Hillary Clinton Fights Fear Fearlessly

In Pissing In The Well, published on Saturday, August 25, 2007, we supported Hillary discussing potential terror alerts and attacks. We wrote:

We wish that Kerry would have talked about the many “terror alerts” well before the 2004 election. We wish that Kerry had prepared the American people for the fear they would feel in case of a Bin Laden tape just before the election. We wish that Kerry has “pissed in the well” so that Ripublicans could not have used fear and “national security” arguments against him. We are sure Kerry wishes he had spoken out clearly and repeatedly about fear and terror threats and alerts.

Polls show the Democrats have closed the “national security” gap between Ripublicans and Democrats. Democrats cannot allow that national security gap to return. Democrats cannot hide from the “terror” issue nor from Ripublican exploitation of fear. Hillary is taking the fear out of the issue by talking about it.

The influential and very right wing New Hampshire Union Leader today agrees substantially with us that this issue should be absolutely discussed.

LAST THURSDAY Sen. Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the home of Gary and Carol Sobelson of Concord that if terrorists attacked the United States before the election “that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”

She then let the bomb drop, saying “I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that.”

When her comments hit the news, other Democratic candidates went nuts, accusing her of politicizing terrorism. Left-wing bloggers accused her of stealing a page from Karl Rove’s playbook.

But what’s the offense? Clinton is running for President. The President’s first priority is protecting the country. She says she’d be better at it, and better at beating a Republican on that issue, than her Democratic rivals would be. Good! By all means, let’s debate that!

If the other Democratic candidates don’t think they’d do a better job than Clinton would, then why are they running? If they do think so, they should make the case. We are at war. Being able to explain how you would make the country safer should be each candidate’s top priority, not a subject considered too delicate to discuss.

On August 27, 2007, the intelligent (and maligned by the media as well as by Naderites in the 2000 race when she advised the very capable and good Al Gore) Naomi Wolf substantially agrees with us as well in almost word for word fashion. Naomi Wolf joins us in decrying the attacks on Hillary as well as the stupidity of the Naderite Big Blogs.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is getting a pounding — from liberal blogs and her Democratic rivals for the presidency — because she had the temerity to warn voters that a possible terrorist attack before the election might strengthen the Republicans’ hand. Chris Dodd called the comment “tasteless” and liberal bloggers are savaging her for, in their view, caving to the Republican framing of the terror issue.

These critics are being extraordinarily historically naive. If all Mrs. Clinton meant was that a genuine terror attack would empower Republicans, then sure — under current social consensus, her comment is in poor taste. (Though this notion — that examining the possible domestic fallout of terror attacks is vulgar, or unpatriotic, is one of those quasi-Victorian conventions that does not serve the vigorous debate needed in a time of crisis). But if Mrs. Clinton is also trying to warn voters about something even more difficult for us to talk about, then she is absolutely right — even brave — and her critics are frighteningly ill-informed of the past.

Here is Naomi’s version of Pissing In The Well. To us it is clear that it is a Ripublican tactic to exploit terror alerts and attacks to gain political benefit. Naderite Big Blogs rather attack Hillary and Democrats:

Mrs. Clinton is right to caution voters to consider the domestic outcome of a possible terror-related event before the election — if you factor into her caution this taboo subtext: if the terror scare in question is exaggerated, or even manufactured, to serve a domestic political purpose.

Naomi Wolf is as indelicate as we were in Pissing in the Well:

Even as I write those words, I understand I am breaching a major social taboo of our particular time and place. There is a general polite consensus right now that maintains two no-debate areas: 1) you are not, if you are a serious person, allowed to note in public that it is possible that this White House — or any U.S. leader ever — might conceivably distort or hype the terror threat for political purposes (though plenty of serious people discuss this possibility in private); and 2) if you are a serious person, you are not allowed to suggest in public that it is remotely possible that in America elections could possibly be deliberately thrown off course any more directly than, say, the vote recount of 2000.

Get the smelling salts – stolen elections and politically inspired terror threats actually discussed – Naderites will faint. Naderites do not want the 2000 elections discussed, nor terror alerts as a political ploy, nor for that matter, the very concept of terror. Naderites do not like being reminded that Bush occupies the White House because of them (they blame “Al Bore” for not doing what they demanded he do). Naderites do not like discussing “terror” because it ‘buys into a frame’. Naderites will stuff their pockets with Ripublican cash in order to attack Democrats.

More Naomi:

Sadly, these two current taboos fly in the face of history — both of the history of weakening democracies overseas and the history of our own nation.

It is standard practice for corrupt leaders who are seeking a certain political outcome to hype or manipulate a terror threat — or a threat of violent domestic subversion. While sometimes the threat is manufactured, frequently the hyped threat is based on a real danger.

Stalin warned of “sleepers” — covert agents of capitalism who would rise up at a signal and wreak mayhem arming peaceful Soviet citizens — an invented threat. But General Augusto Pinochet secured his coup in Chile in 1973 by elaborating upon a genuine threat: citizens were told that armed Unidad Popular insurgents, who were real, were planning a terror attack — a mass assassination of national leaders — a charge which was not real. He even showed their purported arms caches neatly lined up on TV and released, to the horror of Chileans, faked documents planning the alleged attack — the sinisterly named “Plan Z.” Similar tactics have been duplicated by corrupt leaders in many contexts worldwide.

Naomi Wolf in her article provides a history of how in the past the United States has hyped threats for political purposes. From the Sedition Act of 1798, Wilson’s Committee on Public Information to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the red-baiting of the McCarthy era through the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s, Naomi Wolf gives us a valuable history lesson. (Don’t forget yellowcake and the selling of the Iraq War, Naomi warns.)

Finally, I am sorry to say, there is the fact that, historically, when leaders are seeking to close down an open society, the months leading up to an election are traditionally the most unstable time — the period most likely to see reports of a frightening purported threat “just-foiled,” an apparent awful breach “just-averted,” or even a dramatic actual provocation — which requires, then, a strong hand to restore “public order.” Mrs. Clinton pointed out that even though it is a “horrible prospect,” sometime you have to ask “What if?”

A call to discuss our fears as a Pissing In the Well strategy which arms voters with knowledge – the only way to fight fear and emotional irrationality:

At the conclusion of my argument about the closing down of our democracy in The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, there is a series of `What ifs?’ positing various scenarios, based on the historical record about closing societies, that could realistically play out — yes, even here in America — in the run-up to the election. To put it mildly: You want to know and think about the history of such scenarios in advance, since one quality such tactics depend upon is the element of surprise.

Let’s also compare the way this White House talks about the terror threat with the way other societies that have decades-long experience with terrorist attacks do. And let’s use our common sense. Anyone who has ever lived in Israel — a country where, since its very birth, sophisticated terrorists have been targeting the civilian population day and night — knows that you NEVER get the equivalent of broad-anxiety-inducing alerts in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem like the “red alert” or “orange alert” system here at home. At the most, in Israel, you get practical, low-key, usable information from the state — for example, “avoid the Machaneh Yehudah marketplace this Friday afternoon” — no matter who is in power. Israelis, consequently, experience, on the day-to-day level, the possibility of terror attacks as a specific, real danger — but not as a state-produced existential condition, a matrix of helpless fear. (Indeed, avoiding national fear from terror attacks is a point of pride in Israel that transcends party lines).

What Hillary is doing is not only good, it is necessary.

Finally, if this administration did not have a seven-year track record of violating other major democratic principles that stand in its way, it would be easier to dismiss the need for a warning of this kind.

Is it irrational to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or even a provocation before the election? It is, at this point, irrational to refuse to do so. If this White House had no actual major record of hyping a threat — if the U.S. had no record of inflating various fears for political ends — and if weakening democracies worldwide had no record of manipulating terror narratives to drive certain outcomes, it would indeed be illogical — even paranoid — to worry about a possible hyped threat or provocation that is politically driven.

But given the current administration’s record of lying to Congress, the American people and the UN about such threats; given that it used fake documents to do so; given that it has often splashed out widely-reported terror charges that then vanish or subside during actual trials (the course corrections of which are seldom as widely reported); given our own nation’s history of not being immune to the temptations on the part of leaders of using fear to drive a political outcome — is it not, rather, almost criminally naive to REFUSE even to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or provocation close to the election?

Hillary’s opponents will cower. Naderite Big Blogs will continue to bamboozle.

Hillary, will continue to fight fear. Hillary is ready to lead.

Share

60 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Fights Fear Fearlessly

  1. I absolutely agree. I think the Naomi Wolf essay was excellent. What Senator Clinton is doin’ is askin’ us to think about what can happen in advance so that we can rationally think and talk about it and therefore plan. –mollyj

  2. Great analysis, both Ms. Wolf and HI44, it takes the issue beyond the superficial to the contextual and wider meaning.

    So, it seems very obvious to me that, and not surprisingly, Hillary is playing chess while her opponents are playing checkers.

    BTW, I think I’m addicted to Hillary. Everyday, more times than I wish to admit, I’m checking several Hillary sites for news, commentary, and any video of her. I do enjoy watching her in her debates and interviews, so refreshing after watching the Current Incubent playing checkers (and badly at that).

  3. I like the Wolf column as well. I have to point out she was one of the folks who was responsible for Kerry’s image during the ’04 elections. She has received a lot of criticism for her role, and some of it is deserved.

    Psymac, I, too, am a political junkie. Drives my hubby nuts. But hell, his Shirley Q. Liquor videos drive me nuts.

    Anyone notice today that Musharraf has lost his power over the Pakistani military today? http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-2-2&fp=46d5f32148d77b61&ei=hdLVRrvuJZ6uoALX2bjpBw&url=http%3A//edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/29/pakistan.negotiations/&cid=1119545031
    I am not sure this is a good thing, but I know that Bwak played some part in it due to his ill-timed and ill-conceived remarks. I hope he has not done any lasting damage to the US’s national security nor to the security of the whole region. Only time will tell.

  4. Psych: We are all going into recovery together at the end of the election. I never thought i’d get in an online pissin match. And i’m like, bring em on.

    Okie: Did not know that about Wolf and Kerry.

    The kosnuts are delusional –mollyj

  5. I didn’t know that about Kerry and Wolf either. I knew she worked with Gore in 2000. BTW, I’m a Hillary addict, too, lol. I finally admitted it! 🙂

  6. Psymac, count me in! I’m an addict too! Maybe after the elections and Hillary victory we can all join the ‘HOHA’ – Hooked On Hillary Anonymous.
    Or make that PHOH – Proudly Hooked On Hillary! 🙂

    I’ll just add (for the third time) a previous posting of mine, regarding a poll, which is a nice reading for all of us. Rasmussen poll:
    “Which of NEW YORK’S PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS do you trust the most to handle the War on Terror?”

    36% Giuliani
    44% Clinton

    http://www.tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/poll_hillary_demolishing_rudy_with_25point_lead_in_new_york.php

  7. Count me in as well, girls.

    My login is taken from the movie, Mr & Mrs Smith, the Pitt-Jolie movie, popular about the time I did my sign up here. I liked Mrs. Smith because she was willing to go toe to toe with their adversaries and back to back with her man. Sort of a projection on Hill & Bill’s presidential bid.. 🙂

    Also, I agree with all, Wolf’s commentary is correct. Hillary is ahead of the curve and ahead of the Republican’s game plan..the closer we get to the election. We’ll see them play the Alert-Terrorism Card as part of their game plan.

    Bwak (cute) and Edwards are playing tiddly-winks with old memes with the Audacity of Hoping something will stick… It hasn’t so far, not that I can see and I doubt it ever will.

    I interact daily with Kerry supporters and it’s a nuisance to respond to them because they are playing Checkers when the game has ramped up to High Stakes Poker. They are unable/unwilling to keep up because traditional thinking is their bag and they are unshakable in considering outside of the box thinking. It becomes tedium ad infinitum with no end in sight. Theres no surprise there to understand why Kerry refused to fight for the presidency. He couldn’t think about getting down in the mud if he had-to, because his supporters were above that way of thinking. Too insecure in their own right to go out and fight them out in the street, if necessary, to claim what was rightfully his.

    Mrs. S.

  8. guys, what’s going on with this fundraiser in the news flap for hillary? a little nervous about how the media and others will play that?

  9. I love Hillary, and I am obsessed about doing my part to make her president. It’s probably my most frequent thought pattern these days, so I guess I too must admit that I am powerless over my Hillary addiction.

    mollyjrichards: I’ve said it before on this site. Back in the day, daily kos was smart, pragmatic, sure-footed. With its growth and success, it attracted everything on the net that wasn’t nailed down. I call it now Daily Delusion, but I hold out impossible hope that it may be restored to its former status as a center of Democratic sanity.

  10. Didn’t the person who was fundraising for Hillary, Mrs Hsu, also give donations to the other Democratic candidates? I recall reading that somewhere. It shouldn’t be a hit on Hillary as this person was giving money to the others as well.

    I would think it would be used as a smear by the Republicans on the Democrats in general if this guy really has broken the law in some way. I wonder if it will be that big of a deal however.

  11. Sounds like he’s given to everybody and god. He’s a bundler who apparently was convicted over 10 years ago for one count of grand theft related to money he’d raised to buy latex gloves to resell in the US. I am not making this shit up. Story is in the LA times among others by now…i can hear it now rubberglove gate…he gave to biden, obama, and apparently is a hillraiser. he also like i said has given to other senators and people running for office. He gave to Al Franken, etc. evidentally nobody knows where he is? and why would he pique somebody’s interest all of a sudden? smells like another septic backup to me –mollyj

  12. Hey y’all, I just saw a story update that said that Hillary’s campaign was going to give the money to charity in light of the outstanding warrant against Mr. Hsu. I personally don’t think that it amounts to much that can damage any of the candidates. mollyj

  13. Hey mollyj, I’m glad to hear that. It is the perfect thing to do, though it doesn’t seem “tainted”. DC, Pysmac, I suffer the same addiction. It’s pretty crazy. I just really want Hillary to win.

  14. on the “addiction” : sometimes this site has a support group feel to it and it’s a good damn thing. mollyj

  15. thanx molly for the update. i just want hillary’s run to go well becuase u know her foes will luv to bring it up. fast thinking before it spirals.

  16. Someone mentioned on another thread (Gorto I think) about links. It’s weird to see them go across the page like above. There’s a site that might help shorten them. It’s http://www.tinyurl.com. Just copy and paste your link and it’ll give you a short link to post here.

  17. Kool,thanks for the info- OkieAtty!

    Yes, I did hear about Hsu’s donation flap. I guess, Hillary headed them off at the pass!

    Nice going!

    Go Hillary!

    Mrs. S.

  18. Perfect move by Hillary today, re: donating the Hsu funds to charity. First rule of Clintonian politics: if you have a little slip-up or mistake (even if it’s just a perceived mistake, sometimes), apologize and fix the problem publicly and quickly. Nip it in the bud and get it off the headlines. That way it doesn’t fester, and you take all the steam out of your opponents’ sails.

    This is exactly what Obama DIDN’T do when he put his foot in his mouth re: meeting unconditionally with dictators. He should have just said, “If I was unclear, this is what I meant.” End of story. Instead he tried to do some weird political jujitsu-political counterattacks and it all backfired on him.

  19. There is no there there. Even the Wall St. Journal reported:

    “In the wake of a 2002 law that set … limits [on campaign donations], federal and state regulators and law-enforcement officials said they have seen a spike recently in the number of cases of individuals and companies illegally reimbursing others for campaign donations. THOSE CASES DON’T NECESSARILY IMPLICATE THE CANDIDATES, WHO SOMETIMES DON’T EVEN APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF SUCH PAYMENTS EXECUTED ON THEIR BEHALF.”

    01.20.09
    THE END OF AN ERROR

  20. From ‘OpenLeft’.

    Eliot Spitzer, after weathering a rather nast right-wing smear attempt over the past month, is now threatening to sue the Bush administration if Bush goes ahead with his SCHIP strategy and cuts health care to kids in New York state. Spitzer is doing an event tomorrow with Hillary Clinton, which will be webcast tomorrow at 10:30am.
    It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, and I will say that Spitzer actually knows how to fight.

    But the new rules include what Mr. Spitzer called “poison pill” requirements that he said would effectively kill New York’s and others states’ plans.
    “If they come back to us and refuse to budge from the positions they’ve taken, then we will sue,” he said.

    Suing the Bush administration to protect the health coverage of poor children? Now that’s the Eliot Spitzer we all know and love.

    Stay tuned tomorrow to watch Clinton and Spitzer’s news conference…

    Hillary is fighting for kids!

  21. if u want to watch this conference live here is the info from the guv’s office:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    August 29, 2007
    BROADCAST MEDIA ADVISORY

    Governor Eliot Spitzer will host a news conference with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss efforts to protect health insurance for all New York children.

    The event will be streamed LIVE on the internet beginning at 10:30 a.m. Those wishing to receive the webcast should log on to:

    http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/asxfiles-live/ca25winlive2138.asx

  22. Remember when Hillary said in one of the debates we are safer today than before, and Bwak, Breck Boy and MSM tried to attack that statement? Well, it now appears that Admiral Redd (head of the National Counter Terrorism Center told Newsweek) agrees with Hillary: “We are better prepared today for the war on terror than at any time in our history. We have done an incredible number of things since 9/11 across the board. Intelligence is better. They are sharing it better. We are taking the terrorists down. We are working with allies very carefully.”

    More recently, Hillary raised the possibility of another attack by the bad guys, and again the usual suspects (supra) threw their obligatory hissie fits. But hear Admiral Redd comments on that important subject: “These guys (al Qaida–NOT Bwak, Breck Boy or MSM) are smart. They are determined. They are patient. We are going to get hit again you know, but you have got to have the stick-to-edness or persistence to outlast it.”

    From what I can discern Admiral Redd is not some mouthpiece for the Bush Administration, but someone who is determined to tell the truth to the American People. The same can be said of Hillary. Leaders deal in facts, as she does. They treat the electorate as adults, as she does. In sum, Hillary is a great leader, and she comes along at the very time our country needs a great leader. And if I am preaching to the choir on that one I make no apology.

  23. ‘Buy into a frame.’ See the hypocrisy of the Naderites? They ‘frame’ Hillary’s war authorization vote as if she were Bush’s Defense Secretary. That tall guy now says she ‘engineered’ the Iraq War. They forget that the Republicans ‘framed’ the War Authorization Vote (“the Dems voted for the War too”) to escape accountability for Iraq in 2004.

    What if the Dems had blocked the War Authorization? A Republican blowout in the 2002 elections, the war happens anyway, and the War Powers Act is repealed by a Republican supermajority in the post-9/11 blood frenzy. But they ‘frame’ Hillary’s vote to pursue their dream of reliving ‘the night we beat Lieberman (temporarily)’. Now they want Hillary to ‘frame’ terrorism to hide the fact that Edwards and that tall guy are weak on national security.

  24. Terrondt,

    Yes Hillary is giving all of HSU’s contributions to charity. So have other leading Democrats….He donated to OBAMA too. But there has been no mention from the OBAMA camp as to what he is going to do with Hsu’s donations.

  25. Canaan, I wholly agree with you that the Nadirites, Netroots, Obamaniacs, and dearly beloved MSM have distorted Hillary’s record on the Iraq War til hell wont have it any more. Bill Clinton tried valiantly to head this thing off in the beginning, but it was like standing up against a sunami. As I see it, the counter argument is in three parts: i) first, her floor speech which outlines the history leading up to the resolution, and makes clear that the resolution was not intended to authorize the preemptive war which Bush ultimately launched or unilateral action, but rather to compel a resumption of unlimited inspections called for by the Peace Treaty. It is also interesting to note that at the time Congress gave that limited authority to the Administration, the Administration was seeking authority to bomb throughout the Middle East, ii) second, her subsequent oversight of the conduct of the war after Saddam was deposed, a democratic government was elected, and that government failed to take the necessary steps to guarantee its future. The efficacy of that oversight is readily apparent in the questions she asked the Iraq Study Group Co-Chairmen on 12/7/06 which can be seen in the u-tube video posted at her website–state of the art to most of us, but typical for her, and iii) third, her recent posting which explains her plan to extricate ourselves from Iraq, and provides further impetus for thinking people to support her campaign for President. Frankly, I put greater weight on those three things than I do on the legislative maneuvering, because on those issues, and under the rules of the Senate, Bush holds the upper hand

  26. Edwards is easy, always has been, class action trial lawyer, talk poverty in the courtroom and park your limosene six blocks from the courthourse so the jury cannot see, no $400 haircuts please . . .

    But Obama is a different movie, and frankly a more interesting one. Interesting because of the enthusiasm he generates from Oprah to Rudy’s daughter, and the why of it is the mystery.

    I have listened to the pundits opine on the question, and heard them proclaim with gravitas that he represents a new kind of politics previously unknown in human history. Thus, it fell upon websites like this one to dispel that illusion.

    As a result, the question remained unanwered. But then today I had a moment of clarity, and found the answer not on CNN, but on the shelf of the grocery store, when I looked past the latest issue of GQ which featured a beaming Obama on the cover, to another magazine which was about Obama and nothing but Obama. Bwak.

    What caught my eye was a quotable comment on the cover which was too long for a Fortune cookie, but similar in content. Don’t hold me to the exact words but it some deathless prose like “Hitch yourself to something larger than you are and find out your true potential”. Wow, did I reel back from the blinding light of that one.

    For it suddenly occurred to me that what he is selling apart from all the kumbaiya stuff is little peals of self help sort of like. . . . hmmmm . . . Opra maybe. That may also explain why at a subliminal level she supports his candidacy.

  27. ARG has just released polls in three early states.
    Iowa:
    August(July)

    Clinton 28 (30)
    Obama 23 (15)
    Edwards 20 (21)
    Iowa polls are all over the map, so here you go…

    NH:
    August (July)
    Clinton 37(31)
    Obama 17(31)
    Edwards 14(14)

    Looks like last month’s Obama’s ‘surge’ did not work out. Clinton has regained her momentum in this poll(she has perhaps never lost any momentum anyway).
    SC:
    August (July)

    Clinton 32(29)
    Edwards 24(18)
    Obama 21(33)
    Again some weird ARG number. Edwards is ahead of Obama in SC

  28. Time also released an Iowa poll.

    Edwards 29%, Clinton 25%, Obama 23%, Richardson 11%, Biden 5%, Kucinich 2%, Chris Dodd 1%

    Iowa polls are all over the map. So here you go..

  29. EE, the despicable woman continues her vicious attack against Hillary Clinton in a Time interview.

    “I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t begin to understand. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t energize them, but Hillary as the nominee will.”

    — Elizabeth Edwards, quoted in Time magazine.

  30. Yes, wbboie,

    Obama is a complete “marketing creation” created specifically for the Republicans next generation of Election Thefts! Somewhat ingenious but not completely un-noticeable. If you look closely you notice little nuances that tingle the warning hairs on the back of your neck. Obama is their stealth candidate, if you have any doubts, this link should open your eyes a little wider as to the relative complacency the republican party finds with dear Obama.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6577

    People are judged by the people they associate with. Obama has shown himself to be more than eager to capitulate with Republicans. The “unity” meme…hands across America- Crossing the Great Divide- Hands across the aisle. Whatever you want to call it.

    The election theft has to occur for the Primary, or at the very least giving Obama a strong showing denoting viability to continue on to NH and Nev…

    Don’t think for a second there isn’t a Plan B for the thwarting of their nefarious plans. It should be a given the race will be compromised at some point and the tricks up the Republican’s sleeves are innovative and deadly.

    We need to stay alert and vigilant- there is nothing too silly or paranoid to post here imo…let all of us know and do the research and get to the bottom of something you’ve heard (rumor) or know is going on…

    Mrs S.

  31. That means EE is going according to the Edwards campaign memo. A smoking gun if you will. They can no longer say that they have no control over EE. She is working in tandem with the campaign and her action are, therefore, attributable to her husband.

  32. Looking at the lastest Iowa Poll. The Republicans will want Obama to come out strong in Iowa. Notice how his numbers seem to be climbing in Iowa? A bad finish will hurt him in the upcoming primary States…they have to show his viability immediately..

    This is the first place we must nail him securely to the barn door!

    Mrs S.

  33. Don’t you love how certain Dems let fear of the GOP dictate their strategy. Who the hell cares if Hillary will galvanize the GOP? If she’s the best person for the job, isn’t that what matters? Geez. And she’ll certainly galvanize the Dems, too, a fact they’re conveniently ignoring.

    Obama’s making this argument, too. It’s all the other candidates have left, actually, so that’s no surprise. Of course, they should be embarrassed to be parroting Karl Rove.

    http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/edwards_and_obama_camps_both_pushing_hillaryispolarizing_line.php

    As for the Iowa polls, the good news for Hillary is Edwards is clearly no longer the obvious front-runner there, which he was for months. It’s up for grabs now.

  34. Mrs. Smith, Yet they dropped precipitously in NH and SC. Weird. But Iowa numbers do tend to be quite fluid, maybe because it’s a caucus state and measuring likely caucus-goers is tougher than measuring likely primary voters.

  35. Another union endorsement for Hillary, via the AP:

    The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on Thursday endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Mike Huckabee for their parties’ presidential nomination.

    It was Clinton’s second labor endorsement of the week. The IAM is one of the nation’s largest trade unions, representing more than 720,000 active and retired members.

    Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, beat out former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Ohio U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the endorsement. The union only considered candidates that appeared before members during its conference this week at the Walt Disney World Resort.

    “Hillary Clinton earned the IAM’s endorsement by focusing on jobs, health care, education and trade – the bread and butter issues of the American middle class,” union President Tom Buffenbarger said in a news release. “She is the only candidate of either party to come forward with a comprehensive manufacturing policy.”

    Clinton said in a statement she was honored to received the union’s endorsement.

    “It is time for America’s working families to again share in our nation’s prosperity,” Clinton said. “They will not be invisible to my administration.”

  36. Hey folks, mornin’, Firstly, i am disappointed in EE. And I think somebody needs to say somethin but I dunno what or how. My 86 year old daddy and a born politician (he never got beyond dept head) told me that he felt like it was horrible for EE to be using her condition to gain sympathy for Edwards. That’s working. But somebody needs to give her a call like she gave to Ann Coulter. There’s a lot of people who absolutely love Hillary. Lots of people, including a good number of ’em inmy home state and this distresses me to know end. You know, Hillary has not personally attacked anybody. She is running on her experience and the issues, not attacking somebody and we can all feel proud at the end of the day. But this is pissin me off. Secondly, There is a diary or two about Pres Carter sittin behind JE while he gave a speech yesterday. I love what Jimmy has done for this country POST presidency. However his presidency was not a good thing. It was responsible for the Reagan revolution and republican control over foreign policy and everything else. It was the most demoralizing thing that ever happened to our party, in my opinion, at least in terms of its long term effects. Inflation was at an all time high, if I remember right, interest rates were sky rocketing. Jimmy was too inexperienced to be PRes and ran as a washington insider. There is a message here that needs to get out: there are ways to change society from the outside and from the inside (of the system). We need both, but to effect changes from the inside you need somebody who can be most effective at working the system. This is a matter of intelligence, connections, networking, compromise and consensus building. Of course, it is a matter of vision too. Edwards seems like he;s full of a lot of hot air. The Carter presidency was not good for this country. –mollyj

  37. Hillary I think needs to really work to address the “fear” issue. I think she can have a real calmin’ effect on people cause that is the way she is: in charge but without bein’ hysterical like Breck Boy or incoherent (i am gonna hire Jimmy Carter’s guy and invade pakistan) BOMA. What I mean by workin’ the fear issue is working to help people understand the difference between bein’ fearful all the time and bein’ prepared. Her competence and take charge attitude and her knowledge of foreign affairs all work for her…strongly. I think it would help to focus a bit on conveying that steady, even level headedness that she has..and how damn good in a crisis she is. I doubt if there is a better crisis manager in the world than HRC –mollyj

  38. Great endorsement. Liz always has had a big mouth. And she needs to keep bein so undermining of Senator Clinton. You know a lot of these attacks on Hillary are blatantly sexist. we need to pick up that ball adn run with it. My god she’s almost 60 years old ans she’s been working to make society better since she was in her 20’s. BO was somethin like 2 when JFK was shot for godssakes — he has no idea — he is clueless about how you go about changin society much less bein the leader of the free world. OKay I’ll quit flappin my gums now–mollyj

  39. The problem with the Iowa polls is the screening question. What is a likely voter? Someone who was there last time, or someone who swears she will be there this time, or someone who was there last time and swears will be there this time? Ask different screening questions, and you get different samples.

  40. hello Sandy1938,

    I read your comment under ‘i decided to switch my support to Hillary’ diary. Don’t forget to hit ‘recommend’ button though. We need this sort of diary to stay on recomend list.

    DCDemocrat,

    Iowa polls are all over the map. That Time polling firm is not credible, I checked their history, they have no track record in political polling. Theri national polling this year has been biased towards Edwards, so I’m not surprised by their results.

    In April, they did a national poll

    Clinton 33
    Obam 26
    Edwards 25

    There’s no way Edwards was so high …

    I believe Clinton has room to grow in Iowa. The recent Kernel poll at state fair is a good example. She scored 33%, Edwards 28%, Obama 22%. The sample is very large and is said to be quite reliable as a ‘poll’ in the past. I believe she will squeak out a win in the end in Iowa.

    She still needs to work hard there though. I hope she’ll do lots of town-hall meetings stuff in IA in fall.

  41. ON SCHIP
    Spitzer chastised the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for denying his state’s application to include families who make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, arguing that amount of money is not considered much in New York State. Clinton also attacked the Bush administration, repeating her statement that these children and families are “invisible” to them and calling the rising number of uninsured children during this administration “unforgivable.”

    “For the President to say he will veto an expansion to the Children’s Health Insurance Program is bad enough,” Clinton said. “For his administration, in the stealth of night, as the governor said, last Friday, to come out with proposed regulations that would truly turn the clock back is absolutely beyond anyone’s imagination. So, there they were, last Friday, looking for a way to launch a sneak attack on the children of America and their hard working families. The President is deliberately trying to undermine what we have done in New York and what a number of states have done, to meet the moral, economic, and healthcare needs of our children. …

    “I’m going to do everything I can to get our bill out of Congress, to get it sent to the President, to dare him to veto it, to say, here’s a bipartisan bill that expands coverage. Let’s see where you stand on that. For him to say everyone has access to healthcare in America because everyone can go to an emergency room is the height of irresponsibility.”

    Spitzer also pledged to keep fighting. “New York State will bring a litigation if we do not see movement on the part of the Bush administration,” he said. “We are happy to go to court. What they are doing is, we believe, illegal.”

  42. From NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum
    Clinton said today she was “surprised by the news” that Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu has an outstanding arrest warrant out for him, and added that after verifying the information, her campaign “returned his money.”

    “We will continue to analyze all contributions and take action if that’s warranted,” Clinton said during a joint press conference with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to discuss the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. “And I wish Mr. Hsu well in dealing with the problems he’s confronting.”

    VIDEO: NBC’s Deputy Political Director Mark Murray offers his first read on the Democrat’s fugitive donor.

    A reporter pressed on, asking Clinton about problems during her husband’s presidency with donors like Johnny Chung. “I don’t think it’s analogous at all,” Clinton replied, “I think we take these one by one as they come up. When you have as many contributors as I’m fortunate enough to have, we do the very best job we can based on the information available to us to make appropriate vetting decisions and this one was a big surprise to everybody.”

    Spitzer, attempting to return to the planned topic, intervened. “I don’t think we need any more questions on that issue,” he said. “Every campaign vets donors as effectively and as efficiently as can be done. This is somebody who as the senator said, which was a surprise to everybody, had an open bench warrant from 17 years ago. I think it’s a fair question to ask, was Senator Clinton’s campaign, or any campaign, supposed to be doing better than the authorities in California — who theoretically had an open warrant for this guy. They didn’t do anything. Come on guys, let’s get real.”

  43. Hey texan4hillary, thank you for the live streaming link, I watch it and thought it was great. She also had a good moment with that child, funny seeing the photographers going crazy when something unusual or unexpected happens.

    Thanks.

  44. The IAM endorsement is very important. They are one of the skilled trades that helped build this country and create our middle class. They understand the economic forces in play today, and see Hillary as the best candidate to support the interests of working people. I think this is a precursor of further endorsements to come from the ranks of organized labor. It is all about jobs, health care, education and trade, and who better than our girl Hillary to address those issues which are so pivotal to the future of our country.

  45. Those Edwards netkooks are parsing this IAM endorsement for hillary and the IAFF
    for Dodd….

    They are saying that IAFF voted for IAFF since they could not choose between Edwards
    and Hillary.

    some are attacking those unions saying they are turning back on Edwards who has been
    behind them for the last 4yr…yes 4yrs only!

    they forgot about some who have been fightly from the sidelines all their lives.

    I like Dodd but do not support him..and he earned his union backing for over 30yrs!

  46. good afternoon hillfans, good polls all around from iowa and new hampshire. is it true obama took from that fundraiser? if so he and his supporters can’t say boo.

  47. The ARG NH poll got some coverage by loca paper, which is good news for Hillary…

    The latest in a series of monthly New Hampshire presidential preference polls shows Barack Obama well behind Hillary Clinton, while Mitt Romney holds a narrow lead over Rudy Giuliani.

    The American Research Group’s July survey had Obama and Clinton in a tie, although other New Hampshire surveys found that the former first lady held a solid lead over the Illinois senator.

    The radically different numbers released today by ARG for August — Clinton at 37 percent, Obama 17 percent, Edwards 14 percent, Richardson 7 percent — gave her an even bigger lead than other national surveys.

    In the Republican race, ARG gives Romney 27 percent of the likely primary vote, Rudy Giuliani 23 percent and John McCain 12 percent. Fred Thompson slipped to 8 percent, falling behind the biggest gainer, Mike Huckabee, at 9 percent, up from just 1 percent in July.

    A solid plurality of GOP-leaning independents in the survey backed Romney, while registered Republicans narrowly backed Giuliani. Almost half the Democratic-leaning independents backed Clinton, while only 5 percent of those swing voters support Edwards.

    Ron Paul’s enthusiastic volunteers have pushed the Texas congressman’s numbers up as well. Paul, whose support was too small to measure for most of the year, was backed by 3 percent of those surveyed.

    The surveys were taken from August 26 to 29. Six hundred likely voters in each primary were polled. For full results and further details on the polls’ methodology, click the ARG links below.

  48. Hey y’all, Tell me about the moment with the child on tv…I didn’t get to watch it on t.v. Yes, BOMBA’s PAC got money from this bundler. I think money for his senate campaign is the main money from Hsu that BOMA got. –mollyj

  49. Hey Molly,

    wasn’t really much, except that there was a few moms in the background as HRC and Gov. Spitzer was talking about schip, and Bush’s failed ‘leadership’. And one mother who was gonna tell a short story, had her 2 year old daughter with her, and just as she was about to tell her story, the child started coughing.
    And Hillary jumped forward with a glass of water for her, and she took a loooong sip. 🙂 Just a sweet moment since Hillary was facing the crowd-child back to crowd and camera, we got to see hillary smile and sweet talk to the little girl. Of course photographers went for the ‘moment’. hehe

  50. Great post, as usual. Bowers is a doofus. Does he really think Hillary’s so-far successful campaign is attributable solely to her husband? That frankly smacks of sexism to me.

    Of course, all the pundits who thought Hillary had hit her ceiling back in January are just as bad, lol.

Comments are closed.