What Goes On? – South Carolina, Barack Obama, Iraq, Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama (D-Rezko) scheduled yet another “Big Speech” on Iraq for today. Today is September 12, 2007.

Yesterday in Hillary Clinton – Senate Armed Services Committee we took Obama, once again, to the woodshed. What was the latest Obama blunder we took issue with? Recall, how instead of asking his committee chairman weeks ago why the Iraq hearing was scheduled for September 11, Obama instead choose to grandstand and rant on television (while the sandbagged Chairman Biden demonstrated is pique and read a newspaper). Here is what the conniving Senator said:

“I think we should not have had this discussion on 9/11, or 9/10, or 9/12, because I think it perpetuates the notion that the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11.”

If the above is sincere, why then did Obama choose today, September 12 to deliver a major Iraq speech? Isn’t he perpetuating the “notion that the original decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11”?

The Washington Post reports on how politics is the only thought in Obama’s mind these days – and how to hurt Hillary. The Washington Post article notes that while General Petraus testified, Obama was busy reading a political memo which tutored him to be wary of the mighty Hillary As you get ready for press around your speech on Iraq, we wanted to make sure you have on one piece of paper the principle [sic] differences between your speech on Iraq and the most comprehensive on Iraq given by Senator Clinton.

What is going on?

The answer is: this campaign for the nomination is effectively over. Obama knows this.

In his book The Audacity of Hype Hope, Obama wrote this illuminating passage, about his lost race for Congress:

“Less than halfway into the campaign, I knew in my bones that I was going to lose. Each morning from that point forward I awoke with a vague sense of dread, realizing that I would have to spend the day smiling and shaking hands and pretending that everything was going according to plan.”

He’s a great pretender. 

Now, why does Obama know this campaign is over? Recall our article Carolina In My Mind as you read yesterday’s poll from South Carolina (Hillary Clinton 45%, Obama 27%, Edwards 7%):

We noted last week that Barack Obama’s desperate attack on Hillary Clinton and his flipping and flopping could be reduced to 2 words: South Carolina. We noted in that article how Obama’s entire campaign strategy is based on victory in the South Carolina primary.

We noted in Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part III, that Obama was doing very badly in the South Carolina polls both immediately pre-debate and immediately post-debate.

We stated that Obama’s desperate attack on Hillary was due to his failing campaign in South Carolina despite the fact that Obama is outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in South Carolina. So, how is Obama doing in South Carolina? [snip]

The polls tell the story that Hillary is beating Obama badly in South Carolina. What is the anecdotal evidence and what do knowledgeable political observers say about the South Carolina political situation?

Clinton brought the house down Saturday during a campaign stop at the University of South Carolina Beaufort Performing Arts Center as the first 2008 presidential candidate to visit Beaufort.

“Her message was right on,” said Hilton Head Island Democrat Jack Keable, 72, after Clinton’s 40-minute speech. “Something needs to be done to change the country back to the way it used to be.”

Clinton won over the crowd of more than 500 supporters seated in the auditorium and the roughly 300 people in overflow seating who watched the speech from closed-circuit televisions set up just outside the auditorium.

South Carolina’s The State:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is sailing right along toward the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

No one is in place to stop her.

Recall also Barack Obama Flops, Then Flips – Part III:

Obama’s entire strategy for any potential victory is South Carolina.

An insufficiently discussed article appeared this week in Politico. Some excerpts follow which provide the script Axelrod gave Obama to follow.

Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent’s campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton — one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary. [snip]

The desperation of the Obama campaign became apparent as immediately pre-debate and immediately post-debate South Carolina polls showed Hillary gaining on Obama in the Obama MUST WIN state of South Carolina.

Obama’s need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and — most relevant to his 2008 ambitions — is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors.

But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women. [snip]

Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls “a sequential series” of victories.

This is why Obama is already on the air with television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and so far is out-spending Clinton in every early state. [snip]

Belcher flatly predicts: “We are going to outright win South Carolina.”

Democrats debated in the Palmetto State Monday night. A July CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll finds Clinton leading with 39 percent and Obama at 25 percent. Other polling in June showed Obama leading. [snip]

But Obama’s campaign staff is aware that if they do not appear to contest the earlier electoral challenges, from Nevada to New Hampshire, they may lack the momentum to win South Carolina.

Faced with rescheduled Florida primary, now on the same date as the South Carolina primary, Obama’s desperation has increased. He has lost Florida. South Carolina looms as an even more necessary state to win as before the debate. But South Carolina too is slipping, or has slipped away.

To know What Goes On with Obama and Iraq – Look to South Carolina and a lost foolish dream.
September 10 South Carolina Polls


89 thoughts on “What Goes On? – South Carolina, Barack Obama, Iraq, Hillary Clinton

  1. Another Kevin Drum post:

    TERROR FIGHTIN’ HILLARY….I’ve been actively avoiding most poll blogging until now, but with the Iowa caucuses a mere four months away it’s probably time to start paying attention. Today’s LA Times poll confirmed a couple of obvious things (Hillary’s ahead everywhere and Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and Biden need put their egos back into cold storage and stop wasting our time) but also a couple of nonobvious things. Nonobvious to me, anyway.

    First, Hillary Clinton is not only ahead in all three of the early caucus/primary states, but her supporters are more firmly in her camp than Edwards’ or Obama’s. Interesting! I would have guessed that Obama had the bigger corps of highly dedicated supporters. Second, and more important, Hillary leads not just in the general category of “more experienced,” but in the very specific categories of “best at fighting terrorism” and “best at ending the Iraq war.” And she leads by enormous margins. That may be wildly unfair (especially the latter), but it’s really, really important. The 2008 campaign is going to hinge on terrorism and the war, just like the 2004 campaign, and as long as Hillary has a massive lead on those two issues she’s unstoppable. Obama and Edwards better find a way to change that perception or else they’ll be roadkill come this time next February.

  2. BTW, one of the arguments against Hillary I think is really dumb is that people shouldn’t support her because political dynasties are wrong. WTF??

    Since when are the Bushes and Clintons equivalent, and why in the world would you punish Hillary because her last name is Clinton? You’d deprive the country of a potentially great president for that reason? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    I remember when she first declared pundits thought this dynasty thing might be a problem. But polls overwhlemingly show that’s not the case. I still see it, though, on the blogs periodically.

  3. As I posted a couple months back, this BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON meme is not an argument against electing Senator Clinton, it’s actually an argument against electing anymore Bushies (or any other RightWingers for that matter). The two previous Clinton terms were very propitious for our nation, the three Bush terms have been unmitigated disasters.

    As someone famously once said, You Do The Math.

  4. paula, you are correct. the bushes are real dynasty. bill 2 term president and hillary little over one term senator. also the surging polls is wonderful for hillary.

  5. guys, did you catch how the leftywing kook rep. woosley is touting up primaries against other dems? unbelievable. unless u are far left u get primaried. no wonder it took us so long to gain the congress again.

  6. BV, we thought this was the most obvious of observations. Where was Obama’s campaign team on this? Didn’t anyone stop to think that what Obama said at the hearing yesterday was a problem considering the big Iraq speech today?

    Obama is simply flailing. His naif supporters are not sophisticated enough to see the bleeding lump of flesh which Obama has become. Axelrod and Plouffe and Gibbs who advise Obama must know how bad these stumbles are.

    As the quote from Obama’s book clues us, Obama at this point is merely pretending that he still has a chance. He is desperate. He needs to fire the buffoons working for him but he can’t because he needs them to keep himself and Michelle from completely losing their minds.

  7. From NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum and NBC/NJ’s Athena Jones
    After the National Association of Letter Carriers endorsed Clinton, she took the opportunity to blast President Bush on the Iraq troop withdrawal he plans to announce Thursday night. She said it was “simply too little, too late” and said the reduction was going to happen anyhow.

    “Taking credit for this troop reduction is like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning,” Clinton told an audience of about 50 letter carriers. “We don’t need another mission accomplished moment.”

    Gen. Petraeus has proposed a decrease of 30,000 troops by August of next year. In an address to the nation on Thursday evening, Bush is expected to announce he is accepting that recommendation. Clinton sent a letter to Bush today urging him to withdraw more troops, rather than simply returning troop levels in August 2008 to what they were in August 2006.

    “As Commander-in-Chief you have the authority and ability to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more troops home so much faster,” Clinton said in the letter. “I strongly urge you to choose this course of action.”

    In recent speeches, the senator has repeatedly called for bringing troops home and for America to stop refereeing Iraq’s civil war, but she has not said specifically how many troops she would bring home and when.

    Clinton also criticized the Bush administration for not being supportive enough of the middle class, specifically unions, social security and the children’s health insurance program. “As far as they’re concerned in this administration, you’re on your own,” Clinton said. “And if you take the first letters of You’re On Your Own, it spells Yo-Yo, which pretty much describes what’s going on in America right now.”

    The letter carriers received Clinton well, with rousing applause and hoots as she entered. At the end, they gave her their “letter-carrier cheer” with three cheers of “hip-hip hooray.”

    “You are everywhere in America and because of that America is stronger,” Clinton said, praising the group. “You see beyond all of the rhetoric what’s actually going on in our country.”

  8. Berkeley Vox, just checked out your post. Some reaction you are getting. You have the whole bee hive upset.

    The Obama supporters are smartly trying to muddy the issue. But why do Hillary supporters sabotage other Hillary supporters? This confused type of thinking that pointing out aggressively the stupidity of Obama somehow upsets Obama/Edwards supporters and therefore somehow hurts Hillary is counterproductive.

    The Obama/Edwards supporters (and the vile Naderites) call Hillary all sorts of names, including some which merge her name with Hitler’s name. Yet some timid Hillary supporters think sweetness and bowing and bended knee with pleas for fairness with a dollop of whining are the way to go.

    That bended knee mentality is what gets Democrats in trouble.

  9. I’m compiling Hillary news, hope folks will pick up and post on hillarysbloggers…

    D.C. lawyer hosting fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
    Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign expects to raise about $500,000 tonight at an event Wednesday night at the Potomac home of attorney Weldon Latham.

    Latham, a senior partner in the D.C. office of Davis Wright Tremaine, is a national co-chair of the New York Democratic senator’s presidential campaign. In 2000, he hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore.

    Bill Cosby entertained the crowd at that fund-raiser. This time Bill Clinton will do the honors.

    “A lot of people think he is extremely entertaining,” Latham said of the former president. “The fact that he is going to join us is in no small part why we’re going to have a big success tonight.”

    About 300 people are expected at the fundraiser. The host committee includes numerous elected officials, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, as well as local business and civic leaders such as former D.C. Democratic State Committee Chair A. Scott Bolden and WGL Holdings Co. Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt Jr.

    Latham, who chairs his law firm’s corporate diversity counseling group, said he supports Clinton because of her “fantastic track record” as a senator and first lady.

    He acknowledged Sen. Barack Obama’s presence in the race is a source of pride for African-Americans. What impact does Obama’s candidacy have on his efforts to enlist other black leaders to support Clinton?

    “My conversations are longer,” Latham said.

    Clinton said Latham’s support is “meaningful” because of his “record of commitment to the principle and goal of diversity in our country.”

  10. Clinton to Reveal Heatlhcare Plan
    September 12, 2007 02:41 PM ET | Permanent Link

    Sen. Hillary Clinton plans to unveil her latest healthcare plan next week, probably on Monday, her advisers tell U.S. News.

    Democratic and Republican strategists say it will be a risky venture because she carries so much baggage on the issue. Clinton ran into trouble in 1993 and 1994 when her husband, President Bill Clinton, placed her in charge of a massive overhaul of the healthcare system, and she came up with a far-reaching proposal known as “Hillarycare.” It died in the Democratic-controlled Congress and was considered a colossal political failure after the plan’s critics blasted it as a vast overreach.

    This time, aides say, the senator hopes to avoid fueling her critics’ assertions that she favors socialized medicine or a federal takeover of the healthcare system. Her goal, however, remains the same as it was in the early 1990s: “to provide quality, affordable healthcare to everyone,” which she considers a moral imperative, a senior adviser says. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, believes the time will be right for the next president to confront the issue again because so many Americans are worried about the future of the system and whether they will have adequate, affordable care in the future.

    She is also under pressure from her main rivals for the nomination, especially Barack Obama and John Edwards, to come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan that will appeal to primary voters

  11. D.C. lawyer hosting fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
    Washington Business Journal – 2:47 PM EDT Wednesday, September 12, 2007by Kent HooverWashington Bureau Chief
    Print this Article Email this Article Reprints RSS Feeds Most Viewed Most Emailed
    Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign expects to raise about $500,000 tonight at an event Wednesday night at the Potomac home of attorney Weldon Latham.

    Latham, a senior partner in the D.C. office of Davis Wright Tremaine, is a national co-chair of the New York Democratic senator’s presidential campaign. In 2000, he hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore.

  12. Bill Cosby entertained the crowd at that fund-raiser. This time Bill Clinton will do the honors.

    “A lot of people think he is extremely entertaining,” Latham said of the former president. “The fact that he is going to join us is in no small part why we’re going to have a big success tonight.”

    About 300 people are expected at the fundraiser. The host committee includes numerous elected officials, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, as well as local business and civic leaders such as former D.C. Democratic State Committee Chair A. Scott Bolden and WGL Holdings Co. Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt Jr.

    Latham, who chairs his law firm’s corporate diversity counseling group, said he supports Clinton because of her “fantastic track record” as a senator and first lady.

    He acknowledged Sen. Barack Obama’s presence in the race is a source of pride for African-Americans. What impact does Obama’s candidacy have on his efforts to enlist other black leaders to support Clinton?

    “My conversations are longer,” Latham said.

    Clinton said Latham’s support is “meaningful” because of his “record of commitment to the principle and goal of diversity in our country.”

  13. Kostner, why are Hillary supporters being oh so fair-minded and burnishing themselves by denouncing strong Hillary supporters? What BV wrote was eminently fair, yet Hillary supporters called it an “attack” diary.

    The fact that Obama said yesterday we should not be having Iraq hearings on 9/10, 9/11 or 9/12 because it presumes a link with 9/11 but then schedules his own “big” Iraq speech on 9/12 is worthy of questioning. Why do Hillary supporters instead of helping BV instead urge he delete the diary?

    Sick of whiners.

  14. admin,

    I don’t post or read on dailykos. It’s meaningless, many diaries can’t stay long on the list for an hour.

    I ususally just post on myDD. Hillary supporters on myDD are very tough-minded, we’re not afraid to call out B.S. ‘DoIT’ had a diary on Obama’s dismal performance yesterday, watched we hillary supporters decimating those Obamaniacs … lol.

  15. admin,

    It’s interesting ‘Matt Stoller’ from the far far far lefty blog ‘openleft'(even worse than dailykos) just put out a frontpage diary declaring: ‘Obama is done’. Hilarious.

    “To win in 2008, you have to find a base of support that is bigger than the other person’s base of support. Barack Obama has not done that, and will probably not do that. The Clinton campaign has down up establishment support, but has not locked down progressives. Only a strategy that brings progressives, African-Americans, and young people can block a Clinton nomination, and that requires a real withdrawal strategy on Iraq and some real leadership. Obama, with his recent speech and his Oprah obsession, has now made it quite clear that his strategy is targeted at elites and that he will not pull this coalition together.

  16. Kostner,

    Poor Matt Stoller. He just does not understand: Progressives support Hillary. Hillary is a Progressive.

    Poor Matt Stoller just does not understand that Progressives are not Naderites.

    Progressives, liberals, the Democratic left support Hillary. Naderites do not support Hillary. The Democratic right and the Democratic middle also support Hillary. In short, Democrats support Hillary.

    Is there a class in remedial politics we can raise money to send Matt to? Again, Progressives are not Naderites, Naderites are not Progressives. The Democratic Left are Progressives. The Democratic middle is very Progressive too.

    But Naderites are not Progressives.

    Naderites love the Big Blogs and in many cases have made Big Blogs their home. But thanks to the Berkeley Vox’s and other Hall of Famers the Democrats on the Big Blogs are being educated and helping to expose the Naderites on the Big Blogs.

    But, yes, Obama is done. Didn’t we write that a long time ago? Matt must be reading Big Pink.

  17. Quick note on the Veepstakes. Mark Warner announced today he is running for Senate in Virginia. He has a good chance to win. This makes Virginia a bigger player in 2008.

    We suspect this also helps Jim Webb to be a VP choice. A Webb as VP on the top of the Dem ticket along with Warner for Senate would mean big money and attention on Virginia.

  18. Hey everybody, did you notice that Hillary is ahead (except Iowa and NC) of all her primary ‘competition’ in the polls combined?!

    FL Poll: Clinton 42%
    Others 34%

    SC Poll: Clinton 45%
    Others 34%

    NH Poll: Clinton 35%
    Others 32%

    CBS/NYT Poll: Clinton 44%
    Others 43%

    BU Poll: Clinton 35%
    Others 23%

    CA Poll: Clinton 51%
    Others 41%

    Rasmussen: Clinton 45%
    Others 36%

    OH Poll: Clinton 44%
    Others 26%

    TIme to say ‘uncle’, don’t you think?

  19. Another 2 notes Bill Clinton’s book is #1.

    And Rudy is attacking Hillary on Iraq.

    One day after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., sharply questioned the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Rudy Giuliani blasted his Democratic presidential rival, accusing her of spewing “political venom” in the Iraq war debate.

    “I don’t know what she’s trying to say when she’s accusing a general of the ‘willing suspension of disbelief,’” Giuliani said Wednesday on the “Randy and Spiff” show, a radio program which airs in Atlanta. The former New York mayor repeated his criticism of the Democratic frontrunner for president later in the day Wednesday during a media availability in Akron, Ohio.

  20. admin, Whare did you read that Bill’s book was No. 1?

    As for Rudy, let him defend the administration on Iraq. I’ll take Hillary’s position any day.

  21. Kostner..MyDD is easier to just be direct and call BS on BS – you don’t get trolled for breathing there – although it’s not a great site mechanically…DailyKOS is falling all over themselves because Mr. Rhetoric’s (BO)opportunistic speech in the Petraeus hearings the other day. UGGH!

  22. GET THIS.

    THEN, the NBC/WALL ST JOURNAL POLL asked REPUBLICANS, who would YOU feel more “comfortable” with as president ?

    26% – Obama

    23% – Richardson

    20% – Edwards

    14% – Clinton

    Well, as Gomer used to say, SURPRISE ! SURPRISE !

  23. Hi Joe,

    NBC/WSJ also asked ‘Independents, who would you feel more ‘comfortable’ with as president?
    Clinton 29
    Obama 25
    Edwards 22
    Richardson 11

    So basically Clinton will likely win independents to become president, and republicans are cheering for Obama because they know he’ll be eaten for lunch in no time!

  24. Barack Obama donations spark funding row

    Two children who cannot vote for another decade are at the centre of a new row over political fundraising in the US after it was revealed they had each “donated” $4,600 (£2,300) to the campaign of presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

    The money came from trust funds set up for Karis and Matthew Mardirossian, aged seven and eight respectively, by their parents, sparking accusations that politically involved adults are using their children’s money to circumvent limits on individual contributions.

    Advocates of electoral reform believe that the dodge is becoming more and more popular as amounts raised by candidates has soared past previous records.

    “Among those looking for ways to increase gifts to candidates it’s a common tactic,” said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Centre for Responsive Politics.

    The Obama campaign has returned the money from the Mardirossian children even though it is not clear the law had been broken.

    A spokesman for Mr Obama said the campaign doesn’t “accept money from anyone younger than 16”.

    The children’s father Aris told USA Today that the funds were controlled by lawyers and accountants.

    “It is their money, and the trustee makes the decisions on their behalf,” he said. He was not available for comment yesterday.

    Election law allows those under 18 to make political contributions, but they must be made from their own funds knowingly and voluntarily. Donors are not required to provide their ages, but typically only their occupations.

    The major candidates’ campaigns report that “students” have raised about $2 million this year, considerably more than at the same stage of the last presidential election.

    Mr Mardirossian, a property developer from Maryland, admitted that he and his wife had already given the maximum $4,600 each to Obama ($2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the presidential campaign if the candidate is selected), and estimated that his extended family had provided about $50,000 for the Illinois senator.

    “Children are more likely to spend their money in the candy store than in political fundraising,” said Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Centre.

    “If we are talking about a six or seven year old it’s seemingly more a case of taking advantage of children than dealing with 15 or 16 year olds, who are more likely to make their own choices.”

  25. WASHINGTON, 12 (UPI) — U.S. presidential hopefuls have received about $2 million in campaign funding from children this year, USA Today reported Wednesday.

    The candidates have mixed policies on accepting the donations from people too young to vote, although the newspaper said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has a policy of returning minors’ money.

    Monday, Obama’s campaign returned $9,200 received from the 7- and 8-year-old son and daughter of Maryland real estate developer Aris Mardirossian. He told the newspaper the money came from the children’s trust funds.

    “It is their money and the trustee makes the decisions on their behalf,” he said.

    By law, individual contributions are capped at $2,300 each for primary and general elections.

    The Center for Responsive Politics said primary candidates have received 1,079 donations from students worth about $2 million.

    Center spokesman Paul Ryan told USA Today donations from children are suspect.

    “Chances are slim that a 6- or 7-year-old would knowingly give their money to a candidate,” Ryan said. “They would prefer to spend their money on G.I. Joes or Barbie dolls

  26. kostner,

    Russert was on the NBC Nightly News making a BIG DEAL out of the fact that Republicans were more “comfortable” with Obama than Clinton. Who gives a rats A$$ who the Republicans like ? They’ve displayed their lack of judgment with what has occurred in this country since 2000.

  27. Joe Friday,

    Good highlighting the Republican preference thing. I am so sick and tired of apologists toadying up to republican orthodoxy, and in the process pulling the Democratic party to the right.

  28. Joe Friday, I’m with you. Of course Repubs don’t like Hillary. She’s running for the Dem nomination, not the GOP one. I’m more impressed with the percentage of independents who are comfortable with her.

  29. I have to say, I just read Hillary’s policy paper on Isreal and I am quite disappointed. I certainly support Isreal’s right to exist. But Hillary doesn’t seem to give a rats ass about Plaestinian’s. Further, she “rejects” Hamas. But Hamas is a duly elected government. She doesn’t believe in aid for a palestine that has Hamas participate in it’s government? This doesn’t make any sense to me. The US can not dictate wh the palestinians elect, and we need to take a more even handed approach. I think this is part of what is wrong with US policy. Bill Clinton tried to broker peace between Isreal and Palestine. I expected Hillary to do the same or atleast to stay out of the way. I think it vitally important to US security that we do not seem too heavey handed against the people of palestine. This is a big disappointment for me.

  30. New AP South Carolina numbers:


    Hillary Clinton, 45 percent
    Barack Obama, 27 percent
    John Edwards, 7 percent
    Don’t know, 13 percent



    Fred Thompson, 26 percent
    Rudy Giuliani, 23 percent
    John McCain, 15 percent
    Mitt Romney, 9 percent
    Don’t know, 16 percent

  31. New AP New Hampshire numbers:


    Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent
    Barack Obama, 16 percent
    John Edwards, 16 percent
    Bill Richardson, 8 percent



    Mitt Romney, 28 percent
    Rudy Giuliani, 23 percent
    John McCain, 12 percent
    Fred Thompson, 11 percent
    Mike Huckabee, 6 percent

  32. mj,

    I am with Hillary on this one. Hamas is a terrorist organization, I’m scoffing at the idea ‘a duly elected government’ is always a good thing.

    There’s no secret that most democrats are staunch Israel allies, but that does not mean Clinton will not take initiatives to broker peace between Israel and Palestine. On the contrary, the friendlier Hillary is with Jewish groups in the states, the more leverage she will have to deal with Israel/Palestine issue. This is very simple. We all know the political clout of Jewish groups in the states is huge, if a candidate does not have their trust, it’s very difficult to see how they can effectively pursue the role of brokering a bold deal
    Obama is considered not trusworthy by many Jews, I doubt he’ll have the clout to do such things.

  33. mj,

    Btw, you can always nitpick one or two things you don’t like about Hillary, but single issue voters always killed democratic party’s chance in the past.

  34. Kostner, take it easy. My point is the US doesn’t dictate who people vote for. You can’t simply reject an elected government. I understand what you are saying but Isreal and Palestine are in the midst of deep negotiations this week that will likely result in some share of jerusalem, and I’m weary of her interfering n that process. It’s not going to stop me from voting for her, but I’m disappointed.

  35. Hello all,

    I just read JOHN HARWOOD’s analysis on that NBC/WSJ’s poll, I’m so sick and tired of him spouting the conventional myth that Obama is somehow more ‘electable’. Here’s what he said…

    At the same time, the poll hints at Mr. Obama’s potential strength in a general election. Some 26% of Republicans say that, among Democratic presidential prospects, they’d be most comfortable with Mr. Obama serving as president. Just 14% say they’d be most comfortable with Mrs. Clinton, buttressing arguments that she’d be a polarizing force at the top of the Democratic ticket.

    I immediately fired him an email citing Hillary’s strength among independents in the same poll and ask him to do some research before opening his mouth!!

    I also gave him the latest CNN poll, Q-polls in OH/FL to make the case it is Clinton who is more electable, not Obama…

    Can everybody here follow my lead to fire an email to this guy in order to catch his attention. He’s a typical DC talking head, regularly appearing on all sorts of Sunday talk shows.

    Remember to toss him tons of head-to-head matchups in purple, red states by SurveyUSA and Rasmussen to politely ask him to do some research before spouting those Hillary ‘unelectable’ myth!!

  36. Who cares about this guy? The only reason Repub.’s believe this is because Obama keeps telling them they are oing to like him. Once they get to know him, they’ll be as uncomfortable with him as they are with Hillary. Further, 26%-14% is such a drastic difference, when you think about it.

  37. mj,

    I still disagree with you. It is a false assumption that somehow an ‘elected government’ is always GOOD, or Democratic. The same fantasy fooled American people supporting a war to ‘liberate’ Iraq.

    Hamas is a terrorist organization whether it’s elected or not. If you want to have an election in Arab world, Bin Laden will likely garner the most votes.The way to deal with Hamas is to chock them off financially and then perhaps start the negotiation.

  38. tim russert always have to put a negative dig at hillary even though she has been leading by 20 points for months.

  39. Well, we’ll agree to disagree. If she tries to continue a peace process as her husband did and Blair is doing even today then fine. But, ultimately, the US loses if there is not peace between Isreal and Palestine.

  40. mj,

    BTW, actions speak volume. If you look back on Clinton era, he’s far more involved in the negotation between Israel and Palestine. If Arafat had not back edoff, there might have already been a Palestine state for years.

    I have no doubt Hillary Clinton will do the same thing if she assumes the presidency. Yes, she sounds a bit more hawkish on Israel-Palestine relations, that’s probably because her NY constituency requested her to do so since there’s a large Jewish community there. But if she becomes president, she will no doubt take a broader view on this issue. Because of her strong relationship with Jewish community, I also believe she’ll have more leeway to broker a deal.

  41. I am struck by Hillary’s courting the SEIU vote as they are currently gearing up for a big to-do w/AARP in Iowa on the 20th. I suspect that within a week afterwards, they’ll grant their endorsement to one of the Democratic candidates. It’s part of the Divided We Fail thing I mentioned late last week/ this weekend. This will be a huge event for her as SEIU is also being actively courted by JE. If she pulls it, it’s a major union endorsement (besides the Letter Carriers union she picked up this week), and will undercut the strength of JE’s union cred. Plus, they’re spending a huge amount of money over the next year on issue ads which can only help her if her health care plan to be released next week (the week of the 20th) meets with their approval.

    I hope she gets it. As she says, she’s out there earning her votes, one at a time. Each event between now and mid-Nov is crucial to getting her to the 50% mark. I think she’ll be at 50% in national polls by the end of the third week in October.

  42. mj,

    Remember actions speak volume. Mr. Clinton was very much involved in the peace deal between Palestine and Israel. If Arafat had not backed down, there might have been a Palestine state for years.

    yes, Mrs. Clinton may sound a bit more hawkish than her husband on this issue. But this is partly because her constituency requested her to do so. Remeber there’s a large Jewish community in NY. However, I have no doubt she will continue her husband’s policy to double the efforts in peace process in the middle east. She will of course take a much broader view as president instead of a senator from New York.

    Because of her strong relationship with Jewish community, she will also have more leeway in brokering a successful deal. That’s actually her advantage.

  43. OkieAtty ,

    I don’t think she can get SEIU endorsement. I rememer reading somewhere it will be a big success if Obama and Clinton can prevent SEIU from making a formal endorsement to any candidate.

  44. Kostner, I think and hope you are right. Ofcourse, it is logical. I think Bush has scared the hell out of most of us and has made us more skeptical than ever, but I do think you are right.

  45. O son’t know why the SEIU would not support Hillary. It is not a manufacturing union, and therefore it was not effected by NAFTA(not that Hillary of even Bill Clinton deserve all the blame for manufacturing woes in this country). She is the one who is talking about hiring more nurses and health aids. This would be could for the SEIU.

  46. Kostner, I think they will endorse her. As of now, she is hands down the best person and has unbeatable polls. I bet the plan she unveils top of next week will meet with their approval. The upshot for DWF/SEIU/AARP is that it gives an absolute mandate to a newly elected president. She couldn’t get it thru last time partially bc of a lack of mandate for BC, but if there is a full year for them to spend their 48M bucks lobbying candidates in down ticket elections and sway public opinion, universal healthcare will be a reality. Look for it. My instincts tell me they’ll take the gamble and consolidate.


    Membership leans women/minorities. If they poll membership, I see no way Edwards can take either.

    I recall reading (Andy Stern?) one of SEIU’s spokespersons said that big error they made with Dean/IA is that Dean didn’t have the bottom-up support from the rank-and-file. They made a top-down endorsement.

    SEIU’s big issue w/ Hillary right now is that she didn’t meet their deadline for a health coverage plan (I think it was end of Aug). Obviously that’s less of an issue come Monday.

    I’ll be surprised if Edwards gets SEIU — looking for that non-endorsement.

  48. Did you notice that no major union has endorsed Obama. One could easily infer from that that he is not the favorite of working people.

    Primary voters should ask themselves why Ripublicans favor Obama over Hillary. Possible answers: i) they like to sing kumbya, ii) they fear Hillary will hold their feat to the fire, rather than appease them, iii) they know they cannot beat a Clinton in the GE. (Clue: they hate to sing kumbaya).

  49. Unions usually don’t push hard on the locals — I expect that locals in Illinois will go for Obama — and that’s a lot of union members. Where they can be helpful to him is sending manpower to Iowa.

  50. Folks,

    The latest NBC/WSJ poll actually has some excellent head-to-head matchup numbers for Hillary…

    September 7, 2007

    Clinton 49
    Giuliani 42

    Clinton 50
    Thompson 41

    Clinton 51
    Romney 38

    If you look at the trendline, it’s pretty striking…

    09/07 07/07 06/07 03/07

    Clinton 49 47 48 42

    Giuliani 42 41 43 47

  51. HillaryLandRocks, the unions I am familiar with do push their local subordinate bodies (i.e. locals) to support their national endorsements. Otherwise the national endorsement would be meaningless. There have been exceptions, e.g. when Teamster General President endorsed Nixon and St. Louis area Vice President Harold Gibbons endorsed McGovern, but they are rare. If Hoffa and Andy Stern end up endorsing Hillary, I would expect the Chicago locals to fall in line–but I could be wrong. In more decentalized Unions the outcome could be different,

  52. Excellent LA Times article analyzes why Clinton rivals’ attack on her Iraq stance is fruitless…

    The relatively hawkish candidate has apparently shifted Iraq to an asset by focusing on troop reductions rather than on her earlier vote.
    By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    7:16 PM PDT, September 12, 2007

    WASHINGTON — Gayle Moore, an Iowa nurse, wants U.S. troops “out, out, out” of Iraq as soon as possible. Darleen McCarthy of South Carolina fears that Iraq is turning into “another Vietnam.” But when these two Democrats vote in January to help decide their party’s 2008 presidential nominee, neither plans to support the self-styled anti-war candidates. Instead, they are siding with the one top contender who supported the invasion and has refused to apologize for it — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    “It’s just a gut feeling,” said Moore, 53, a mother of five. “It’s her experience.”

    A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are not alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: While a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate that makes her appealing. Many voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

    “It’s just the way Hillary Clinton handles herself,” said McCarthy, 55, who lives near Myrtle Beach, S.C . “She says what she wants, and I think she’ll let the American people know exactly what’s going on.”

    The findings help explain why the New York senator has built a strong lead over rivals who have made their opposition to the war a centerpiece of their campaigns — and who have laid out more detailed plans for quicker troop reductions.

    Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina began his campaign by declaring his 2002 authorization vote a “mistake.” Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois frequently notes that, even though he was a state legislator at the time, he opposed the war from the beginning. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has called for an immediate troop withdrawal.

    Obama tried once again Wednesday to turn his war stance to his advantage, delivering a speech in Iowa that called for a troop drawdown to begin immediately and be completed next year. He did not mention Clinton’s name, but ridiculed “conventional thinking in Washington” that he said “lined up for war” and led Congress to support President Bush’s plans because lawmakers feared the political consequences of doing otherwise.

    “I made a different judgment,” Obama said.

    But the new survey results suggest that even if Obama’s views more closely match those of many primary and caucus voters, he is not necessarily going to benefit.

    The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality in each state thought Clinton more than her rivals would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33 percent in Iowa, 32 percent in New Hampshire and 36 percent in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

    Supervised by Times Poll director Susan Pinkus, the survey was conducted Sept. 6-10 and has an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points; among the Iowa Democrats it was 4 percentage points.

    Clinton won support from 36 percent of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters who said they wanted U.S. troops withdrawn “as soon as possible”; by contrast, 14 percent of those voters backed Obama and 12 percent favored Edwards. Clinton also led among those who said they supported more gradual withdrawal plans and who backed remaining in Iraq until the war is won.

    The numbers were similar on that front in South Carolina. And in Iowa, where the overall race is tighter, Clinton was essentially tied with Edwards in support from voters wanting an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. But among those same voters, 33 percent said Clinton was the best candidate to end the war, compared with just 6 percent for Edwards.

    Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign, said Clinton’s rivals risk reaching a “point of diminishing returns” if they focus too heavily on differences between them and Clinton on Iraq. Most voters, he said, are not concerned about the differences, given that each candidate is essentially critical of the war and promises to end it at some point.

    Critics have accused Clinton of failing to present a specific plan to end the war and of being slow to commit to a full pullout. She has said that, as president, she would end the war, and she used a speech his summer to pledge that if elected, she would consult her advisers and draw up a plan to begin drawing down troops within 60 days of her inauguration. She reiterated that stance on Wednesday, unleashing a stinging attack on Bush’s leadership in advance of his prime-time address on the war set for Thursday night .

    “None of the Democratic candidates has a position that is outside the realm of acceptable for what the Democratic electorate is looking for,” Beattie said, even though “it may not be their absolute favorite position.”

    Harrison Hickman, Edwards’ campaign pollster, acknowledged that at least for now, voters are not seeing specific differences among the candidates on the war.

    “If they don’t see a lot of differences, it’s hard to say those issues are driving the campaign,” he said.

    Analysts said that Clinton’s strength even among war opponents results from a perception that, as a former first lady and as a senator, she has the best experience to be president — a category she dominated in the three early states surveyed by the Times/Bloomberg poll. Several respondents said Wednesday that they liked her for other reasons that trumped the war: her husband, the former president, and the idea of electing a woman to the White House.

    Also, the survey reflects the Clinton campaign’s efforts over the past six months to refocus the Iraq debate on a future of troop reductions — an area of agreement among the candidates — rather than on her 2002 vote. As a result, the debate over the war has shifted from a potential disadvantage for Clinton to an asset, her advisers say.

    “It’s an issue, and she’s winning the issue,” said Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster.

    Strategists for Clinton’s rivals dispute that notion, contending that the war continues to serve as a case against her. The campaign is early, they said, and her rivals still have time to paint her 2002 vote as indicative of poor judgment.

    “Any suggestion that the Iraq war is a settled issue in this primary would be dangerously wrong,” said David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager.

    But, like many voters in the early states, Jean Corson of Exeter, N.H., said she was far more focused on the future than the past.

    “I’m very disappointed that Clinton didn’t move more aggressively earlier on, but at this point, I believe that whoever gets elected will have to get the troops out of Iraq,” she said.

    Explaining why she will back Clinton, Corson said: “She’s smart. She knows how the system works.”

  53. Hopefully Obama staff and Edwards staff will read the L.A. Times article and stop their foolish attacks. They hurt themselves and provide amusement for Big Media but Hillary remains untouched.

    You would think they would have realized all this by now.

  54. HillaryLandRocks- if you are correct, Chicago locals go for Obama and head to Iowa, they may be less effective on the political front in that venue than they are in Illinois because Iowa is a right to work state. Nevertheless, their government employees are union represented so they could still have some impact.

  55. In case anyone missed it, tonight was that silly online interview of all the candidates gussied up as a “mash up”. Here is the explanation for this silly “mash up” business:

    How any of this differs from a regular old videotaped interview is beyond us. Hillary on lobbyists:

    “In August at the Yearly Kos debate, both Barack Obama and John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and have pressed the case ever since. Clinton appears to have gotten tired of it. “I think it’s a little inauthentic for people to say don’t take money from lobbyists but it’s okay to take it from their spouses, their children, their associates and from people that work for the companies that employ them,” she told Rose. “That is, you know, to me, kind of an artificial distinction.”

    Here is the link to the whole Hillary interview:


    love this line from Hillary: “No, what I said was meant to convey my very strong feeling that no matter how flat the pancake, there’s always two sides.”

    also like this: “Obviously, I hope the headline is that, you know, Hillary is back, and we’re going to get it done this time, because we tried and were not successful in ’93-’94.”

    and this is pretty good too: “Well, I can’t, you know, say how you prevent people who have legitimate businesses in America from participating in the political process. I think it’s somewhat silly that anybody would look at me with the record that I have and the extraordinary incoming fire that I’ve taken for 15 years and suggest that talking to people, even working with them, is somehow out of bounds. You know, nobody is going to be surprised when I unroll my coverage plan that I intend to dramatically rein in the influence of the insurance companies, because frankly I think that they have worked to the detriment of our economy and of our health-care system. So I think the plan that I have should be judged on the merits, but I’ve learned in my own years in the White House and my years in the Senate, that a president, no matter how well-meaning, cannot just direct that something pass the Congress. You’ve got to work with Republicans and Democrats, and I think I’m better positioned with, frankly, a better set of experiences to do that.”

  56. Admin. the other thing those errant campaigns do is serve the interests of Ripublicans. You should have seen the puff piece on Axelrod in the right wing rag NewsMax, clear evidence they like what he is doing.

  57. Edwards bought two minutes of air time after Bush’s speech tomorrow. In many ways, he is a better campaigner than Obama. I really think media bias explains the difference in the polls of Obama and Edwards.

  58. mj, Edwards may be playing catch-up. Hillary and Obama confronted Bush’s speech before the fact, thus he probably figures he needs to say something afterwards. However, he will have to compete with the official Democratic response delivered most likely by Senator Reid.

  59. This approach has no bearing on Hillary(although perhaps if as he has before Edwards advances the debate on the issue, in this case Iraq, Hillary may be under more pressure to force Bush’s hand in some wat. I, personally, think that would be a good thing), but I think it is a significant push back at Obama. It completely pushes his speech out of the headlines, and his base will want to see more action from him.

  60. From Staff:

    For Edwards, it seems like a waste of money.

    But this is not the first time Trippi has wasted money. With Dean of course he was profligate. With Edwards, and we discussed it at the time, Trippi spent money on ads in Oregon (pretending it was some secret brilliant move), wasted more money on ads in Roll Call magazine and no doubt this is another Trippi harebrained scheme.

    A nationwide ad buy – for what? How does that advance his campaign? He should be spending that money in organization in the early voting states. In all probability his ad will be lost in the coverage of the B_ush speech and analysis afterwards. Maybe JE just bought ad time on one station broadcasting the speech in which case his 2 minutes will be truly lost. If he buys air time on more than one station he is wasting more money that he can afford to lose.

    Edwards (and Obama) needs to read the poll numbers and that L.A. Times article which explains why his campaign is not getting traction. People don’t see him as president because he is not presenting a vision of how he views the presidency. He makes all sorts of speeches about attacking this or that but provides no sense of what he wants to do, what kind of America he sees. That’s what Edwards and Obama need to work on – not gimmicks like this 2 minute ad.

    And, frankly, unless Edwards has wads of money we are not aware of and which are not reported to the FEC, he can’t afford this gesture.

  61. You are probably right. Edwards speech will eclipse Obama message, and Hillary will have the option of responding or not responding as circumstances warrant. Next week should be hers as she unveils the long awaited health care proposal.

  62. Admin, the only damage JE does is to Obama. I thought his speech was weak tea, and now with JE going that hard after Bush, I think Obama’s younger, idealisic, fanbase will expect even more from him.

  63. good morning hillfans. great poll numbers all around. good nite at work and ready to conquer the day after some zzzzz. GO HILLARY GO!!!!

  64. wbboei: Iowa is a right to work state.

    Sorry if I wasn’t clear — I mean as volunteers. I expect the obama campaign to send all chicago-area resources to gotv in iowa.

  65. A few more comments about unions.

    Out of the AFL-CIO group, the important unions in IA (in terms of either membership or organizational influence) are: UAW (John Deere plants), Machinists, Teamsters, Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

    IAFF has about 2500 in IA membership — the reason you hear a lot about them is because they are especially effective in mobilizing membership, and also, they are NH’s largest union (the international is located in NH).

    AFSCME dwarfs SEIU in terms of IA membership — SEIU has about 2500 in IA, AFSCME b/t 20K-30K (don’t remember the exact number).

    There’s also a few state-specific unions to look out for in IA.

    That Edwards scored the nyc transit workers isn’t anything to write home about. All of that is just political — they went on an illegal (by state law) strike a few years back and got fined big-time. The endorsement is a middle finger to the NY political class.

    Basically, Edwards isn’t offering anything beyond red-meat rhetoric, so I don’t understand why SEIU would override membership (it would surprise me to see them vote 60% Edwards). I put SEIU, UAW and AFSCME in the “advantage Clinton or no endorsement” camp.

    I know the bloggers insist that Edwards “owns” SEIU, but I don’t get it. Their workers by-and-large are not affected by NAFTA, so campaigning against Bill Clinton’s record is not as potent. A bigger issue is that SEIU (unlike the AFL-CIO) mgmt is on board with guest-worker programs, which the rank-and-file don’t support — but there’s little difference b/t the presidential candidates on this immigration reform, AFAIK.

  66. admin,

    I think Edwards’ move is probabaly targeted on money. Remember the September deadline is approaching fast. Last quarter, they used EE to have a cat fight with Coulter to collect some money. This time around, his base is very dispirited by those polling numbers, by appearing presidential on TV, he’ll give his base a reason to throw in some money…

    Just my two cents.

  67. Admin,

    Read ‘LATimes’ article… Suicide note fingers Obama… Wow, another unexpected twist …

    In his letter, Hsu apologized for any embarrassment he had caused recipients of his largesse. In the last four years, he has generated donations of more than $1 million for Democratic politicians across the country.

    Hsu’s undoing began two weeks ago with articles raising questions about his fundraising activities in the Wall Street Journal and about a criminal case in his past in The Times. In his letter, said a person familiar with its contents who asked to remain anonymous, Hsu contended that those articles were planted “by a politician who pledged ‘hope and change’ ” — an apparent reference to Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    “This is a sad and baseless allegation,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. “We had no knowledge of his past criminal behavior, fugitive status or a potential straw-donor scheme until reading it in the newspaper

  68. kostner, You are correct about those NH and SC polls. DCDemocrat said AP in the post and I thought that meant Associated Press, lol. They are the ones from Tuesday. Sorry!

  69. I know Obama’s campaign has some guys who can play dirty (Gibbs and Axelrod), but Hsu is probably off his rocker in blaming Obama’s people for the stories. I wouldn’t give it any credence, unless some real evidence emerges.

  70. Insider Advantage poll of Fla. has HRC up 18 over Obama:

    Among 500 Democratic likely voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 36%) leads Sen. Barack Obama (18%), and former Sen. John Edwards (9%) in a statewide primary. All other candidates receive less than 5% each, and 21% are undecided.

  71. Paula, since the Obama campaign is partially pregnant on this one to the tune of $7000 I tend to agree with you. From Hillary’s standpoint, the return of all the money he raised to the donors plus the establishment of vetting standards which all candidates should adopt is the presidential thing to do. The fundraising system which exists today is like trying to take a drink from a fire hose, and the problem exists for all candidates except those who have been unable to raise donations.

  72. I agree with Admin that we must stop being namby-pamby (huh?) when we go on the big blogs to fight back against the attacks from Team Obama (which i believe are being orchestrated and channeled thru that vile slug, Robert Gibbs) Whenerver you fight back on those sites, they respond in one of three ways – nasty, nasty attacks – or they ban ya (Ive been banned repeatedly by the Naderites at Kos (for calling them out for being unreconstructed Naderites- or…

    they say that you are “hurting your (Hillary) candidate’s cause by”….what? Telling the truth! Screw that!

    These sites are very very very small in numbers/ All they do is lie about how many viewers-readers that they have – but the one way they really do have influence is that they are READ by the political media (who actually accept and buy into the stupid and very false idea that these folks are our Party’s base…once again, perception IS reality) So….the idea of allowing these false and aggresive and hurtful attacks on Hillary to go without a vigorous response and answer is plain wrong.

    Hell, I spent hours the other night arguing at myDD with some crypto fascists who were trying to ban Areyouready because…why?….Oh…because she was mean….oh boo f-ing whoo!

    Team Obama and Gibbs have gone into the mud against Hillary and President Clinton since day 1. The idea that they will change their spots is beyond ridiculous. They have said repeatedly that the Clintons “sold” the Lincoln bedroom. They have written entire memos that they leaked to the press about what vile people President and Senator Clinton are.
    They lie, lie, lie about the role of lobbyists and fact cats in their campaign and pretend that it is Hillary that is oh so dirty . (Puleeze! Daley=Axelrod=Obama OK? Got it!?)

    I truly expect that the suicide note from Hsu will prove to be accurate. Gibbs (who is after all running ALL their media strategy after all) KNOWS that if the Clintons get elected back to the White House – that he is DONE in Washington Democratic politics. He will do and say anything to save his ass….I know that jerk, believe it!

    Years ago, in 92, I worked for Harkin in his campaign for the Presidency. We fought hard – but we never, ever, EVER fought DIRTY against Clinton or the other Dems. That kind of crap started with Bradley in 2000. remember it wasnt the GOP who first brought the word “lie” as a charge against Gore…it was the Bradley folks. Many, many, many of these same people went on to vote for nader in 2000, because they couldnt dirty themselves to support the now hated Gore. Well, guess what folks? A lot and lots of Team Obama staff – high and low – is comprised of former Bradleyites.. The mean spiritedness is the same as the faux and phoney act of purity….oh…hope….oh swelll….they say this even as Fitzgerald is about to try Obama’s best buddy Rezko….these fools… we are NOT GOING TO WIN THEM OVER…. but we must fight back against the long term damage, the script that they are setting for the GOP and the MSM media now…

    That is why I LUV this site here. Hillis44 GETS IT!

    The fight is about the narrative! The narrative that Hillary and Bill are dirty rotten scoundrels. The narrative that the GOP pushes….the narrative that the msm pushes…and the narrative that the idiots on the blogs are now pushing that we as net fighters MUST fight back against!

    If you want to help put the Clintons back in the White House, you should everyday read this site and the daily howler. You should get your info and ammo ready and you should go to these blog sites and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT with these Naderish-Bradlesque fools…

    This sure as hell aint the time to make friends, but it sure is the time to fight the mythos that is developing around Candidate Clinton that is being set up by that ass Gibbs and his cohorts.

  73. Dem, Dem: Please repost your comment as well on the new post. You will probably like the new post.

    As to this new fangled idea that Democrats have developed that when punched in the face we have to be “fair” or “better than them” is an outrage.

    That is why Democrats lose. Politics “ain’t beanbag”. The Kennedy brothers knew this, Roosevelt knew this, Johnson knew this And RIPUBLICANS KNOW THIS.

    And you make another terrific point: the Big Blogs are nothing, but Big Media is too stupid to realize that, But more likely Big Media uses what is on Big Blogs to promote the narrative they want to promote.

    The danger to Dems, as we wrote in our initial post comes from PINOs, not the right wing press or even Big Media.

    We need to fight.

  74. kostner,

    “If Arafat had not backed down, there might have been a Palestine state for years.”

    Not to nitpick, but according to people that were in the room, that is a well-worn canard.

    It was Prime Minister Barak who reneged on numerous commitments, was only willing to discuss vague generalities, and refused to allow any proposals or agreements to be put down in writing at the Camp David talks, hence there was never any actual specific Israel ‘offer’. President Arafat essentially did accept the parameters of President Clinton’s proposal. PM Barak never did.

  75. “And you make another terrific point: the Big Blogs are nothing, but Big Media is too stupid to realize that, But more likely Big Media uses what is on Big Blogs to promote the narrative they want to promote.”

    Not just Big Media, but Rudy as well. He tries to link Hillary to radical lefties in his NYTimes attack ad, equating Hil’s skepticism of the Petraeus Report with MoveOn’s ‘General Betray Us’ ad. I have nothing against MoveOn, but it hurts us when they are falsely described as the ‘Democratic Base’. They are not.

    Now we see what a genius Hillary was not to ‘apologize’ to the Netroots. Edwards is paying for capitulating to the Netroots – despite months of giving head on his knees to Markos, he’s seen as least likely to end the war. Edwards gives new meaning to the phrase ‘Presidential Kneedpads’.

    I’m still inclined to ignore Daily Toilet. I post for Hillary on the conservative TownHall. Not taking anything for granted in the primaries, but the action is against Rudy now.


    Here’s the Rudy link.

Comments are closed.