Obama’s Latest Gifts To Ripublicans

Obama detonated another nuclear bomb blunder for Democrats this past Tuesday.

Obama, aware his campaign is dead, is pursuing a scorched earth policy and seems determined to provide Ripublicans with Naderite talking points for the general election campaign. Ripublicans eager to distance themselves from Bush’s responsibility for the Iraq War will parrot Obama and say everyone was to blame for the Iraq War – blur the issue – spread the blame to Democrats by quoting Obama. Obama’s noxious Naderite phrase “That is why it is not enough to change parties.” must be condemned.

There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush’s war, it’s all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don’t tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes – it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought.

Obama is simply wrong with his Naderite talk. Obama is the one pushing a lie for personal political benefit. Iraq is Bush’s war. Bush employed the massive powers of the American presidency to force the Iraq war. Bush wanted the Iraq War and exploited the emotions of the American public to push through his Oedipal war. There were other forces pushing for war – such as the neo-con establishment and right wing news outlets that supported the war. Democrats such as John Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq resolution that Bush exploited to push his Iraq war. But it was George W. Bush who as president demanded war and signed off on the war. Subsequently, by refusing to cooperate with Democrats who want to end the war, it has become a Ripublican Party war too.
In a separate section of his speech Obama more or less acknowledges the nonsense he is spouting:

But we’ve paid a heavy price for having a President whose priority is expanding his own power. The Constitution is treated like a nuisance. Matters of war and peace are used as political tools to bludgeon the other side. We get subjected to endless spin to keep our troops at war, but we don’t get to see the flag-draped coffins of our heroes coming home. We get secret task forces, secret budgeting, slanted intelligence, and the shameful smearing of people who speak out against the President’s policies.

There is one person to blame for the Iraq War. John Edwards, co-sponsor of the Iraq resolution demanded by Bush, is not to blame for the Iraq war. The neo-cons are not to blame for the Iraq war. Dick Cheney is not to blame for the Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld is not to blame for the Iraq war. The right wing press is not to blame for the Iraq war. The Pentagon and the American military is not to blame for the Iraq war. The Congress is not to blame for the Iraq War. The State Department and Colin Powell are not to blame for the Iraq War. The Iraq War is George W. Bush’s war. Bush was aided and abetted by all of the above, but it was George W. Bush who bears the ultimate responsibility and it was Bush that pushed and demanded and insisted, against all reason, that America have an Iraq War.

Barack Obama might not know it, because he is so inexperienced, but there is a sign on the president’s desk in the Oval Office that says “The Buck Stops Here”. The President is responsible. And George W. Bush is responsible for the Iraq War. Bush listened to his lunatic advisors and Vice President and neo-cons and Ripublicans that wanted war. Bush demanded War. Bush pushed for United Nations and Congressional actions to get his War. Bush as Commander-In-Chief ordered the military to commence the War.

Obama, like Nader wants to create a moral equivalency of blame, the “No difference between Republicans and Democrats” charge. Nader was wrong and Obama is wrong. Bush and his criminal administration lied repeatedly about the need for war. They faked intelligence and lied to a sad, mournful and fearful American public by suggesting links to the 9/11 attacks and Iraq.

The American public on October 10, 2002, a little over a year after the 9/11 attacks and less than 1 month before the 2002 elections was susceptible to Bush’s manipulations and lies. Bush and his administration lied to the United Nations. Bush set up Feith at the Pentagon to push through his war. Generals opposed to Bush’s War and anyone who opposed Bush’s War were removed and attacked. Big Media, especially the New York Times were fed lies and these once respectable news organizations happily regurgitated the lies to the American public. Colin Powell fed lies to the American public and the United Nations and the public believed that then respected public official.

Obama is to his everlasting shame smearing Democrats and apportioning to Democrats blame for the Iraq War which belongs exclusively to George W. Bush.

Obama’s latest “big speech” on Tuesday was a dud. Obama did not anticipate the Associated Press publication of an analysis of many of Obama’s Iraq war related claims on the same day Obama delivered his speech. Let’s compare Obama’s speech with what the Associated Press wrote.

Obama, touting his alleged courage in opposing the war:

Five years ago today, I was asked to speak at a rally against going to war in Iraq. The vote to authorize the war in Congress was less than ten days away and I was a candidate for the United States Senate. Some friends of mine advised me to keep quiet. Going to war in Iraq, they pointed out, was popular. All the other major candidates were supporting the war at the time. If the war goes well, they said, you’ll have thrown your political career away.

The Associated Press

But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator’s claim that he was a “courageous leader” who opposed the war at great political risk.

The truth is that while Obama showed foreign policy savvy and an ability to keenly analyze both sides of an issue in his October 2002 warnings on Iraq, the political upside of his position rivaled any risk.

And, once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq.

Even now, as he hopes to ride his anti-war credentials to the White House, Obama’s views on how to end the conflict differ little from those of Democratic rivals who voted in the fall of 2002 to give President Bush authority to wage war.


Obama likes to say he feared his anti-war views would hurt his Senate candidacy in 2002. He may have felt that way, but there was little reason for concern.

First, his strategy for winning the Democratic Senate nomination hinged on his ability to form a coalition among blacks and so-called lakefront liberals in Chicago, hardly a pro-war constituency. His rivals for the nomination also would criticize the war.

In the general election, Obama might have had to regret his remarks if the war had been going well in 2004. Still, he was never too far out on a limb:

_ Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois voted against Bush on Iraq in 2002 and breezed to re-election shortly after Obama’s signature speech.

_The Chicago Sun-Times published an October 2002 poll under the headline “Illinois is not ready for war.”

Can Obama be believed? He claims courage and risk taking. A non partisan observer quoted by the Associated Press states that Obama’s Iraq postion in 2002 was “Not risky at all.”

The “courage” lines in the speech were contradicted by the Associated Press article. But the most quoted and applauded lines (applauded by Obama supporters and Naderites) from Obama’s speech are these:

But it doesn’t end there. Because the American people weren’t just failed by a President – they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress – a coequal branch of government – that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let’s be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?

Does anyone at his campaign vet Obama’s speeches? Do they ever stop to consider how his speeches inflict wounds on Democrats and on Obama himself were he ever to get the Democratic nomination? Does Obama understand words? Obama says Bush and the media and the foreign policy elites failed the American people – that is not true. Big Media and foreign policy experts and the C.I.A. and the State Department and many others failed the American people – that is true. But Obama wants to blur the line and lump everyone with Bush as failing the American people. Again, these other people and organizations failed to stop the War, but It was and is George W. Bush’s War.

Ripublicans will spend millions of advertising dollars in attempting to tie Democrats to responsiblity for the Iraq War. Ripublicans will quote Obama “Let’s be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.” Is Obama right? Without “that” vote would there be no war? Is Obama lying? Is Obama stupid? Let’s look at the facts:

George W. Bush was determined to go to war. If congress had voted against the Iraq resolution it is doubtful that Bush would let that legality stop him from committing the armed forces to war.

But most importantly what would have happened if Congress had voted against the Iraq resolution? Even if we assume that Obama is correct and that the Iraq resolution was not about more inspections but indeed a War Resolution, is Obama right that “without that vote, there would be no war.”? Let’s further assume that Bush would have respected the Congress and not gone to War without the Congressional O.K. – is Obama correct that “without that vote, there would be no war.”?

Let’s go to the facts. As we noted the Iraq resolution vote occurred on October 10, 2002. Over 70% of the American public supported the idea of going to war with Iraq. The vote on October 10, 2002 took place a little over a year after the 9/11 attacks. Americans were still in full shock, mourning and anger about the attacks. There was a “war fever”. Even Big Bloggers supported the war and denounced those who opposed the war. Bush lied repeatedly. Colin Powell, then respected, went to the United Nations with C.I.A. Director George Tenet, then respected, and pushed for war. There was a “war fever”.

Congressional elections were less than a month away.

Is Obama right that “without that vote, there would be no war”? Or is it more likely that war opponents would have been decimated in the elections a few weeks later and the subsequent Congress would have voted to plunge the United States not only into an Iraq War but also back in history before the New Deal and before the Progressive Era? George Bush wanted war and nothing was going to stop him from having his war.

Obama’s other big line of the speech was the oft-repeated mantra “And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?” Don’t Obama campaign officials understand that if this line is correct that Obama has signed all the additional checks? When did Obama ever oppose funding the Iraq War and stop signing checks before announcing he wanted to be President? As the Associated Press reported,

Once elected, Obama didn’t force the issue in the Senate. His first floor speech encouraged Democrats to drop challenges to the 2004 presidential election “at a time when we try to make certain we encourage democracy in Iraq.”

His first major address on Iraq came in November 2005, when he said U.S. forces remained “part of a solution.”

In his speech, Obama attacks Washington in the same way Ripublicans attack Washington. Instead of building respect for government, instead of buidling respect for the federal government, instead of demanding a well run government cleansed of cronies and incompetents, instead of demanding a return to good government and a return to actual diplomacy, instead of condemning Ripublican hatred of the “central government” echoing the Confederacy, Obama joins Ripublicans in their hatred of the Federal Government. The problem is not the Federal Government, the problem is Ripublican control of the Federal Government which they don’t believe in and in fact despise and want to diminish if not destroy.

Obama’s version of his own history is at odds with the facts of his history. Obama’s Tuesday speech led to a stunning and underreported confession.

In his speech Obama said: I will always tell the American people the truth. I will always tell you where I stand.

Always tell the American people the truth? – Obama was lying. After his flowery speech Obama was interviewed by Candy Crowley of CNN. Crowley asked Obama why years ago Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on Iraq if he’d been in the U.S. Senate. Obama essentially confessed to lying, of course with Obama his lies are high-class flowery lies.

Situation Room, CNN, October 2, 2007:

CROWLEY: I want to talk about your Iraq speech, because have you also said since then that you’re not sure what you would have done had you been in the Senate because you weren’t privy to the intelligence.

OBAMA: The only time when I said I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination.

CROWLEY: But you didn’t mean it?

OBAMA: So — well, no. What I’m suggesting is, everybody had difficult choices to make. And I — and these were difficult choices.

Uh, it’s called lying, Barack.

Obama was even lying while he was lying. Was this lie “The only time when I said I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate….” Obama thinks that by confessing to a deceptive calculation he can get himself out of the corner he painted himself into while attacking others for political calculation while confessing to political calculation.

No, Barack, it was not the only time:

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined–one of the most disciplined people–I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

Obama constantly talks in flowery terms about being able to get 16 Ripublican votes against the war. But Obama is not in the Senate cloak rooms trying to get the job done. He is not even voting these days. He was absent for the Feingold vote yesterday. Obama AWOL again – so much for getting 16 votes.

Obama has supported Reid-Feingold twice before. But to say this is a pattern with Obama is an understatement. He didn’t vote for the Lieberman-Kyle legislation either. In addition, on my radio show today, Chase Martyn mentioned that Obama plans to also skip out on a barbecue this Saturday where all of the other candidates will appear. He doesn’t seem to want to be caught standing next to his opponents. Evidently, the plan is to market Obama as above and beyond his colleagues. They don’t want a side by side comparison if they can control it and keep it from happening. He began skipping out on events at the first of the year and I called him on it. I took heat for it too. Nobody else seems interested.

Obama is not interested in getting the job done for Democrats. Obama is in Ripublican gift giving mode.


29 thoughts on “Obama’s Latest Gifts To Ripublicans

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04proxy.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

    While Obama helps Ripublicans, Hillary fights them. Check out the facinating story of how Hillary blocked the California electoral vote scam.

    “Supporters of Rudolph W. Giuliani and of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are embroiled in their first major affray of the political season over a ballot initiative on presidential electoral votes some 2,500 miles from the pancake houses of Skaneateles, N.Y., and the fire stations of Queens.

    The fight could be a telling prelude to the 2008 presidential contest, with the political instincts and strategies long employed by Mr. Giuliani, a Republican, and Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, cast in sharp relief. The battle has reflected their political set-to in 2000, when they squared off briefly over a United States Senate seat in New York, and could foreshadow how the game would be played should they become their parties’ nominees.

    The proposed measure here would ask voters to apportion electoral votes by Congressional district, potentially giving the 2008 Republican nominee 20 of the state’s 55 votes — the rough equivalent of winning Illinois or Pennsylvania — in this otherwise reliably Democratic state.

    Such a change could amount to a seismic shift in the nation’s electoral dynamics, potentially springboarding a Republican into the White House, and the possibility has animated hopeful Republicans and fearful Democrats.

    Started by a Republican lawyer in California, the measure has been driven almost entirely by people who are associated with or have given money to Mr. Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

    The effort to kill the initiative — executed with a swift fierceness almost unheard of for an initiative in such an early stage — has been led by a bevy of Clinton supporters, including a former Clinton White House official, prominent elected Democratic supporters and one of Mrs. Clinton’s most prolific fund-raisers.

    “Clinton’s people have taken the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes against hostile nations and applied it to domestic campaigns,” said Bruce E. Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “As for Giuliani, he was trying to fight under the radar, and it must be clear to him now that that will not work with Hillary.”

  2. admin, thank goodness the national dems got on that california electoral vote scam by the repugs. that would have made florida in 2000 look like a picnic on the 4th of july.

  3. admin, do you notice when the pundits talk about hillary’s chances for the nomination no how well her run is going or how far ahead she is they allways end up saying she is still can lose this thing? it’s like they cannot bring themselves to believe she can win the whole thing dispite of their daggers at her. i see this commentary time and time again over the last 9 months. as for the obama robots they say”we have her where we want her” excuse.

  4. Admin,

    That’s a most excellent writing! I wish I had this piece with me as a reference when I tried to defend Hillary at MyDD yesterday in response to a negative attack diary by an Aaaaugh-BAMA supporter entitled “Obama launches his major offensive against Hillary .”

    Here is a link to my reply post that invited a swarm of bees.


    You need to click “permalink” icon at the top of the page to get the entire diary.

    I don’t write vey well, but I tried my best. 😉

    If folks here have time, please go over to myDD to help recommend a few Hillary posts. The entire recommended list is currently occupied by pro-Edwards diaries. That seems unbalanced. Thank you so much! 🙂

  5. one important note:

    That kyl/lierberman iran/quds terrorist vote: Dick durbin from IL voted YEAH- as did hillary; dick durbin was against the Iraq war in 2002, so his vote on for yes on this kyl/lieb amendment is serious…just like hillary’s….

    OBAMA did not take a stand here…he was aWOL on the vote!!!!

    And previously, obama and dodd had sponsorted a tougher version of this amendment which they are silent on now…..

    Dick durbin is supposedly a mentor to obama as IL senior senator….


    The iraq war vote was settled by 51% of the american in 2004; the issue is how and who fought the war; and who can take it to the next step to end it in a way that will be safe to our troops!!!

  6. Good news on the GOP front: Social conservatives will back third-party, pro-life candidate (from talkingpointsmemo.com).

    Recently it was reported that around 50 pro-family leaders gathered behind closed doors to discuss what to do if a pro-choice politician — read: Rudy — won the GOP nomination. The reports were a bit vague as to what happened, suggesting that the group said they would “consider” nominating a third-party challenger.

    Now, however, one of those leaders, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, has published an Op ed piece in The New York Times clarifying exactly what happened: The group voted almost unanimously not just to “consider” backing such a challenger, but to definitely do so. In other words, Dobson made it official, saying that if a pro-choicer wins the GOP nomination, these leaders will be going third party. Dobson wrote:

    After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

    That’s pretty definitive. The group also discussed the possibility of creating a third party themselves, though there was no consensus on that question. Still, according to Dobson, they will almost unanimously endorse a third-party challenger. This could obviously have a major impact on the race by splitting the GOP vote.

    Indeed, a new poll out from Rasmussen today says that more than a quarter — 27% — of Republicans would vote for such a pro-life third-party challenger. What’s particularly interesting about this poll is that it offers GOPers this choice while explicitly naming Hillary and Rudy as the major party nominees — suggesting that even the specter of a victorious Hillary wouldn’t dissuade many Republicans from going third party.

  7. BTW, I absolutely love this quote from the Calif. ballot initiative story:

    “Clinton’s people have taken the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes against hostile nations and applied it to domestic campaigns,” said Bruce E. Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “As for Giuliani, he was trying to fight under the radar, and it must be clear to him now that that will not work with Hillary.”

  8. Obama lacks COURAGE!

    He’s missed countless Senate Votes. He’s AFRAID to stand up for anything that may be considered dangerous to the furtherance of his rise to POWER.

    He’s a FRAUD and a Hypocrite!

    Mrs. S.

  9. Hey Admin, Great analysis. You speak it as it is. I can see and hear the ads the Ripublicans are manufacturin’ in their heads right now. Playin’ up Sen. Obama’s lies. Playin’ up the number of times he’s missed votes in the Senate. Playin’ up the time he’s voted to fund the war. I bet they are in front of their video editin’ machines right now playin’ with the quotes and images of Obama just for the sheer fun of thinkin’ what an easy defeat he would be. It’s an ugly image in my mind. It’s time to think about the great good here and check that ego at the door. It’s time to recognize experience and strength and leadership and stand with the democrats. How can the man who is going to reach across differences and build consensus not stand up in front of Iowans with some of the most important leaders of this country including Senator Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States. mollyj

  10. And speakin of ads, that is a great ad that Hillary’s camp is made. Everytime I see her I am proud of her, the person she’s become, the leader she is. I remember seein’ her when she was first lady of Arkansas workin’ with grassroots organizations for children and families, for rural health care for women’s issues. She got to be a leader the old fashioned way…she earned it–people’s respect. And lord, she’s got mine and apparently most of the electorates’. You rock, admin. mollyj

  11. In regards to the social conservatives going with a third-party candidate, the uber-conservative “Constitution Party”, which had a representative present at the secret confab this past weekend, has formally endorsed Republican Ron Paul for President. Should he (Paul) not get the Republican nod, look for him to be cast as this “protest” candidate as I think he fills the bill for both groups.

    I think these social conservatives may be willing to lose this election in order to convince the Republican Party not to take this base group for granted (as Bush has done).

  12. Senators weren’t free to vote their consciences – that was the point of scheduling the vote BEFORE the election. There was no reason for the vote to be held when it was other than to hammer Dems into voting for it. The Democrats held the senate by one vote at that point, courtesy of Jeffords’ defection, and were scheduled to almost certainly lose the majority in the election. The point of senators voting for the resolution was an attempt to hold the losses on the senate line. Senators serve six year terms – a big loss in November 2002 would take several elections to make up. Had more senators voted AGAINST the authorization, we may not have the senate majority NOW.

    All you need to look at for the truth of what I’m saying is that a majority of Dems in the House voted against the resolution (a majority of Dems overall in DC did). But the House only serves two year terms and the districts are smaller – far more tailored to the politics of the particular pol. They had more freedom than the senators did.

    And for those of you who get stuck in the “Hillary just made that up to justify her vote” argument, here’s a link to Jessica Tuchman-Mathews (Barbara Tuchman’s daughter) paper at the Carnegie Endowment For The International Peace form August 2002. She argues the coercive diplomacy may be the way to get unfettered access for the inspectors and perhaps avoid war from there. Hillary’s arguments in her floor speech mirror the arguments in her paper.


    And here is the link to Hillary’s floor speech, in case you’ve never read it.

  13. Thank you basement angel, that is exactly the point. Big Bloggers fail to state that in 2002 Democrats controlled the Senate by one vote and the consequences of voting against the Iraq resolution would have been destruction of Dems nationally due to the war fever.

    That reality is something most don’t like to acknowledge.

    The situation in 2002 October was essentially make a temporary vote to stop the war that would not have stopped the war anyway and which would have resulted in decades long Ripublican control of the Senate with filibuster proof majorities.

    Imagine Bush with a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Imagine how quickly a filibuster proof Ripublican Senate would have done to the judiciary. This would have meant zero oversight for at least a decade and any law the craziest of the right wing would want.

    Those were the stakes.

  14. basement angel great point:

    And that edwards guy giving his seat in n.c….he never fought at all;

    All: i am getting more annoyed with edwards these days vs. obama…

    edwards is trying to drag the entire prty to the extreme left and is bedconing quite a liability in the long run….

  15. Obama did not vote on the Feingold-Reid Amendment yesterday to set firm redeployment dates. He was campaigning in Iowa. Hillary, Biden and Dodd showed up and voted for it. If Bwak is so damn anti-war, why didn’t he show up to support it and speak on the floor of the Senate? Bwak. Bwak. Bwak. Bwak….

    With the Dobson Monkeys threatening a 3rd party candidate Rasumussen has found that Hillary would get 46%, Rudy 30%, and the 3rd party candidate clocking in at 14%. I say, “Bring it on, Monkeys!” Hillary is also beating all GOP comers in FL. Obama is not in the SurveyUSA poll. teehee.

  16. i have been seeing more positive stories on obama in iowa . why does it seem hillary is struggling there? she leads everywhere-but not iowa. is it sexism in rural iowa holding her back? i dont think a woman has ever won an election in iowa. my family is from the midwest and althoughd emocratic, many have this thing about women etc in office. maybe im wrong here.

  17. Hillary has concentrated her organization on New Hampshire and Obama on Iowa – both of them have good reasons for their decision. New Hampshire has primaries, as opposed to caucuses, which means people go someplace, at some point during the day, and they vote in private. That means you can organize unions and volunteers to show up and give people rides to the polls, and make sure you’re supporters are voting. You can have real impact and real control over the process. You can help your supporters sign up for absentee ballots – all of that stuff that can make an election as close to a sure thing as possible. That’s why Hillary has chosen to concentrate her first efforts there. Caucuses, however, are a very different affair. You have to go out in the evening to someone’s house and vote publicly. Votes change all the time, because people get pressured to join the group. You can’t caucus absentee so if you work that night, you aren’t participating. Because you have to go out at nighttime, and vote publicly, caucuses are notoriously erratic. But Obama is from Illinois – right next to Iowa so it makes sense for him to concentrate his efforts there. He looks good in Iowa in some polls. Hillary looks better in Iowa in other polls and she’s just beginning to organize there. All the polls find her ahead in New Hampshire. She’s in very good shape for the primaries and yes, there is a very smart strategy in place.

  18. yes-she will have firewalls on obama like nh, nv etc.. i hate to mention this-but could obama’s iowa numbers be not trustworthy? folks have a habit of telling pollsters they will support a person of color and then not do so. this very well may be at play

  19. The reason you are hearing about Iowa is that it’s all Obama and Edwards have left to cling to. Their campaigns are talking 24/7 to their supporters and the media about how their candidates are really doing so great in Iowa and how they are going to take Hillary down in Iowa and propel them to national victories.

    What else are they going to say? “Errrr…we’re toast. Hillary’s too much for us.”

  20. Obama doesn’t get it. How does his Iraq speech play to voters who supported the war in 2002? Howard Dean said “I told you so” is not good politics. Also, it is in the national interest to place blame squarely on Bush, where it belongs, so we can regain our national pride.

Comments are closed.