago Tribune:

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.”

Obama’s threat to attack the territory of a Muslim ally without the consent of its government also could have broader ramifications for his standing in international Islamic public opinion.

The worldly mixed-race presidential candidate, who spent part of his early childhood in the Muslim nation of Indonesia, has a life story that has excited interest among a global Muslim population that has been disillusioned by the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. Obama’s middle name of Hussein, a negative to Americans familiar only with the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, offers comfort to Muslims who recognize the name as that of a revered ancient imam associated with the cause of the oppressed. [snip]

But the threat against Pakistan is likely to damage views of Obama in global Islamic opinion, though perhaps not irrevocably, said Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies political Islam and is author of “The Shia Revival.”

“There is the Obama promise. There is the Obama message. And now there are the Obama words,” Nasr said. “They are not consistent with each other.”

Nasr said global Islamic opinion is particularly sensitive to treatment of Pakistan because its tensions with India make it the second major spot in the world in which Muslims are in conflict with a nation of a foreign religion. The other is the Israeli-Arab conflict.

“Ultimately, the tenor of Obama’s argument is that he is going treat Pakistan as an enemy country,” Nasr said.

In a counterterrorism speech Wednesday, Obama said that as president he would order a strike against Al Qaeda leaders in tribal areas of Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf does not eradicate their havens in the mountainous region on the border with Afghanistan.

“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.” [snip]

The Bush administration has tread carefully in its dealings with Musharraf, an important ally in the struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The White House has pressed Musharraf to take more aggressive steps against terrorist sanctuaries in the country, but Bush has been sensitive to Musharraf’s precarious hold on power.

Obama’s comment added to public anger in Pakistan. And a Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, further inflamed feelings by suggesting that the U.S. deter a nuclear terrorist attack by issuing a threat to retaliate by bombing the two holiest Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina.

In Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, about 150 people chanted slogans against the U.S., Obama and Tancredo at a demonstration organized by hard-line religious parties, according to The Associated Press.

In Miran Shah, a major town in the lawless region that borders Afghanistan, about 1,000 tribesmen condemned recent Pakistani military operations in the area and vowed to repel any U.S. attack, AP reported.

A State Department spokesman issued a rebuke to presidential candidates for complicating efforts to gain international cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.

“Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves, and whoever … comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,” said deputy spokesman Tom Casey.

In Chicago, several Pakistani-Americans who had donated to Obama said they would no longer support him. Dr. Murtaza Arain, an Oak Brook surgeon who has attended two Obama fundraisers and donated money to the campaign, said he planned to switch his support to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

“I don’t want him to be my president if he doesn’t understand all the ground realities in Pakistan,” said Arain, pointing to Pakistan’s efforts to root out terrorists. “To say you’ll act if they don’t is suspecting an ally and putting that ally down.”

Obama confronted by reality and most of the other Democratic candidates running for president decided to lie and defame and distort.

From MSNBC’s David Shuster:

The biggest point of contention in the debate last night came stemmed from an argument Obama made recently — the idea that he would take action against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, if that country’s leadership won’t act. Several candidates criticized Obama on that point… and the fiercest exchange was over what Obama said in his recent speech.

Dodd: “If you’re making a mistake today, you ought to stand up and say so. It was a mistake in my view to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here, into Pakistan, was somehow in our interest.” Obama replied: “I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf”

So, who is telling the truth? Judge for yourself. Here is what Obama said last week: “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

Dodd was correct about what Obama said… Obama did not say he would work with Musharraf.

More to come in Part II of Obama’s State of Emergency.


128 thoughts on “State of Emergency

  1. obama is so wet behind the ears that it is gushing water by the gallons. god knows it looks like it can hold a lot. lol. sorry, i had to make a little joke of it.

  2. What do we know for sure about the impact of Obama’s screw ups on foreign policy in terms of the polls? I agree, he looks like Bush in terms of how his screw ups just lead to more mistakes. I am most concerned about how this is being received by his base and by other voters. I am also really concerned about the double-speak. Clearly those of us who watched the forum where he initially mentioned pakistan he did not say he would work with Musharraf. –mollyj

  3. Just what we need is another civil war in another country which we aided, abetted and incited. I cannot believe how reckless this man Obama is. This is very dangerous stuff. –mollyj

  4. We need more than ever a President that can reduce the overwhelming Moslem anger against America.

    I reprint below an article, which I believe supports my personal opinion that Hillary Clinton would be such a President. The Clintons have won the trust of the Moslems. Bill and Hillary Clinton are trusted to be honest brokers for their problems. Here is the reprint of the article. I’ll provide the URL in the next post. Whenever I post an URL, the post is delayed by several hours perhaps the blog admin needs to review URLs posted here to make sure that they are not spams.

    New Poll Conducted in the Arab World Shows Overwhelming Support for Hillary Clinton to be the Next US President

    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, June 21 /PRNewswire/ — The Arab World has made it clear who their preference for the next US President would be – a woman. Hillary Clinton leads the pack by a margin of 5-1 in the latest US election poll conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

    The poll, conducted by Maktoob Research in Dubai, surveyed 3,669 online respondents between May 25-30, 2007 and asked who they would like to see as President of the United States and why. While 15% of total respondents selected Hillary – her closest rival was Al Gore receiving 3% of the overall vote. Third in line was Barack Obama with only 2%. None of the Republican candidates registered even 1% of the total overall vote, and roughly 57% of those surveyed stated “I do not care”.

    Why Hillary? According to the poll, Hillary’s association with Bill Clinton pushes her way up in the eyes of the Arab World who greatly respected her husband and his personal dealings with the Arab World. “The Middle East considered President Clinton a friend who made a genuine personal effort to bring peace to the Region. Their assumption is that Hillary will continue where her husband left off in striving for fair and balanced peace in the Middle East,” according to Ahmed Nassef, Vice President of Maktoob Group. Interestingly enough, the men in the Middle East were slightly more likely to want Hillary as the next US president than women in the Region. In Saudi Arabia – the vote was fairly evenly split with 13% of women voting for Hillary and 12% of men.

    Al Gore, although not officially on the ballot, was listed as an option for respondents to choose from on the poll, and came in a distant 2nd to Hillary. 15% of respondents who selected Al Gore did so due to his previous experience as Vice President and 8% of those who voted for Gore chose the environment as the reason he should be elected. “The image of the Arab World as the gas guzzling members of OPEC is changing, and the importance of the environment is beginning to take hold in the Region due to increased exposure to information on the internet and satellite television” said Tamara Deprez, Director of Maktoob Research.

    Barack Obama received 2% of the overall vote, putting him as the 3rd choice, with respondents favoring his minority status and focus on US domestic issues.

    Over half (55%) of the respondents who answered that they “did not care” who was elected President stated that the candidates were all the same regarding negative policy towards the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims, and supportive of Israel, with 24% of that group stating that they are not interested in American politics.

  5. Thanks, HG, that’s a very good article. Hillary’s travels as first lady served her very, very well. These were not just prefunctory state visits. I do believe that they were learning and speaking tours on her part. I’ve read some of her comments and reflections on her travels throughout the world, and it’s very obvious that she was establishing herself as an “ambassador” in a very positive way. –mollyj

  6. Did anybody notice Barack slight change in words. During his foreign policy speech, he said “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” But during the AFL-CIO Forum, he said that “If President Musharraf “”can’t”” act, we will. Won’t act is inferring that President Musharraf knows about terrorist activities, but is not willing to do anything about it. Cannot act is saying that Musharraf isn’t able to do anything for any reason.

  7. Molly,

    I agree with you completely. Hillary’s experience as First Lady and as US Senator from NY has allowed her to develop into a seasoned first rate diplomat. She will hit the ground running from day one in the diplomatic front. 🙂

  8. Yes, interesting that there have been so many versions and nuances now about what he would do. It just makes it all the more complicated. And again, each time a new, slightly different version comes out, it just makes it more difficult to truly understand what it is he’s saying or has said. –mollyj

  9. To change the subject, I read on, that
    Hillary will be at the Univision TV Debate in September.
    Hillary is leaving no stone unturned. She is running
    one great campaign. Watch and see if Obama joines
    with Dodd and Richardson.

  10. Senator BO seems to be really busy with the media this weekend. I’ve seen several headlines about saying “Hillary would be a great VP,” “I’m Right and She’s Wrong,” and last by not least, Hillary insults the gay community. You know I am a member of the LGBT community and I wish we could elect Hillary right now. What is with the attack campaigning? I realize he is desperate…which is a real reflection on who he is; but he is certainly not the man he tried to portray himself as early on. He’s attacking like a pit bull. Will this hurt or help Hillary? –mollyj

  11. Great article in SF Gate

    A pro-science President, what a concept!

    To All;
    There is so much good stuff about Hillary out there that it doesn’t make sense to me to focus mainly on bad stuff about her opposition. I see enough of that against Hillary from the Obama-nation, on MSNBC First Read and CNN Political Ticker etc., and do everything I can to refute it there as, “VanReuter”. You don’t have to hate Senator Obama to support Hillary.
    Remember, when all is said and done and Hillary is the nominee, that, as she has said, we need to unite the party to win the general election. Barack Obama will play a major role in the general election, first with his eventual endorsement of Hillary, then by campaigning for her.

  12. mollyrichards, I saw the same headline. Over 20 points down in the polls and he offers the vp slot to the front runner. Some people would call this chutspa (sp), but I think there is a better word for it : delusion.

    oakieattorney, did you see where good old Larry Tribe is pitching for Obama now. He has been hoping for an appointment to the Supreme Court for a generation, but this is hardly the way to get it.
    I assume they taught con law together at Harvard.

    admin, you have been right about Obama from the beginning. He has got to be right and he cannot stop digging.

  13. gosh, i am glad it’s not just me…but i am fit to be tied about it. We’ve had several moments in this campaign…like when Eliz. Edwards said her husband did more for women’s rights…where i just had to go, “did I hear that right?” BO is out of his everloving mind. THis negative campaigning worries the crap outta me though. mollyj

  14. Guys, you’re all off-base on this one. The man was answering a question and making light of it. Here is the whole quote;

    His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who spoke to the journalists Thursday, was the object of Obama’s wit at several points. Asked if he would consider her as a running mate, he said she would certainly be among those on the short list.


    Save your ire for the real mud-slinging that is sure to come as Obama’s campaign deflates. Wasting time on imagined slights, is just that, wasting time.

    Hillary has been asked the same question and has answered it in about the same way. They will both be getting asked that same question for the next couple of months, at least, and it is sure to be more than a hypothetical come convention time.

  15. Thanks for the clarification. There’s already plenty else to be riled up about. I am proud of Hillary for staying positive and running such a wonderful campaign. I am very disappointed in BO. I had hoped for and expected better. –mollyj

  16. mollyrichards, I think one of the things that is happening here is Saint Obama is killing his brand. Negative campaigning from the man who was going to change the nature of politics, talk about issue not personalities, rise above adhominum attacks. Turns out that he is just another Chicago pol, as Admin has pointed out so often. Meanwhile, something very different is happening with Hillary, and I think there is some magic to it. As she wins debate after debate against the greatest orator since Bryant (or maybe Jimmy Swagggert) not just political junkies like us, but more and more people who do not follow the political process as we do have come to see her as presidential. Ditto, as she goes around the country and meeting large groups of people bonds are formed, and seeing is believing. Finally, and this is true for any great leader in a democratic system–and that is what she is, the process also changes the candidate. What I saw in the last debate was someone who was warm, compassionate toward her audience, and really engaged. Billy Graham has reported that she has always been this way, but she has now learned to project it in a spontaneoue public forum as wel At the same time when the journalist tried to do a drive-by she properly called him to task on it. So what I think is that she gets stronger and stronger through this process, and her rivals get weaker. As Saint Obama descends into negative attacks, he is poses a greater threat to the party than to Hillary. I could be wrong, but that is what I am seeing.

  17. I just got the chance to dig out the lastest NJ poll. No suprise in primaries. However, Obama’s weakness in NJ really caught my eyes.

    without Bloomberg
    Clinton 47%
    Guiliani 44%

    Obama 43%
    Guiliani 45%

    with Bloomberg
    Clinton 39%
    Guiliani 35%

    Obama 34%
    Guiliani 35%

    This is on heels of the lastest polls in OH, FL and PA which showed Obama losing to Guiliani by 4 to 5 points, and Clinton beating or tieing with Guiliani in those states.

    Democratic party will be commiting political suicide if they nominate this loser.

  18. A real issue that will have to be defused is the lobbyist thing. The upcoming study from the watchdog group, “Public Citizen”, has news that may cause the Obama camp to delete this theme from their rhetoric. While the study DOES find that Hillary’s “HillRaisers”, include, “at least 16”, registered DC lobbyists, it also finds “at least 5”, registered DC lobbyists, “bundling”, for Mr. Clean. From the piece in Newsweek, “Periscope”, by Michael Isakoff;

    “The Public Citizen study also found that, despite their campaigns’ public disavowals, FIVE top Obama bundlers had been registered lobbyists, and one of Edwards’s major fund-raisers had run a lobbying firm. Both campaigns say none of these fund-raisers is currently registered to lobby.”

    Once the fact that EVERYONE probably has these Lobbyist ties is out there, it will be much harder to try and smear Hillary with this one any more.

    One more self-inflicted wound for those taking aim at Senator Clinton!

  19. Forgive me, Kostner, but are any of those totals in NJ outside the margin of error? 2, 3 or 4 points, in ANY poll, is statistically insignificant.
    If the margin of error is 3-4 pts., the totals you posted would constitute a virtual tie. I’m sorry, but that’s why I call myself, “TheRealist”.

    My gut tells me that Hillary would CRUSH rudy in N.J., in the general election, but I doubt that he’ll be there.

  20. TheRealist, that is the lobbyist information we have been waiting for, and it is hardly surprising. As for the vice president comment, this was a topic of discussion months back, and the tone was serious at that point. Also, you may want to take a look at the recent article by Susan Estrich which raises the possibility of an Clinton/Obams ticket if necessary to unite the party. That said, I am skeptical it will happen.

  21. TheRealist,
    When Hillary was asked the same question about VP – she said she still has a race to win. She wasn’t deluding herself that she will be the nominee!! So, there! This is no imagined thing – this is another instance that reveals the true colour of BO – the ignoramus!!

  22. wbboei,
    Even if Hillary offers BO graciously the position to unite the party – Obama who thinks he decended from heaven – will reject it! So, it may end up being a gesture she made. Good for her! Who would want to share the Presidency with such a creep!

  23. Secret-

    I’ll tell you what I tell the Obama-nation’s zealots; You do your candidate and your party a disservice when you talk like your competitor, who you will soon need as your ally, is your enemy. What kind of semantic gymnastics will you have to go through if Senator Obama winds up as Hillary’s running mate, or in her Cabinet? Do yourself a favor and concentrate on supporting Hillary, rather than demonizing the opposition. As Hillary says, “I’m not here to fight with Democrats…”
    Keep the faith, but save it for the Republicans…:)

  24. TheRealist,

    Thanks for the advice. I see your point. But, I am not a democrat. I am just a Hillary supporter.

    Let’s put it this way – I don’t dislike BO because I like Hillary. Even if there was no Hillary on the scene – I would still not have voted for him because there is a deep mistrust about a lot of his motives.

    Make no mistake I am no zealot!

  25. TheRealist,

    Like Secret, I’m only interested in Hillary. I have no interest in either Edwards or Obama. I simply don’t care whether a GOP or a democrat will win if Hillary does not get the nominee. Both Edwards and Obama’s lefty pie-in-sky rhetoric convinces me they will likely be another Jimmy Carter, which is not any better than George W. Bush, IMHO.

  26. Kostner,
    How refreshing to see another “Just Hillary supporter”
    There is no way I will vote for anyone other than Hillary among the current Democratic Candidates.
    But, I wouldn’t worry about Obama or Edward being elected to be another Jimmy Carter. They just won’t win if they are nominated. That will keep the Democrats happy for nominating a lefty who just can’t win GE. If not for Hillary they will never see a democrat in the White house!

  27. Well, while, “Politics makes strange bedfellows”, and “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”, (and I am sure I could trot out a couple of other aphorisms), I’ve got to say that is both surprising and disappointing.
    Of, course, as a realist, I appreciate your support, and respect your efforts. Let’s hope that with all of our efforts, there won’t be any need for you to find the need to turn, “Benedict Arnold”, and (perhaps inadvertently) support the true enemy here, the GOP. I’ve had enough of Naderites, and the like to last a lifetime.
    At least we are united in Hillary!

  28. TheRealist,

    While I appreciate your sentiments – If the ticket doesn’t have Hillary on it – I will not support Obama. To me – as an independent – Obama is the enemy not GOP.

    What will I do if BO becomes VP for Hillary which is highly unlikely – then I will point out to you “Politics makes strange bedfellows” and support her candidacy!

    But, if she is not there on the ticket – I will want Obama to loose the election and feel wrath of the democrats for not winning the office. Hopefully then he will realize he wasn’t ready and it was Hubris that lead to his downfall and the democrats will get a lesson or two about not nominating a winner [Hillary].

    But, that said – hopefully she will be the candidate for the party!
    Yes, in her we stand united!!
    Can’t wait for the day he falls. I will cheer!!

  29. TheRealist- I wish you luck in your effort to calm the partisan fires which are part and parcel of the primary process on all sides. There will come a time when the Bismark speech becomes appropriate, but now it is premature. The other candidates have made allegations which are hypocritical about our candidate, and statements on foreign policy which are dare I say it naive, and reverberate around the world. Thus, it is hardly surpising that people would react. This site has taken a leading role in connecting the dots, and has opened up an important dialogue among Hillary supporters. And because it is not connected to a campaign it has greater latitude to explore the implications. I dont make the ground rules here but it does seem to
    me that we are better off letting people say what is on their mind,
    with the caveat that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but
    not their own facts, as Joe Biden would say. If Obama was kidding
    about the vp comment, then your point on that one is well taken. By the way, do you believe he was kidding? As for the party, it will come together when the time comes, as more people understand what a great leader Hillary is, and take full account of the common enemy– the heirs to the misbegotten Bush legacy.

  30. As far as I am concerned – there is no need to evaluate who is the second choice – there is only one choice and that is Hillary in this race. All the talks about VP and the rest is irrelevant at this point. Now, the focus has to be in winning the nomination. Once that’s done then let’s look at who is competing with her for GE.

  31. I’m with Secret, there’s no second. Only Hillary!!

    Big news from GOP side, I long predicted Huckabee was going to be a dark horse. He grabbed a surprising 2nd spot in Iowa straw poll.

    GOPers are ALWAYS good at picking winner. I predict Huckabee is going to be very very electable. He is really charming.

    If the race comes down to Edwards/Obama vs. Huckabee, it’s going to be a landslide for GOP even George W. Bush’s era is such a disaster.

  32. UPDATE: Here’s another laugh riot: “AMES — The announcement of tonight’s straw poll results has been delayed due to what one informed source says was a voting machine malfunction. About 4,500 ballots had to be re-run. We are waiting….”

    2 interesting items:

    The first one from Robert Novak is typical for Novak in its deceptive simplicity.

    Here’s what Novak writes:

    “Democratic insiders who are not neutral in the presidential race do not take seriously the USA Today/Gallup poll of Democratic voters showing Sen. Hillary Clinton 23 percentage points ahead of Sen. Barack Obama. They contend national surveys are meaningless because outcomes of the early state contests are still critical.”

    Notice how these “Democratic insiders” are “not neutral” which means Novak is quoting opposition candidates who of course, because they are so far behind, will dispute the value of any poll they are not winning. Translated into english the sentence should read “The [select one or more – Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Gravel/Kucinich/Dodd/Biden/Richardson] campaign do not take seriously the USA/Today ….” Novak tries to fool his readers. Naughty, naughty Novak.

    The other story which is interesting is on a topic which we usually do not comment on – the Ripublican race. We will pivot to an examination of the Ripublican nominee when He is selected. All the Ripublican nominees are fatally flawed but there is one that is top of the polls right now which we cannot believe will ever get the nomination. Anyway, the story today about Rudy Giuliani is particularly devastating and we are reading it and filing it for future use. Take a look at it. Tough story.,barrett,77463,6.html/full

  33. kostner,
    Even I will vote for Huckabee of the race boils shown to Edwards/Obama vs. Huckabee!! So – normally GOP will win landslide!

    You are spot on about GOPers picking the winner. No wonder they always are successful in winning Presidency!!!

    Hope the democrats take a leaft out of them and learn to nominate a winner!!!

  34. He’s a super-schmuck (This works for both Novak AND Giuliani) It would be the perfect match-up for Hillary to go up against rudy, as the more exposure he gets, the more he EXPOSED he is! It would be a landslide! He is. (and I have PERSONAL knowledge on this) HATED by the uniformed services/first responders here in NYC, so the only thing he can run on, 9/11, will be the very thing that does him in. That would feel pretty good, after Kerry getting jobbed by the Bushies in ’04.

  35. Well….I watched the Iowa straw poll and if Huckabee came in second, I am not surprised. His talk was sincere and certainly BOLD.

    This is the ONLY guy from any party who wants the US to get off the Middle East oil within 10 yrs…not 30 yrs. Even some Dems are slower in this vision since they are still arguing about this in congress about an energy policy. He also talks about the House of Sauds a lot…why should we support them!

    And Huckabee talked about Jews dying while the Christians “did not do anything”….on a visit to Israel his young daugher telling him “why did’nt somebody do something”. Whatever your politics or religion, this guy said something that sounded very sincere and coming from the heart.

    His humility may be his ultimate success. If he does not go far and if Hillary gets into the Oval house, she would be well adviced to reach out to him and use him for some overseas assignment in our hope for peace. And if he does go far, I hope he also reaches out to the Dems and build a sense of unity. I feel he may be bridge builder…unlike some he does not to talk or self-promote about himself “being a uniter”. His actions would say a lot.

    While I do not mean to vote for him, I am impressed by him – in spite of his some of his beliefs in the social and religious areas. Of course Rove vs. Wade would go away under him, religious education may be back in schools and who know what else but then other things would also be worse! And I am not a religious person and I have been pro-choice for most of my life.

    And he is only 51….young enough for a long time……

    Huckabee appears as sincere and authentic as Kucinich.

  36. Hillary will be at the Univision event soon. Double up on interpretors for the event, you know for damn sure this would be the ideal location for a misinterpretation of her words as tomorrow’s headline.

    Aw, hell, bring you’re own trusted people as interpretors for the event.

    Desperate people out there needing a numbers boost. Cover all the security bases…


    Mrs. S.

  37. mp,
    Huckabee praised Hillary highly. He said she is very talented and as ready as anyone can be to become our President and he went on to say despite that he wouldn’t vote for her. But, he doesn’t underestimate her. He is from Arkansas too!

    Huckabee has the humility and charm that Obama lacks so badly!!!

  38. Well I do want a Dem in the White House – but I can’t get excited about any of the others. I noticed Huckabee in the last GOP debate, and thought he was the only one even taking a look at. The other guys are complete lunatics.

  39. Well – if Dems don’t nominate Hillary – then I don’t want to see any Dem anywhere near the white house!

  40. Secret,

    Huckabee is scarily good. His ideology is so far off mainstream, but his populism theme makes you feel he is so authentic, humble, folksy and charming.

    Compared to Huckabee, I found both Edwards and Obama are purely fake. All those ‘hope’, ‘change’ talk is just so cheap.

    I really believe Huckabee is a real threat even for Hillary. The other GOPers will likely be crushed by Hillary in a heartbeat.

  41. Another observation.

    I guess people do pay attention to debates, which is great news to Hillary. Huckabee has no money, no ads, no bus, but just because of his superb debate performance, people did start to pay attention to him.

    There are two good debaters Hillary and Huckabee coming out of the pack. I hope Hillary will add more humor, emotions to her future debates, and she will be even better received. She can definitely do it!

  42. Kostner,
    Yes I realize that Huckabee will be a real competition to Hillary if they are the respective nominees of their party. We will see it when it comes to that. At present let’s fight the phonies like Obama and Edwards.
    Of course Obama and Edwards don’t stand a chance to Huckabee!!
    If Hillary is Dem’s nominee – I would hope Republicans will not nominate Huckabee as he is ideology is far off mainstream. Well my hopes are so self-serving isn’t it!!
    Yes, while we keep an eye on Huckabee – we will just look for the primaries and see what happens from then on Kostner. I am sure Hillary can show more emotions and be at ease and win more people by turning on her charm offensive. She really can do it!!!

  43. I agree. Hillary is so solid on issues, there’ no worry there. She just needs to turn on her charm offensive even more! Her favorables are improving in key swing states.

    I especially like how she delt with that wingnut on healthcare debate, the way she connected with gay community in the debate. She is an authentic populist who does care about people. If she shows this side even more in future debates, I think she’s unstoppable.

  44. Kostner,
    I think she showed the empathy on Gay debate because – she had someone confront her headon and she knew how to tactfully answer while connecting to the group. So, the more challenges she will face the stronger she will evolve! So, I am all for it! She certainly can rise to the occasion. Meanwhile I cannot stand the prospects of these leftist nuts nominating some loser like Obama or Edward!!

    Kostner – I don’t know if you watched a clip where Hillary is asked abt another Elizabeth Edward’s little comment and how she handled it. She was so focused – I was so impressed. It is in and you need to look at a clip called “Hillary answers EE”
    check that out you will like it!

  45. Hey guys, I know you are excited about Hillary, but you are going to turn off alot of Dem’s by talking up Huckabee, myself included.

  46. mj,
    This is a Hillary specific website – I believe Hillary supporters will be able to handle us analysing/discussing who might be a prospective threat to her.

    I stick to my guns that I will back Huckabee anyday to losers such as Obama or Edward! They both are phony as hell!! Even Huckabee is more earnest compared to Obama bunch!

    Neverthless our only Choice is Hillary. We said in case the nut case leftist fail to nominate her – then we won’t vote for Obama/Edward loser!

    Molly – now don’t you think that’s fair?

  47. Hi all,

    Let’s just be united in helping promote Hillary’s message. That’s our common ground. Let’s worry about Huckabee later. LOL. Even he’s impressive, I think the chance of GOP nominating him is pretty slim. Their corporation wing will not provide money and resources to an anti corporation populist.

  48. Honestly, this was an EXCELLENT BLOG JOURNAL that helped me to piece together the complexities of foreign policy in PAKISTAN that I had not previously understood.

    I could never vote for OBAMA. To me, it seems like, with his inexperience, we would be heading for World War 3.

    OBAMA is a DEMOCRAT. He is one of our own, in spite of the fact that we are angry that he is running against “our girl.” He is currently reinforcing the stereotype that DEMOCRATS are WEAK in terms of FOREIGN POLICY. This is much more serious than just the 2008 campaign. He is doing damage to our entire party.

    I wish that HOWARD DEAN, or HARRY REID or NANCY PELOSI would sit down with him and have a person to person talk about the implications of what he is doing.

    It appears to be quite dangerous.


    ADMIN, thanks for posting my comments about the other night!! I am still giddy from the whole night!!! It was so much fun!

  49. Hey y’all, Well let’s just stay focused on what we can do to help Hill win the nomination. I mean I would go to door for her. I would even join a telephone bank, which I generally can’t do cause i get so mad at people. I can find out plenty about Mike Huck. when and if the time comes, but poor Mike, from what I know. He has populist appeal perhaps but he’s what we Arkansans call a real southern baptist. And well, he’s not the brightest star in the sky. I think he would probably drop over dead if he had to actually debate Hillary. I don’t know what it is in my home state that breeds politicians and good ones at that. I grew up with politics. I am what you call a yellow dog, but Obama’s arrogance (i actually think it is sexism) is just so oft putting. I would have a real struggle if Hillary didn’t win the nomination. I would almost go knock on Al Gore’s front door and ask him to come help the party. So let’s us wonks and wonkettes not get too carried away here. Let’s focus on the now. I do believe Hillary is 44 but we are all going to have to do what we can do…and hang in there, because I don’t think BO and JE are going to go gently in that good night. JE is running for his own reasons; BO seems totally ego driven at this point. Hillary will have obstacles put in her way, and it’s going to take everybody’s best to stay on the high ground. Go team go! I am so glad I have a place to really talk turkey — mollly j

  50. Hey Sandy, I enjoyed your report the other night. So much. Particularly on the Abbey happenings. I would have given up a tooth to be there. I completely 100% agree with you about Obama. It is reflecting badly on the party and it would be great if party leaders could talk with him. He is just not ready. And the real shame is that he might be an extremely strong candidate someday…but he’s not now. Don’t people realize that this is an incredibly important election. I mean, the world is in a mess. We have incredibly difficult problems that we have got to get to work on, and we don’t have time to break in somebody who really doesn’t know how to handle himself or manage his campaign. We absolutely have to have the very best. As I said before, in my opinion, in my lifetime there has never been somebody as ready to be President as Hillary is right now. –molly j

  51. Hi All – Yes we all agree that we stand united on Hillary! Let’s put the prospect of BO or JE being nominated aside. I think that makes everyone bitter. Let’s work together and do what we can to help her win the nomination and the GE.

    Just a little note about Obama
    He was asked on Jan about Hillary and he said with a contempt and superior tone that he thinks he is interesting [as if she is weird] you know what I mean? MJ – you may be right. He may be a sexist.

    Anyways – let’s focus on Hillary [sorry for the distraction you guys]

  52. Molly,
    Yes, love your state – it breeds politicans like no other! And as you say very good ones at that. Charming people!!

  53. It is a small but diverse and extremely complicated state. I can’t even begin to understand it. I haven’t lived there in over 30 years–got family back there. There is a real value some people place on helping others, being in service, and humility. I remember when Bill won the first time. He’d only been in office a few weeks when he was in front of the press talkin’ about the world would be a better place if we all just practiced some basic human civility. That was Arkansas 100%. I expect that Mike H. is just as authentic as they come and I am sure that he speaks from his heart. I would imagine that he has a lot of the qualities that attracted people to BIll. I do think when Hillary is 44 she will reach out far and wide to people to build coalitions. And she’ll reach right across the aisle and find good people who are well qualified. –molly j.

  54. Molly,
    Thanks for overview on Arkansas and its people and their attitude. No wonder when politicians who come from there get a national stage and speak – people get so attarcted because they see them being authentic, wanting to help others, being in service and their humility comes across plus they are very charming people. So many from your state. Not everyone made it as big as Bill did but still – Gosh how I love that phrase when he said “I believe in a place called Hope”. Wasn’t that nice!! Oh I am sure once Hillary is the president she will reach out. She certainly will be the president for everyone.

  55. BREAKING: Hillary is winning Iowa straw polls!!

    I just read some tidbits from redstate, a conservative blog. Very interesting read, don’t put too much stock in this though.

    I left Ames this morning to avoid the near doubling of the population with 375 tour buses full of republicans pulling into our small town.

    Headed instead to Des Moines – the state fair, where the REAL poll was happening. The Iowa Seed Corn Poll. It goes like this: Anyone who cares can take a single kernel of corn and drop it through the hole in the top of the mason jar representing the candidate.

    Its a good poll – only those who care bother to step up and vote. Each jar is clearly labeled and with a photo of the candidate. And a huge cross section of the population is represented.

    The final result won’t be known till the fair is over next week. But if what I saw so far (after just 2 days of “voting”) is representative, the only real contest is who will win the democratic nomination.

    All 3 front runner Republicans combined didn’t equal the number of votes for Hillary alone. For the Republicans Mitt was leading with 1017 votes, Giuliani was 2nd with a mere 383 and F. Thompson was close behind with 363.

    On the Democratic side however, Hillary had 1319, Edwards 1003 and Obama had 896. Democratic total was 3218 compared to the Republican total of 1763.

    While Democrats are starting to bunch up behind the top 3 (and Richardson was also showing well)the Republicans seem to be pretty spread out. Huckabee was just edging out Brownback, both were right behind Giuliani, McCain and Paul seemed to be tied and neither dong well. Tancredo was pretty well represented too.

    All in all, the corn seed poll may be a better representation of how things really look in Iowa right now.

    James – I thought about that, but the attendees at the fair come from all over the state, and the numbers are huge, off-setting any impact from those attending the straw poll. Most at the straw poll only came for a small part of the day, so could have easily attended the far as well, maybe even more likely to do so since they were in the neighborhood anyway.

    I also read it has proven very reliable in the past – don’t know this for sure though. I do know that many older males were hurrying past to get to the erotic corn dog eating contest – that may have skewed the results a bit 🙂

  56. hi hillfans, i took a long nap and woke up to a spirited discussion on the nomination. i respect everyone’s view on this. let’s MAKE SURE hillary is our nominee so we can’t make those dreaded choices. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!

  57. you know im a little glad dems do not have a straw poll in iowa. i can see obama and edwards stacking the deck by buying votes there like romney.

  58. Huckabee- He’s at 2% in the polls, which means he’s potentially zero, based on the standard margin of error, has raised 1.3mil, has LESS than 1/2 mil. on hand. Hand to mouth is more like it. Here is what Mike STANDS for:
    On the Issues
    Opposes abortion rights. Immigration
    Supports Bush-backed immigration plan that provides a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Believes some Republican plans to deport illegal immigrants are “unworkable.” Iraq
    Has offered qualified support for Bush Iraq policy, saying the president has access to military and diplomatic information that is not publicly available. Opposes congressional resolutions that express opposition to the president’s plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Opposes proposals to cut funding for the war. Same-sex marriage
    Opposes same-sex marriage. Social Security
    Supports Bush plan allowing workers to divert some Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. Taxes
    Supports a “FairTax” plan.

  59. guys i have a question. do you find yourself once people find out your a hillary supporter(i wear my hillary button in public all the time) so you find yourself defending hillary like a trial blood relative? lordy things like” anybody but her!!!” or “the country is not ready for a woman” and then the classic bs”her husband cheated and lied”. like she is responsible for bill’s behavoir. i simply respond “people who say those silly statements wont vote for a dem anyway or woman anyway”. that is allways met by silence becuase it is true. there are at least 40 to 48 percent that will vote agains ANY democrat no matter what so i don’t take them seriously.

  60. Terrondt,
    It is rather brave of you to be wearing hillary’s button in public! Good on you! Because Hillary mostly has closet supporters who are secretive! Don’t know why! But, you are right they always attack the moment you say – you support Hillary! But, I would not rationalize with them as you say – no point as they will not vote for her anyway!

  61. TheRealist – We have decided to pass Huckabee for the moment and focus our energy on Hillary and making her the candidate. No one spoke of Huckabee as a choice when Hillary is nominated.
    We were simply comparing Obama to Huckabee and we thought – in sincerity, charm, wit – Huckabee comes across better.
    Neverthless – let’s get back to Hillary and make sure she is the candidate!!!



  63. thanks secret and sandy for your comments. i have my hillary rally sign in my window at home. since i rent i do not have a rally sign on the front lawn, but come next january before my state primary in feb. 5th in connecticuit i will ask my landlord for permission to put one there. last year he permitted me to display my lamont for us senate sign in front. lol, i think he is a bloomberg supporter. that’s what i think he told my wife anyway.

  64. by the way guys i do really think bloomberg is really going to make a run for it next year. i have no fear at all at the idea becuase it will make it all the more easier for a much better electoral college victory for hillary. hillary will be able to fish for electoral votes in the south and other states in a 3 way race that eluded gore in 2000 and kerry in 2004. i rather her win by 330 to 350 electoral votes rather than 271 to 284 electoral votes. less chance of funny buisness by the rebugs.

  65. Hey all

    Has anyone got a youtube video of Gavid Newsom endorsing Hillary in SF?? I have been searching for that since like yesterday. I want to send that to a lot of independent undecided voters in SF bay area. So, if anyone finds that clip could you please post the link here? Thank you

  66. terrondt,
    How come you are up early today? Did you work last night? Yes, I think Bloomberg may split Repub electoral college votes. Good if he runs. But, has to wait until a Republican candidate arrives on the scene.

  67. SECRET,

    It was a BLAST!!!! My friend and I are still talking about it! I did not expect to have that much fun!! Honestly, all the people there were just like us!! They had the same values and priorities as we do here on this site! My only regret is that it is over!!! I hope she comes back here again!

  68. im jealous of sandy being there and not me. kidding offcourse. too bad you did not get a close pic with future prez.

  69. Sandy,
    Did you have a chance to spread a word about this site? May be get in some new people to visit as well.

  70. Sandy & Terrondt,
    As I watched couple of clips – it seemed like she was engulfed by the crowd. It would have been impossible to get a photo op near her. Neverthless – I am so pleased you went for the event. The mood was so upbeat – I heard. One of my friends went there and she still cannot stop talking about it!!

  71. i serf the web for my political, sports, and other current events. i check the other bloggs , newsites and watch stream news form around the world on my broadband pc connection. imsomniac to say the im from east hartford, ct. born and raised in bridgeport, ct.

  72. i have too leave soon becuase it is laundry day. my sleepy head wife is still out for the count but i will get the coffee going so she can smell it and get

  73. Howdy folks, Did somebody ask about a film clip of Hillary talking after she got Newsome’s endorsement? It’s raw video and it’s very good. I will copy the link. I can’t remember where I found it. molly j

    so nice to see everybody up and chipper today. I wore my pink button last night to the happy hippie fest here in our community. Nobody said anything. But I am going to be more visible from now on. This has been a state where naderites have gotten a percentage in the past.

  74. Clinton’s experience is a plus, not minus

    Diane Leonard wrote an interesting letter to the editor (“Obama Is Better Pick,” Aug. 1). Some of reasons that she is not supporting Hillary Clinton are reasons I am supporting her. We know some of the negatives that have been thrown out about Clinton and it is all old news.

    Hillary Clinton can stand on her own two feet. I am sure that she will ask her husband for advice when she feel it is necessary – after all, doesn’t everyone that is married ask for advice from a spouse? When she is elected president, we Americans should be grateful that she will have first-hand advice from her husband.

    With all the experience she has had by being the first lady, she can step into the presidential role tomorrow. I think the American people deserve a president that has that kind of experience. She has the poise and grace to portray the greatness and goodness of this country.

    Maybe Obama is a fresh face but there is no substitute for experience. That is why I am standing tall for Hillary Clinton in my precinct caucus.

    – Gary Schmidt,

  75. From today’s LA Times,,1,3547317.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo

    Depends on your definition of lobbyist

    Keeping true to his pledge not to take campaign funds from federal lobbyists, Barack Obama was raising bundles of money today way out in Sacramento, where, everybody knows, there are surely no lobbyists. Not unless you count the 1,032 registered California lobbyists who billed their clients $77.9 million in the first half of this year, according to The Times’ Dan Morain.

    Obama and John Edwards have been very critical of Hillary Clinton, and Obama wagged his finger at her at a Chicago forum for accepting campaign donations from lobbyists in Washington. She says they can represent “real Americans.” Obama maintains lobbyist donations create special influence, which he says he is really, really against.

    But apparently state lobbyists are something different because, everyone knows, none of them can have any connections in Washington. And, Obama claims, he would have no influence in Sacramento as president, no influence unless you include, say, holding executive authority over the Department of the Interior, which has final approval over all state gambling compacts with Indian tribes.

    “It’s not perfect,” Obama explained to reporters. “I still have to raise money.”

    Hosts for Obama’s fundraiser included former controller and failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly, who sent letters to the capital lobby corps inviting them to “an intimate fundraiser” for Obama. The cost: $1,000 for the lunch, $2,300 for lunch and reception.

    California lobbyists aren’t in the habit of donating to candidates. State law bars them from contributing to state lawmakers. That suits them fine. Of course, no law bars them from urging clients to donate, and they regularly do that and, you’ll be surprised to learn, the clients readily respond with donations.”

    The hypocracy of Obama and Edwards on this issue is now getting as much press, if not more, than the original attack on Hillary. People who live in glss houses…

  76. And from today’s, a great piece on why Hillary is the, “…only one who has managed to come across as a strong commander in chief,”

    “Because she is a Democrat and the first serious female contender for the presidency in a time of war, convincing voters that she can be trusted with the nation’s security is one of her biggest hurdles.
    The New York senator seems to have won this trust, helping her jump to the front of the Democratic pack.
    In several national polls and in Iowa, the first caucus state, she is the Democrat who most likely primary voters say is the “strongest leader,” a term generally seen as encompassing defense know-how. And a New York Times/CBS News poll of Republicans as well as Democrats last month found that 58 percent of respondents thought it was somewhat or very likely that she would be an effective commander in chief.
    Clinton came into the campaign with some advantages in foreign policy, including eight years of globe-hopping and meetings with world leaders as the wife of a president. But the extent to which she is seen among voters as a credible commander in chief has surprised many campaign observers, given how much other women in American politics have struggled to be taken seriously on military and foreign policy issues.
    “It is amazing to many of us, in a year where being commander in chief is the most important issue, that the sole woman is actually the only one who has managed to come across as a strong commander in chief,” said Elaine Kamarck, a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government who worked in the Clinton White House and advised Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, but has not decided whom to support in the 2008 race.”

  77. thanks paula. we have to give as good as we take form the haters from the right and extreme left wing nutroots.

  78. Washingtonpost just puts out a hit piece on Hillary. The article uses the same old ‘she’s too polarized, she’s so hated’ rhetoric. I am just disgusted by those democrats who stab in her back. They are a bunch of disgusting human beings!

  79. Today, on This Week with George Stephanopolous (sp?), during the roundtable discussion, George mentioned that BO had a “Michael Dukakis moment” in Iowa in the last few days on the subject of “arugula”? Does anyone know what incident he was referring to?

    I guess Howard Stern is a Hillary Hater. My husband’s godson was visiting last night and he brought up Stern because of the Hillary bumperstickers on our car. He said that Stern had called The Next President of the United States a flip-flopper and other things. BTW, my husband handled it brilliantly (he always does). He said that not changing one’s mind ever, like Bush, is a sign of weakness and a thick head (my words, not his), and that changing one’s mind in response to changing or different circumstances shows that the person is paying attention. He didn’t even address the issue that Hillary allegedly flip-flopped about. His godson had absolutely no comeback. Like I said, my husband is brilliant!

  80. Found it. Yeah, it’s a hatchet-job all right, but it’s actually from the AP and picked up by the Post. There is at least one story per week on this, “theme”. they always front-load the negatives, and bury anything positive deep in the article, like this;
    “”She’s got a tough road to hoe because people have formed opinions of her,” said Rep. Tim Mahoney, a freshman Democrat from Florida. “But I can and will tell you that when I see Hillary get out there with the public, she changes people’s minds. She’s not the stereotype that people know her to be.”
    Yes, she does. They will be pushing this theme until election day, after which, we’ll see dozens of stories about how wrong they were

    Clinton a Drag? Dems Fear Her Negatives


  81. TheRealist,

    The author cherry picked her favorables/unfavorables #s. There’s no doubt she has higher negativity than those unknown, but that’s not going to be deciding factor. The lastest NJ poll shows Rudy’s 70s favorable rating coming down to 50 in NJ.

    Hillary’s favorables have improved to 44:37 in the lastest NBC/WSJ poll, which is absolutely manageable for a lady who’s been attacked for over 15 years.

    The latest Q-polls also showed her favorables improved dramatically in those states.

    FL OH PA
    – Hillary Clinton
    Favorable 50% 49% 51%
    Unfavorable 42 41 40

    The pollster commented it’s quite impressive that Hillary’s favorables cracking 50 points for the first time. Obama and Edwards’ favorables are mired in low 40s.

    That particular article picked up one Gallup poll and an ‘internal CO’ poll with no sources. This is disgusting.

  82. Regarding Arugula and Obama, we slightly referred to this back on July 27. This is what we wrote in that article which was mainly about the “preconditions” debate:

    “Today, after flopping then flipping out, Obama has officially flipped and flopped on the “preconditions” question and we have our final answer from Obama himself (in an appearance that demonstrates he knows little about agriculture too):”

    As it turned out that was not Obama’s final answer becaused he flopped yet again the next day. The Arugula issue came up in a New York Times article called “Down on the Farm” in which Obama showed how little he knows about agriculture. It’s very funny that he sought to connect with Iowa farmers by citing the high prices he pays for arugula at the Chicago Whole Foods. Here is the New York Times:

    “Again, the crowd applauded and laughed. One line that landed a little flat, though, was when Mr. Obama sympathetically noted that farmers have not seen an increase in prices for their crops, despite a rise in prices at the supermarket.

    “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the senator said. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

    The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market. The closest? Omaha, Minneapolis or Kansas City.”

  83. kostner, What’s an “internal CO” poll?

    BTW, I firmly believe her negatives will come when she wins the nomination because 1) The country will finally get to see how she really is, and 2) the Repub attacks on her will be so over-the-top it’ll cause a backlash.

    Her current negatives are the only strike against her at the moment, so the MSM is playing that up, naturally.

  84. Also, when they ask people if they have a strongly unfavorable impression of her or a somewhat unfavorable impression, the first category is about 30 percent and the second 15 or so. If she can shrink that second group a bit and get her unfavorables to 40 percent overall, she’ll be in pretty good shape.

  85. The Ap Hatchet-job is ALL OVER the web.
    This may be a case of taking lemons and making lemonade. Because Hillary is so far from the cold, scripted, shrill, stereotyping, and because she has so obviously begun to, ‘blossom”, on the campaign trail and in the forums/debates, she benefits, in the way Bush did in 2000, from the contrast between what people were told and what they saw for themselves.
    Bush was depicted as so inarticulate and uninformed, and so likely to be humiliated in any debate with Al Gore, that by simply showing up and not falling off his chair, he gained in stature and in the polls.
    When people get to see the real Hillary, and the way she turns those stereotypes on their head; Warm, personable, funny, passionate, she wins hearts and minds, and also gains in the polls.

    Here is something I posted elsewhere on Friday, Based on the Latest Rasmussen Reports, Favorable/Unfavorable ratings.
    The interesting thing here is the inter-party numbers and the total favorable/unfavorable. while Clinton’s 50-48% totals are static, as almost everyone already has an opinion about her, as Obama has become more well known to the voters, his negatives have gone up. His favorable numbers were near sixty-percent in May (58%), but now his favorable/unfavorable totals are beginning to resemble Hillary’s, at, 48-42%. Note that his favorable has dropped below 50% (and below Senator Clinton) representing a new low and his negatives are above 40% for the past 3 weeks. The fav/unfav numbers are probably to be expected as more people become aware of Obama, the more they develop an opinion one way or the other.
    Despite the rhetoric, Clinton is seen VERY favorably by those within her party, with only 20% seeing her unfavorably. While that isn’t shocking, it is surprising, and bodes well for her ability to have a united party behind her candidacy if she is the nominee.

    “In the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts support from 40% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Illinois Senator Barack Obama is the top choice for 27%. Clinton’s lead, still significant, is smaller than it was a week ago (see daily numbers). Support for the former First Lady has eased a bit and Obama has regained some lost ground ever since Clinton made controversial comments defending lobbyists. Just 24% of voters believe that Clinton would not be influenced by lobbyists and just 19% believe their interests are represented by a Washington lobbyist.

    Still, Clinton remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats. Seventy-nine percent (79%) offer a favorable opinion of her including 39% with a Very Favorable opinion. Within her own Party, just 20% have an unfavorable opinion. For Obama, the reviews are solid, but not as spectacular—66% favorable and 23% unfavorable. Matching Clinton, Obama is now viewed Very Favorably by 39% of Democratic voters. For Clinton, these reviews are little changed from a week ago. For Obama, the number with an unfavorable opinion has declined somewhat.

    Among all voters, Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. Views of Clinton have remained evenly divided all year.

    For Obama, the current numbers among all voters are 48% favorable and 42% unfavorable. This is the second survey in a row where Obama’s favorable rating has been below 50%. Prior to these surveys, it had been above 50% all year, peaking at 58% in May. This is also the third consecutive weekly survey in which Obama’s unfavorables have topped 40%. Prior to the past three weeks, that had happened only once in all of 2008.”

  86. admin,

    What I like about the MSNBC account of the arugula story, is that after Obama made the reference to Whole Foods and arugula, Beverly Van Fossen, who is 74 and owns the farm that Obama was standing on when he made his comment, said:

    “Someone near me whispered, ‘What’s arugula? You can’t find that in Iowa’.”

    OUCH !

  87. Paula an “internal” poll is a poll which is not made public. Usually candidates will commission polls to explore certain issues or strategems. The results of these polls are kept secret and are for “internal” campaign consumption only. An “internal CO” poll would be a poll not released to the public regarding Colorado.

    As to the noise about electability or not we wrote Texas Tough, Hillary Can’t Win, and Hillary Can’t Win Again refuting the electability narrative Big Media and Hillary opponents keep exhuming. The point to keep in mind in all these stories saying Hillary can’t win is that what will truly rally the Ripublican opposition is a weak Dem candidate. All Dem presidential candidates will have their negatives driven up by negative campaign attacks. The Ripublicans have thrown all the dirt they have on Hillary for the past 3 decades and still can’t beat her.

    The hapless Edwards or Obama at the top of the Dem ticket would rally the Ripublicans and lead to defeat everywhere. These guys can’t run a campaign and they would run the Dem Party into the ground.

  88. Joe Friday: What has to really have the Obama campaign in a panic is the very existence of the story you cite on MSNBC. Note: the story we cited was from the New York Times back in July 27. That story occurred in the middle of the “preconditions” fight so the arugula story was ignored.

    The arugula story has been resurrected now in mid August. This means that stories the Obama campaign hoped were ignored or dead are going to make a comeback. In a sense Obama lucked out because a lot of his gaffes occurred in the summer at the same time as other stories took the headlines.

    The “Arugula” story and its return means that Obama faces rerun stories in the fall about his “preconditions” gaffe and his Pakistan gaffes.

    Poor Ms Van Fossen having to put up with Obama.

  89. admin,

    What’s the ‘arugula’ story? any recent link?

    BTW, politico has a frontpage story:
    ‘Edwards daughter received Murdoph money’.

    It is devastating.

  90. Joe Friday and admin,

    Thanks so much for the links. I read both accounts. The incident itself is good for a big laugh!

    So, it actually happened in late July (on or before the 27th) and when it was reported at the time, it was a side-note because the big debate then was the “preconditions” issue. Now that the “preconditions” debate has subsided a bit, the arugula gaffe is being resurrected. The MSNBC article is dated the week of August 20-27, 2007. George Stephanopoulos (on ABC) mentioned it this morning. BO’s remark is deja vu to Dukakis’ “belgian endive” comment. This is prime material for late-night comedians.

    BO is racking up Republican attack points like crazy!

  91. Here’s a story Today’s Washington Post that while, somewhat favorable to Obama, that echoes many themes that will be on display in, Obama, From Promise to Power” by David Mendell. I have excerpted the sections that point out some less than great aspects of his personality, shine a light on his all consuming ambition, and expose some of the lies he told in his own self-penned bios.

    This book deals with the overarching ambition and other personality flaws mostly overlooked in the media’s love affair with Obama.
    Finally! A book about him that he didn’t write HIMSELF! I ordered mine.

    A Series of Fortunate Events
    By Liza Mundy
    Sunday, August 12, 2007

    “And then there’s ambition — a given in any presidential candidate, but worth pointing out because Obama works hard to dispel the image of having sought his superstar status. “It’s not about me, it’s about you,” he likes to tell his crowds. But according to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. “It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics,” says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell.

    “There’s a central conundrum about him,” says another Harvard classmate, Brad Berenson. “On the one hand, he’s this laid-back guy from Hawaii. On the other hand, he’s vaulted himself into the race for president of the United States. And that doesn’t happen by accident.

    “That was the most race-conscious time of my life,” says Christine Spurell, who, as an African American, found it a “very charged, very hostile atmosphere.” She participated in protests calling for more black women faculty members, whereas Obama — who speaks in favor of affirmative action in his second book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, but dislikes conflict and confrontation — was not the type to mount the barricades. “He wasn’t out there going to the mat on any issue,” says Spurell, who recalls that she and Obama argued incessantly, like siblings. “I would say he had all your standard liberal views in law school, but he did not shout them from the rooftops.”

    Abner Mikva, a Chicago lawyer and former congressman who was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, made an inquiry. When word came back that Obama was not interested, Mikva assumed he wanted to clerk for a black judge. But Obama simply didn’t want to clerk at all. Instead, he wrote his memoir, took a job with Judson Miner’s civil rights practice, worked on a voter registration drive and began making political contacts.

    “I think he saw himself with a political career even before I knew him,” says Newton Minow, who had heard about Obama from his daughter Martha and met him the summer Obama worked at Sidley Austin. “He was at the firm for only one summer, and when we offered him a job to come back, he came in to see me and told me he was going to go into politics. I think he had that in mind very early.”

    “He said, ‘I think I’d like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,'” recalls Robinson, who assumed Obama meant he’d like to run for city alderman. “He said no — at some point he’d like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, ‘Possibly even run for president at some point.’ And I was like, ‘Okay, but don’t say that to my Aunt Gracie.’ I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him.”

    There were several contenders in the special election to replace him, including Alice Palmer, a progressive state senator who represented Hyde Park and urged Obama to run for her state Senate seat. But when Jesse Jackson Jr. won the primary, Palmer decided she wanted her old job back. Obama did not step aside. More than that, according to the Chicago Tribune, when Obama’s staffers looked at the petitions she’d hastily garnered, they saw irregularities and challenged them before the board of elections. Then, noting irregularities in the petitions of his other primary opponents, Obama knocked them all out of the race. He went on to win and was sworn into the state Senate in January 1997, and started commuting to Springfield.

    His ambition, now, was as visible as a radio tower. Invited by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam to participate in the Saguaro Seminar, a network of thinkers who met around the country to discuss community issues, Obama talked so openly about his political future that the group began referring to him, teasingly, as “Governor.”

    “He was transparently and lovably ambitious,” says Putnam, author of a seminal work on the withering of community in American life, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. “He was always talking about running for office and the importance of being in politics.”

    Not everybody liked him; one Senate colleague described him as so ambitious that given the chance, he’d run for “king of the world.”

    After just a few years, Obama was talking about running for Congress, and thought he saw an opportunity. In 1999, black congressman Bobby Rush had challenged Richard M. Daley for mayor, and lost. Obama conducted a poll, says then-campaign manager Dan Shomon, and it suggested that some voters, particularly white ones, were looking for an alternative to Rush. “I was a little bit questioning about whether Rush was vulnerable at all, but Barack was sure that he was,” Mikva says.

    He did not take his drubbing well. “He is not a good loser,” says Shomon. Obama acknowledges this: “Losing’s always miserable.”

    So miserable, that when Mikva met with Obama, he found him unusually dispirited. “That was the one time he semi-seriously thought about giving up politics. He was frustrated; he had been [in the state Senate] for four years; the pay is very modest. It seemed that whatever his ambitions were, there wasn’t going to be a channel for them.”

    Hull’s presence, while formidable, did two things to help Obama. First, it increased the likelihood that the white vote would split between Hynes and Hull. Second, it enabled Obama to raise much more money than he otherwise could have. The newly passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law contained a “millionaire’s amendment.” In a race against a wealthy opponent who is financing his own campaign, a candidate is permitted to raise significantly more than the normal limit. In this case, Obama could raise $12,000 from each donor instead of $2,000.

    “This was a huge advantage; it just made a huge difference,” says Mikva. “I gave him more money than I’ve ever given anyone in my life.”

    In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays it as a total surprise when Cahill called to invite him to deliver the keynote. “The process by which I was selected as the keynote speaker remains something of a mystery to me,” he writes, saying that after he received the call in his car, he marveled to his driver, “I guess this is pretty big.”

    This seems disingenuous. “There is no doubt that that call was expected,” says Michael Duga, chief of staff to former senator Max Cleland, who also was involved in the planning. Axelrod doesn’t dispute this: “We heard shortly before he got the call that he was likely to get it.” So, he acknowledges, “we did get a little bit of a heads-up.”

    the Illinois Republican Party, having taken more than a month to find a replacement for Jack Ryan, had the extraordinary bad sense to import Alan Keyes, a loose cannon and perennial candidate from Maryland. Obama won with 70 percent of the vote. “You’d have to be appointed to get an easier ride than that,” says Cook. “How many people get elected to the U.S. Senate without having a single negative ad run against them?” Ron Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, agrees. “You could argue that if the Republicans had had a viable candidate, there would be no Barack.”

    when people hear the name “Barack Obama,” the words that come to mind are “new,” “young,” “charismatic” and “smart.”

    Then again, “inexperienced” is another word that comes to mind. Kohut’s polls show that the second thing voters want is competence, and they see this in Hillary Clinton more than Obama.”

    If you want to read the whole article, here’s the link;

  92. Admin,

    You recently posed the question, “What is left of the opposition to Hillary?”.

    Well, you don’t have to wait for the Switboating to start, as the “So Called Liberal Media” was in rare form today.

    On this morning’s Meet the Press, David Gregory, Margaret Carlson, Michael Duffy, Chuck Todd and Byron York, all tried to claim that Senator Clinton was being hypocritical because they claim she previously took the same position that Senator Obama did in regards to the non-use of nuclear weapons.

    Gregory cited a NYTimes report from April of 2006:


    “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton , who has criticized Senator Barak Obama for saying he would rule out using nuclear weapons to root out terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, made a similar comment regarding Iran last year, before she became a presidential candidate. ‘I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,’ Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television…”

    * The first problem is that both Jeff Zeleny, who wrote the NYTimes piece, and David Gregory who splashed it up on the screen during MTP, OMITTED the rest of Senator Clinton’s statement. She began her response to the question with:

    “No option should be off the table”.

    Only then, and in regards to the Bushie administration’s failed foreign policies, in this instance concerning Iran, she went on to say:

    “But I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”

    * The second problem with their supposed ‘gotcha’, is that Senator Clinton’s criticism of Senator Obama was in regards to a potential president, a presidential candidate, when she stated:

    “Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. … I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

    In April of 2006, Senator Clinton was not a candidate for president.

  93. MJ I am with you…I love Hillary AND I am also a Died in the Wool Dem – I think Huckabee looks like the GOP’s better candidate, but I have never and will never vote for a GOP candidate. Ever. Ok – I’ve said my peace….moving on.

  94. I’m reprinting a post I read on CNN’s Political Ticker, on the AP, “Drag”, story. I think you’ll all enjoy it.

    “Before the end of her first Senate term, 49 Republican Senators had authored and co-sponsored legislation with Hillary Clinton. She now counts as friends many of the conservatives that in the 90s had all but called her a murderer and a thief. Clearly, if Hillary can change the minds of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, then she can change the minds of independent voters that have only been fed the Limbaugh line for all these years.
    While she was first lady, Hillary had the unenviable task of defending Bill while protecting her daughter from the press. She wasn’t speaking for herself, then, she was defending her family.
    As a Senator, the national media only focused on her opposition comments as part of the Democratic minority. However, the NY state media covered all of her positions and efforts on behalf of the state. Therefore, to get a true feel of how voters will respond to Hillary when she is speaking for herself, one should look at New York. In New Yorks, Hillary carried even rural, “conservative”, upstate, Republican districts.
    The Republicans are going to find that they did themselves no favors by painting her as the female Hitler. When people see Hillary on her own terms they easily see that she is not the shrill, liberal, harpie, that the hate crowd has made her out to be. Because the right wing has demonized her it creates a situation where Billy Graham calling her “warm and spiritual” makes the front page. The right-wing has set expectations of her personality so low, that all Hillary has to do to change perceptions is just to show up at an event without, say, her eyes glowing red or killing people in the crowd.
    Hillary will the first candidate to ever have her negatives substantially fall during the course of a campaign. This phenomona is already happening. So Democratic legislators shouldn’t be worried, they should be ecstatic about having her at the top of the ticket. If after 15 years of demonization, the right wing couldn’t make her unfavorables as high a George W. Bush’s or Newt Gingrich’s, then they won’t stand a chance when Hillary actually has a chance to respond on her own behalf, and the public actually has a chance to see this great, warm, strong, and effective leader for themselves.
    Posted By Alex Wells, New Orleans, LA : August 12, 2007 4:32 pm

  95. Wow, great piece, Realist. Thanks.

    I’m with you all the way, kitforhill. Huckabee has a great sense of humor and he is very likeable, and I believe I’ve read he was a pretty moderate Governor. The Right would be wise to pick him over Romney or Giuliani. However, we all know the Right isn’t wise, right? But, I’m a Democrat, and I’d never vote Republican for president.

  96. Huckabee would be another Bush. He doesn’t even believe in evolution and I’m assuming global warming. His comments at the first debate concerning evolution set America back 150 years. We don’t need another president that doesn’t believe in science. It’s one thing to not understand it, but to rebuke it, while not understanding it is pathetic.

  97. Update: Our very first post noted the danger posed by the PINO’s and Big Media JoeFriday. They are the real opposition.

    the new post, State of Emergency, Part II makes the point that words matter when you are a presidential candidate. You are right that the April 6, 2006 statement by Senator Clinton was not made when she was a presidential candidate. It would be a stupid standard to say Americans cannot speak as they wish because of political ramifications. Quite the contrary Americans value their freedom of speech and will use that right. The danger is when presidential candidates speak and endanger us.

    That April 6, 2006 date is important and one we need to use to counter the David Gregory’s and Big Media with.

    The Realist has a comment citing a comment which makes some fine points. We need to be vigilant in our defense of Hillary and counter the false arguments made against her. We will. That’s what we are here for.

  98. Hi all, I take it it has been a busy, busy Sunday. Admin: What are the best ways to counter these attacks on Hillary… I am now blogging on the official Hillary site. I thought about blogging about some of the recent outlandish statements and just give Hillary’s supporters the ammunition they need to counter these offensives. I also will soon have the ability to blog on Daily Kos. So peeps, what do you all think are the best ways to get people back to accuracy when it comes to hillary? So that we can focus on the real message of who HIllary is as a candidate and a person.

    It is so clear to be the difference between the Iran and nukes statement and the statements in the debate. But the media was never great at gray area…differentiating between situation A and situation B. The context in which those two statements were made is vital. –mollyj

Comments are closed.