Hillary Clinton Supporters Are Frightened

Hillary Clinton supporters have been terrified this week. We have been frightened. We have been shaking in our boots, hiding under our beds.

Will Barack Obama, we fearfully wonder, open up his mouth again and further destabilize Pakistan?

Last time Obama opened his mouth on Pakistan – in a speech Obama deliberated on for weeks, not just offhand remarks – there were anti-American riots and American flag burnings in Pakistan streets.

President Musharraf, after Obama “saber rattled” was ready to declare a state of emergency. At the time we quoted several news sources which indicated Obama’s then latest blunder provided Musharraf with a fig leaf for imposing a state of emergency in Pakistan. Citing recent comments from Barack Obama about possible U.S. military action inside Pakistan, the government of embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf warned yesterday it may impose a state of emergency due to “external and internal threats.

Typical for Obama, he lied, to cover up his international blunder. Obama accused his Democratic opponents of lying about what he clearly and beyond dispute had in fact said. Senator Dodd was attacked by Obama when Senator Dodd accurately described Obama’s remarks. David Shuster of MSNBC did the fact checking:

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

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

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

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

Saying something stupid, afterwards denying he actually made the statement, eventually attacking as a liar the person accurately quoting him, is an Obama specialty.

In State Of Emergency, Part II, we provided extensive transcripts on portions of a debate which focused on Pakistan. Obama played, again, indignant. And again, Obama, much as he has in recent days, accused Hillary of trying to silence the discussion.

Here are Hillary’s entirely rational and experienced remarks on the matter of Pakistan and Obama’s ugly “attack Pakistan” speech:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence — but remember, we’ve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence — might lead to a certain action.

But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons.

So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don’t need that right now.

Obama made his dangerous foreign policy speech in early August. Our commentary at the time was on target:

First of all Obama changed the words of his speech while accusing Senator Dodd of not having read the speech. In his speech Obama threatened Pakistan by saying if Musharraf “won’t act” we will. This was the Bush equivalent of ‘you are either with us or against us.’ Obama then, changed his words from “won’t act” to “cannot act” (see the transcript above) and has the audacity to insult Senator Dodd and accuse Dodd of either not having read Obama’s bomb of a speech or of mistating what Obama was saying. In other words, Obama the liar, was calling Senator Dodd a liar.

Obama then accused Senator Clinton of trying to somehow silence a discussion with the American people when what she was actually saying was that Obama should watch his mouth because as a presidential candidate his words can harm the United States. The American flag burnings in Pakistan and the threats of martial law in Pakistan are ample proof that Senator Clinton was correct.

Senator Clinton is not suggesting Obama should not discuss issues. Frankly, the more Obama opens his mouth on issues the more he hurts himself and his chances to win the nomination. The problem is that when, as a presidential candidate, Obama opens his mouth he hurts the United States’ people too. Us.

The collapsing Obama campaign in a DefCom 5 State of Emergency is putting us all in a state of danger.

The suspension on Saturday, November 3, 2007, of the Pakistani Constitution, dismissal of most of the Pakistani Supreme Court, arrests, and emergency rule decrees have Pakistan on the knife’s edge. Hillary Clinton supporters and rational people worldwide are frightened – Will Obama open his mouth again and move us closer to danger with his recklessness and saber rattling?

Share

94 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Supporters Are Frightened

  1. Great comments and so appropos to Obama’s inexperience and lack of character for the truth. I so do remember his comments in the debates and how he couldn’t admit he was wrong and continued to spin it that way even after he was warned his comments cause unrest in Pakistan.

  2. dailykooks has a diary:
    ‘Bombshell: Major Obama Donor’s Company Sponsoring Coulter’s Website’

    Not sure how meaningful it is, just for us to keep it on file…

  3. This is the blog post from Mark Penn on Hillary’s official website.
    It was posted today.

    The post-debate polls coming out this weekend show Hillary Clinton remaining strong in the general election, maintaining her leads in the primaries and in the key issues confronting the country. These polls are a reflection of the kind of campaign she is running and the fact that she has introduced detailed plans on crucial issues from Iraq to Health Care — and now Energy.

    The Newsweek poll conducted after the debate shows Hillary’s lead against Barack Obama and John Edwards basically unchanged from the last few weeks. The ABC/Washington Post poll (pdf) shows her at 49 percent with a 23 point lead over Obama and a 37 point lead over Edwards. A new poll in Florida shows Hillary Clinton continuing to lead in that crucial general election state. And she leads Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney in every general election match-up tested in the latest national polls. The match-up against Romney in the ABC/WP poll has her getting 57% – demonstrating her broad capability to reach across and pull in voters who have not voted Democratic before.

    But make no mistake: there has been a big change in the race. For weeks, Obama and Edwards have been running “under the radar” negative campaigns despite giving the impression that they are focused on the issues. But in the wake of stagnant poll numbers, they have formally abandoned the politics of hope in favor of attacks on other Democrats. With their strategy now out in the open, they are beginning to pay a high price for it. (Almost every day now you can find the headline “Obama attacks Clinton on…” or “Edwards attacks Clinton on…”).

    Let’s look at Obama’s negatives in the ABC/Washington Post Poll. Over the course of the year they have gone from 23 percent to 36 percent. His negatives have been rising twice as fast as his positives and there are still 13% who have no opinion. (His positives went up 7 points, while his negatives went up 13 points over the last year). If these trends continue, Obama’s unfavorables will be at around 44 percent – roughly the same as Hillary’s – once the remainder of the electorate gets to know him better. Edwards’ attack strategy seems to be failing completely to raise his standings or stature.

    As I have consistently predicted, it is time for people to discard this false argument about Hillary’s negatives – Edwards and Obama have not really been challenged or tested on the national scene the way Hillary has, and if that ever happens, their negatives will skyrocket. Meanwhile, Hillary has shown that she can substantially increase her support even in the face of stepped up attacks by her fellow candidates. And that’s the real reason Edwards and Obama have switched their campaign strategies.

    In the ABC/WP poll, Hillary had overwhelming leads with Democrats on electability, on dealing with Iran and dealing with Iraq. With each passing poll she is seen as the one who can win – this has moved among Democrats from 43% to 62% who believe she is the one who can get elected president.

    The bottom line is that the data in the wake of the last debate reveals that Hillary remains strong in the face of these attacks while the other candidates are being viewed in an increasingly negative light. We may be seeing the beginnings of a boomerang effect on Obama and Edwards.

  4. Sure, we all go out on a usually freezing cold night at 7 and all go to a building, crowding in at designated areas for each candidate. If there are not enough people at Dodd’s table or Biden’s table to meet the threshold, they either choose a bigger candidate or abstain from caucusing. These people are counted and the candidates with the most people get the most delegates to go to the statewide caucus, where they meet and whoever has the most delegates wins. While waiting for the headcount, you attempt to persuade undecided people and those at the lower tier candidates’ tables to come to yours. This will be my first caucus since I just missed the age cutoff for Kerry-Bush. It sounds tedious, and I hope everyone comes out.

  5. Thanks celiff for cutting and pasting ‘first read’ articles.

    Can somebody help out by cutting and pasting another MSNBC ‘first read’ article: ‘Obama in Edwards’ sights?’ I’m very interested in this one, but my computer crashes whenever I goes there.

    Thanks.

  6. I plan on bringing 10 plus with me to the caucus. I am bringing my mom, her boyfriend, my cousins that are registered and eligible (5), 2 of my aunts, 3 of my uncles, my boss back home, and as many friends as possible. This should hopefully be the strategy of as many Hillary supporters as possible in Iowa. Each vote matters here. One vote could keep us under threshold!

  7. kostner-

    Looks like they pulled it; It’s not at the site and Goggling the link sends you to an error page.

  8. On a lighter note……

    For those of you folks in CALIFORNIA, RITE AID has talking HILLARY CLINTON DOLLS on sale this week for 14.99!!!! They are adorable. They make a perfect stocking stuffer!!!!

  9. Here’s an interesting quote from Obama staff in an almost comically slanted anti-Hillary piece from the Daily Telegraph;

    Obama onslaught forces Clinton onto back foot

    Last Updated: 3:05am GMT 04/11/2007

    Week of mistakes by the former First Lady has reinvigorated the Democratic race, writes Tim Shipman in South Carolina
    # Full coverage: US election 2008

    Barack Obama is stepping up pressure on Hillary Clinton’s honesty, electability and hawkish foreign policies in a winter assault aimed at securing him the Democratic nomination for the White House.

    On a campaign tour through North and South Carolina, members of Mr Obama’s campaign team told The Sunday Telegraph that Mrs Clinton was a “divisive lightning rod” and said HER STATUS AS A FORMER FIRST LADY WAS IRRELEVANT to her presidential credentials.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/wobama104.xml

    I don’t know about the veracity of the quote, considering the source, but in light of Obama’s obsession with Hillary’s hair appointments and such, and whatever else there is to mine in every single page of her FL papers, this may point to a little confusion in the OB camp on this, “pressing”, issue.

  10. celiff, we know about the tables etc. How is it weighted,
    city, rural? Do you know? From published articles, they
    say the caucuses are weighted heavily in the rural areas?
    Can you check that out?

  11. If Hillary’s years as first lady are irrelevant then so are BO’s
    years in the state legislature. He likes to talk a walk when
    tough issues are at hand.

  12. I get it now. Obama wants the records to demean Hillary’s experience as first lady. Does anyone know, I think I read he wants her schedule, does anyone know if that is true?

  13. I can’t believe she told Iowans, this isn’t a country of idealouge’s. Good for her! No offense Celiff, Iowa is a great place, but caucus goes are not even ery representative of Iowa. They are pretty to the left.

  14. Hey all,

    When is the next debate? Is that on Nov 15th?

    I am glad Sen. Clinton has avoided getting drawn into fighting with her dem opponents. I think after a while their attacks will look frivolous and people won’t even listen to what they say.

    But, I still agree that it is necessary for her campaign to get supporters to rebut the opponents attacks.

  15. Kostner,
    Thank you for posting the link of ABC interview. I am so impressed with George S. He was great. He asked all the right questions and made Edwards expose himself as a moron.

  16. It depends on who caucused last time. It’s weighted on how many people voted in what precinct last caucus, so in 04′.

  17. Secret,

    did you read Mondale’s comments? He said democrats should not tear into each other. I hope more such comments from these highly-regarded Clinton supporters…

    Hillary herself should not be drawn into the brawl, but her surrogates should beef up the operations.

  18. Obama’s FL comments are just too bad…..it demeans the hard, tough job FL’s do as key support person to their husbands…..and we know Hillary was astute and knowledgeable in key issues……

    A state senator in Chicago is not a tough job with the varied experience as a WH FL.

    She came to know and understand how things are done which is half the job!!

  19. In Clinton, Iowa today, former Vice President Walter Mondale endorsed Hillary Clinton during a campaign event at a lodge along the Mississippi River.

    After what many have called a tough week for Clinton, a week in which she stumbled during the Democratic debate and was heavily criticized by her rivals in both parties, Mondale applauded what he called her positive campaign.

    “One thing I like about her campaign is that she’s stayed focused on her positive vision for change. She knows this is not the time to tear down our fellow Democrats with personal attacks,” he said.

  20. Iowa is full of far lefties and far righties that’s about it. That’s why I personally think New Hampshire should go before us. “Iowa Stubborn” didn’t just come from some random place, it’s true. People here are VERY set in their ways, which makes it even tougher for our girl. This, as I have said before, is one of only two states to never elect a female to congress or have a female governor (other is Mississippi). This says a lot that she is even a little ahead here. It shows how strong she truly is (:

  21. State House Dome: Battle expected over SEA’s Edwards endorsement
    By TOM FAHEY

    Look out, John Edwards. That endorsement you got from the State Employees Association, a local SEIU affiliate, might be revisited yet again.

    Edwards was caught in a crossfire last week between SEA leaders and dissidents who argued that Barack Obama was the executive board’s real choice.

    It will take some slick parliamentary maneuvering for SEA President Gary Smith to block a discussion of this mess when the union’s convention resumes Nov. 17.

    The short version of all this is that the union’s executive board voted Oct 23 to endorse Obama, 7-5. The Associated Press reported last week that the union actually called Obama to tell him the news.

    A week later, Smith essentially calls for a do-over and breaks a tie vote to send the endorsement to Edwards.

    In between was an SEA annual convention that was so tied up in an unscheduled membership straw poll on the issue that it never finished its regular business.

    The straw poll ended with 50 undecideds, 23 votes for Edwards, 19 for Obama and 14 for Hillary Clinton.

    So the delegates convene again Nov. 17. The meeting is also open to the rest of SEA’s 10,000 members who don’t get a vote.

    Jay Ward, SEA political director, said the endorsement is meant to give members direction on candidates. Edwards was at the front all along, and Obama people are just upset, he said.

    As for Edwards’ small straw poll numbers, Ward said, “that reflects the kinds of numbers that have been seen among the general electorate.”

    Stephen Foster, a board member who was voted out last week, describes the whole affair as “a hijacking of the board.”

    He predicted a donnybrook when union members meet again.

    “I’m hearing all kinds of questions, and staff at the office say they are being inundated with e-mail and phone calls,” he said. “This is all a sham.”

    Denis Parker, longtime executive director of SEA who parted with the organization early this year, said he never liked the endorsement idea in the first place.

    “This is a shallow endorsement, to say the least,” he said. “You have to question its value, to the candidate and the organization. These are divisive steps. All they do is irritate supporters of other parties or candidates.”

    Parker said it comes at a time when SEA should be trying to unite itself.

    Roughly 650 corrections officers recently won approval to vote on whether to leave the union, joining Fish and Game officers and Highway Patrol in another law enforcement union.

    “There’s a reason for SEA to be very concerned about what’s going on here. There’s a raid on your union, and you just gave them another bullet to shoot at you. This is all self-inflicted,” Parker said.

  22. Well, I hope Edwards keeps the endorsement, it’s better for Hillary. I still don’t understand what the heck the SEIU has gainst Hillary.

  23. If you look at the youtube I posted earlier, you would know why this guy will be swiftboated to death within the first two weeks if he becomes the nominee. He has no no no no chance in hell to become president.

  24. ra1029,

    I just watched the clip. That’s really really awful… Today’s interview was no exception. Too bad, i don’t know hot to upload interview longer than 10 min to youtube.

  25. This is JUCY!

    Nov 4 2007 9:11PM EST
    Passing Along a Rumor
    Apparently, the L.A. Times might be sitting on a scoop that could implicate one of the Democratic presidential candidates in a sex scandal.

    If this is true and the revelation is juicy enough, one of the candidate’s campaign’s could be completely derailed. We’d expect that only a select few would know about this supposed salacious event. But in the age of prediction markets is it possible that we can deduce who the candidate might be?

    Looking at the candidates’ contracts on InTrade, James Miller at Overcoming Bias speculates that Barack Obama might very well be this potential candidate:

    If there really is some “devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate” that the general public is not aware of but everyone in the “DC mainstream media political reporting world” knows then we have a perfect test for political prediction markets.

    The price of candidates in prediction markets should take into account information known only to DC mainstream political reporters. The prediction market Intrade gives Obama a 12.6% chance of capturing the Democratic nomination. I follow politics fairly closely and this 12.6% seems low to me based on the information I have. Obama has lots of cash, is doing well in the Iowa polls and lots of Democrats are worried about Clinton’s chance of winning in a general election. So it seems very possible to me that Obama’s prediction market price is being negatively influenced by something that the general public is unaware of.

    Intrade gives Clinton a 71.3% chance of winning the Presidential election and a 47.7% chance of becoming president. Some people are speculating that Rosenbaum’s devastating sex scandal involves Clinton. If this is true then her Intrade prices should be much lower than they currently are.

    In sum, if many media members have private information about an Obama sex scandal then the Intrade prediction markets are working as prediction market enthusiasts would hope and thus the Obama scandal represents a victory for prediction markets. If, however, many members of the media have private information about a devastating Hillary Clinton scandal then prediction markets, in this instance, have failed us and supporters of prediction markets will have to rethink our enthusiasm towards them.

    It’s important to stress that this purported L.A. Times story is a rumor and most likely nothing will come of it.

    Still, it is odd that Obama’s InTrade numbers are so low. The latest polls put him at 26% and Clinton at 49%, which is consistent with the idea that people with inside knowledge are exerting their influence on InTrade.

    http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2007/11/04/passing-along-a-rumor

  26. Joe Wilson cuts Barack a new one in HuffPO;

    Senator Obama’s criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.

  27. My interests are so peaked at this story. I hope it’s BO. Please be BO. That would be awesomely hilarious, except for Michelle. Do you think it will ever get out?

  28. hi,

    Edwards’ new attack line tomorrow per New York Times… Just for some amusement…I’m getting numb by his stupidity…

    As Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton collected the endorsement today from former Vice President Walter Mondale, one of her Democratic rivals intensified his criticism of her candidacy, saying she had not been forthcoming with voters who will open the nominating contest here in less than two months.

    The rival, former Senator John Edwards, said he would draw new distinctions with Mrs. Clinton in a speech here on Monday, raising questions with other Democrats over Iraq and Iran.

    “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,” Mr. Edwards plans to say, according to excerpts of a speech provided by his campaign. “We only need one mode from our president: tell-the-truth mode all the time.”

    Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, and Mrs. Clinton, of New York, campaigned across eastern Iowa on Sunday, exactly one year before Election Day 2008. At each of his stops, Mr. Edwards focused his attention on Mrs. Clinton and in the speech here on Monday he said he would outline a plan for Iran and call on her to present a specific plan for how she would end the war, including how many troops would remain in Iraq.

    “With less than 60 days to the caucus, Senator Clinton has still not given specific answers to specific questions,” Mr. Edwards is to say, according to the excerpts. “How many troops will she withdraw, and when will she withdraw them?”

  29. I find the positioning on foreign policy of all non-Clinton contenders is extremely bizarre and stupid.

    They all run to the left to Clinton… Basically they have ceded 50-60% of primary voters who have moderate/conservative views on foreign policy/national security to Hillary, which leaves them 30-40% to split… This is a disastrous strategy for them, it’s exactly why they can’t get any traction.

    I don’t understand why Edwards wants to be so dovish… Generally speaking, male voters tend to be a bit hawkish. Obviously, Clinton’s support is relatively weak among male primary voters. But by being extremely dovish national on security policy, I guess Edwards is determined to make himself unacceptable for many moderate/conservative male primary voters who may have reservation with Hillary Clinton. He’s basically giving up his last stronghold to Clinton, especially in Iowa…

    Women voters won’t be persuaded by Edwards’ ‘dovish’ antics even some of them may indeed be a bit dovish. The emotional connection with Clinton alone will hold off any reservation they have with Clinton on national security/foreign policy. I think polls have proved this. Obama/Edwards just can’t break apart Clinton’s strong support among liberals even she appears to be more hawkish.

    Gender does play a role here, in a reverse way… Trippi, Edwards, Obama, Alexra simply are dumb and can’t grasp this. Just imagine one of them actually run as a ‘moderate’, Clinton may run into trouble, fortunately they all want to run as liberal…

  30. Kstner, the math is simple. Women make up a majority of the field. If Clinton holds 50% of the female vote in a eight man race, she can’t lose.

  31. mj,

    I was speculating the reason why Clinton’s support among liberals has been holding pretty steady despite all sorts of attacks by Obama/Edwards from the left flank. They attacked her on Iraq, on Iran, but all polls are showing even liberals are trusting her more on these issues. I think gender does play a role here.

  32. Kostner,
    As much as I would like to keep the eye on winning the nomination – I really don’t want these stupid democrats to give the framework of attack for the republicans in GE. So, the easier the win is for the nomination the less baggage she will have in the GE. But, again – no matter what they in GE they will attack her so badly – so, it is good to get prepared already.
    Let me know what u think!

  33. Secret,

    I don’t mind if they attack her from the left. I hope she can stick to her relatively ‘hawkish’ tone on terror, Iran etc. It will only help her in general election… I think polls have proved to attack her from the left on national security is very ineffective, so she does not need to veer to the left… Not sure if you agree with my ‘gender’ theory …

    All these attacks from the left make her look strong on national security…

  34. I think I see what you are saying Kostner. Are you saying it was a mistake of both Edwards and Obama to let her occupy the more hawkish position to herself, while they moved to her left, thereby looking less tough than the woman.

  35. I have to say though, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, two guys I would say are pretty hawkish, help deflect that a little, because even they criticized her Kyle Lieberman vote, actually agreeing it could be used as a premise for war with Iran.

  36. mj,

    That’s my point. Let’s assume a relatively conservative Iowa male farmer wants to choose among all these candidates. This guy may have some reservation with women being the president. If Edwards keeps on playing a dove on national security, and he’ll likely make himself unacceptable to this potential supporter. In the end, this Iowa farmer may have no choice but to go with Clinton. I doubt Edwards/Obama can break apart women voters’ emotional connection to Clinton if they desperately play doves…

  37. Yes, I agree. Obama is also running too far to the left. But I think Biden has a winning position, ofcourse he isn’t going to get any traction.

  38. Per DesMoinesRegister, Edwards lashes out on Clinton… I am really afraid Edwards is slipping away in Iowa… Who knows where his supporters will end up with…

    Waverly, Ia. — Iowans should question whether Hillary Clinton is too indebted to big donors to deliver on health care reform and other promises, rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

    “The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists is not a Republican, it’s a Democrat,” Edwards said. “The candidate who has raised the most money from the health industry — the insurance companies and the drug companies — is not a Republican, it is a Democrat. And actually, this one is most startling to me, the candidate who has raised the most from the defense industry is not a Republican, it is a Democrat. And all those descriptions fit the same candidate, they’re all Senator Clinton.

    “If you actually believe that the system doesn’t work and we have to change it, then you can’t sit at a table with the people who are giving you that kind of money and negotiate at arm’s length,” he said.

    Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, has recently been sharpening his attacks against Clinton, who is the national frontrunner. He kept up the criticism Sunday as he traveled through northern Iowa.

    He told about 210 voters in Waverly that the main thing blocking health care reform has been lobbyists from drug companies and health insurance companies who don’t want the system to change. He said lobbyist donations have corrupted the system so extensively that many participants no longer notice.

    “Good people get pulled into it and begin to think it’s OK,” Edwards said.

    Edwards noted that he, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, the three leading Democrats, have all introduced plans to reform America’s health-care system. He also noted that previous candidates have done the same thing.

    “Every four years, the presidential candidates come rolling through Iowa. They promise you this, and they promise you that,” he said. “How many times have you been promised universal health care?”

    Beyond the details of each plan, he said, what voters should look for is a candidate who can fight the status quo and deliver.

    Clinton spokesman Mark Daley said Edwards has slipped from his earlier, upbeat persona.

    “In 2004, John Edwards said, ‘If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy.’ But now that his campaign has stalled, he’s become that guy.” Daley said. “If Mr. Edwards is so concerned about the influence of special interests, he should give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars he’s taken from the pharmaceutical, oil and securities industries.

    “Whether fighting insurance companies to insure every American, working to eliminate big oil’s tax subsidies, or fighting President Bush’s effort to privatize social security, Hillary Clinton has spent her whole career taking on special interests and fighting for America’s families.”

    St. Ansgar dentist John Lafferty, who heard Edwards speak in Waverly, said it’s OK for candidates to criticize each other, as long as they don’t destroy their fellow Democrats.

    “They’re going to have to point out some differences,” he said. “You’ve got to have some reason to vote for someone.”

    Lafferty said he’s leaning toward Edwards but remains undecided. He said he appreciates the candidate’s fighting spirit. “I think the country’s at a big crossroads. It needs some real significant change.”

    He said that if Clinton wins the nomination, he probably would vote for her.

  39. The politics of Desperation – How low will Obama go?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/67934

    What She Can’t Do Is Have It Both Ways’

    In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Barack Obama says the Democratic front runner is ‘disingenuous.’
    By Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe | NEWSWEEK
    Nov 12, 2007 Issue

    NEWSWEEK: Hillary’s team says she was ganged up on by men in last week’s debate. Does she get or deserve special treatment because she is a woman?
    OBAMA: I don’t think that Senator Clinton would ever suggest that she should be treated differently because she’s a woman. And I actually thought that everybody was very courteous in their disagreements with her. We had a debate in Iowa which George Stephanopoulos presided over, and for the first 10, 15 minutes people were questioning my qualifications for the presidency. I don’t remember anybody worrying too much about that … We’re not running for student council president, we’re running for leader of the free world.

    How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
    Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn’t have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we’re talking about here is her husband’s presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.

    So is she being honest?
    I think she was being disingenuous.

    What’s the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
    You’ll have to ask her.

  40. It’s Obama. He is sooo narcissistic and he loves being adored way tooo much to be able to pass up a little nookie on the side. And look at Michelle – she’s as narcissistic as he is. She would never believe he’d be unfaithful to her and she might not care.

    I don’t actually care, but they’ve been so sanctimonious that it’s going to be hilarious.

  41. It is pretty easy to understand what is going on. Edwards and Obama campaigns are colluding here. Edwards realizes he has no chance in hell to win the nomination. So he is doing a kamakazi attack on Clinton to drive her negatives up with democrats and help Obama. Case in point:

    Obama votes in favor of the Peru trade deal. Yet, Edwards completely ignores him and attacks Clinton asking her to vote against it when she did not even say wihich way she is going to vote.

    Someone from the press needs to look into if there is a campaign rules violation in these kinds of backroom deals between Edwards and Obama camps.

  42. Kostner,

    “Not sure if you agree with my ‘gender’ theory …”

    Yes, I agree. But, I know a lot of guys who thinks that she has more balls that most men. So, I think she is a strong leader. Obviously lot of women warm up to her and are rightly proud of her. Which is great.

  43. Has anyone looked at the SNL with Obama?
    I LMAO – that guy is a joke. Saying that he has nothing to hide! What the hell does he think about himself? He thinks people will look at SNL and makeup their political view? I think this guy is aiming to be a poster boy for 15-17 year old immature girls. Like the Obama girl. No one will take him seriously.
    I don’t think a Presidential material will do this sort of thing!! He is a moron!

  44. I loved the article on the front page of HillaryHub.

    “Obama’s GlassHouse”.

    He is a phoney, not as much a complete and utter phoney like “breck girl”, but still a big phoney.

  45. Obama is a joke, going after the FL records, when it is common knowledge that there are procedures with these kinds of things. It is written in LAW OBAMA!!! She can’t go in and release her records when G.Bush made sure she and others couldn’t and besides the archives are moving as fast as they can anyway.

    This is like the social security issue, Obama is just throwing punches in the air hoping they will land somewhere, just as marvelous display of his incompetence.

  46. dailyhowler.com has a very good piece written on Friday explaining what happened at the debate last Tuesday. It is a must read. It shows the history of Matthews, Russert, Williams et. all and the weakness of rest of the so called liberal press in exposing it.

  47. Barack Obama fund-raises in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Sarasota, Fla.
    * Hillary Clinton continues crisscrossing Iowa, delivering an energy policy speech in Cedar Rapids in the morning, then addressing crowds in Oelwein, Waverly and Mason City.
    * Rudy Giuliani holds a town hall meeting at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, then campaigns at a local pizzeria with Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta.
    * Fred D. Thompson holds a “politics and eggs” event in Bedford, N.H.
    * Joe Biden has lunch with veterans in Ames, Iowa, and speaks at the Iowa Valley Continuing Education Conference Center in Marshalltown, Iowa. Also, he participates in a Presidential Forum in Ames, Iowa.
    * John Edwards gives a foreign policy speech in Iowa City, Iowa, and holds community meetings in Ottumwa and Oskaloosa, Iowa. Later, he participates in the Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum at Iowa State University in Ames.
    * John McCain holds a meet and greet in Allison, Iowa, and holds a town hall meeting in Iowa Falls. He also McCain speaks at the “Growing the Bio Economy” Conference in Ames, Iowa.
    * Bill Richardson holds a “Keeping our Promise” event for veterans and military families in Des Moines, Iowa. Later, he meets with folks in Grinnell and Marshalltown, Iowa.
    * Mitt Romney speaks at the Nova Southeastern Federalist Society Forum in Ft. Lauderdale-Davie, Fla.
    * Chris Dodd speaks at the Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum at Iowa State University in Ames.

  48. Kostner, do you know why Ferraro is going around calling Obama and Edwards sexist? I hope she won’t do that again.

  49. mj,

    These are just background noise. There’s no need for us to parse what she said or what she intended to say. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball… The strategy going fowards is very very clear if you observe hillaryhub and hillaryis44…

    1) largely ignore Edwards’ attack, do not tango with him, he wants attention, and we do not need to give him such attention, he is desperate and wants to drag Clinton down to the mud with him.

    2) expose Obama’s record, attack his hypocricy, dishonesty, naivety etc. Focus on attacking Obama.

    3)Stay on positive message, focus on early states’ media coverage of Hillary’s campaigning. Do not get distracted by background noise about Hillary.

    This is a winning formula.

  50. A change on Iran

    Since September, and as White House hints of military action against Iran intensify, the Edwards campaign has changed a key passage in its website’s discussion of Iran.

    As of September 7, the passage read:

    Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. As president, Edwards will ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results.

    The passage now reads:

    Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.

    The rest of the text of the 2,000-word foreign policy page is unchanged. And while this is obviously an update to keep pace with the news, the first version lacks any condemnation of the planned terrorist designation.

    Some Democrats worried about a war in Iran, like Edwards in a speech today, have been critical both of the substance of the declaration — declaring part of a foreign government a terrorist group — and of the congressional endorsement of it, for which Hillary was alone among presidential candidates in voting, and which they argue could be taken as authorization.

    An Edwards aide said the text change didn’t reflect a shift, and that the first version was meant to present Bush’s move as a fait accompli, not to endorse it.

  51. kostner, in my view if it talks and acts like a duck it is a duck. sexists borderlining maybe. i put NOTHING past these punks in order to defeat hillary. i don’t see nothing at all to put that charge out there. hell with them.

  52. Hi guys – I did a diary on Kos, Living in Glass Houses..by kitsapdem…on the hypocrisy of BO and Edwards – if you have a chance please rec…thanks!

  53. Been replacing my PC (for the 2nd time in two weeks). Several things:

    1. Kostner, right on as far as strategy as always.
    2. Hillasry never said she was being attacked as woman. Only as a frontrunner. The MSM needs to correct it better.
    3. MJ, I understand your point about Ferraro, but she gets to says that if she wants. She fought that battle and has scars to prove it. To some extent, the boys were picking on her as a girl (the whole “changing her mind” line by Edwards…)
    4. Admin, why no poll updates on teh margins anymore?
    5. Kostner, again, what do you make of the 6 point drop in Rasmussen since mid Oct for Hillary? Did the debate hurt her?
    6. Why hasn’t the Enquirer gone further with Edward’s dipping his pen in company ink? They have a rock solid legal team and that story was well-vetted. If for some ungodly reason he actually became the Dem nominee for the GE, it will be his albatross.
    7. Bwak being in FL and Puerto Rico means he is worried about the money race. His ass should be in IA, not down south poking fun at the no-campaign pledge. (I’d hang that around his neck since this is like the 3rd time he has done it esp. after that stunt in MI. Dumb prick. Things must be bad to leave Davenport and Ames.)
    8. I miss you guys. 🙂

  54. This is kind of a long post, but it’s something I just put up at TPM. The posters there are challenging the idea that what happened at the Drexel debate was exceptional. I asked for the date of an equally hostil debate and was referenced to the January 11th, 2004 debate in which the NYT referred to the hostility directed at Dean. I did comparison of the first five or six questions that I think really exposes what an ugly episode we witnessed the other night.

    Here is the comparison.

    Here are the transcripts:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8591-2004Jan11?language=printer
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_dem_drexel_debate_extra.html

    Let me give you the first few questions from the January 11th, 2004 debate and compare them with the first few questions from the Drexel debate:

    From 2004:
    HOLT: All right. Maria Celeste, thanks very much.

    “And I’d like to begin the debate by posing a question to you, Governor Dean. There has been a lot of controversy here in Iowa, as you know, on your views regarding the caucus system.”

    “As reported by NBC News, you once said caucuses are dominated by special interests who represent the extremes and the caucus system. And, if I can quote, “You get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other.”

    “You’ve spent a lot of money trying to win under the caucus system. If you succeed, do you believe you’ll be beholden to extremists within your party?”

    And the first question from the Drexel debate:

    “Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you.”

    “You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend,
    pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign
    against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among
    Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.”

    “To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to
    sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security
    issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and
    ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re
    aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama,
    and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or
    voted like a Republican?”

    And the second question:

    From 2004:
    “HOLT: In the same that line of questioning, Representative Gephardt, let me turn to you. Are there pitfalls in the caucus system, and if so, could you tell us what they are?”

    And from 2007:
    “RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your
    campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people
    deserve the truth, not more doubletalk on Iran.”

    “What doubletalk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been
    engaging in on Iran?”

    And the third question:

    From 2004:
    “All right. Let me address my next question, if I can, to Senator Edwards.”

    “The Des Moines Register has chosen to endorse you over your rivals in the Iowa caucuses because, among other reasons, the Register says you conducted a positive campaign.”

    “No matter who wins the nomination, do you think your party would have been better served against President Bush in November if the nominating contest had now been not so negative?”

    And from 2007:
    (Russert uses a partisan spin for the question without acknowledging that many well-informed non-partisans disagree with his assessment)
    “As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only
    member of the stage here who did that.”

    “Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical
    purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded
    sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war.”

    “Why did you vote for that amendment which would — calls upon the
    president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the
    capability of Iran?”

    and the fourth:

    From 2004″
    “The United States just ended it’s fifth orange terror alert since the homeland security alert system was put into place.”

    “During that time, several international flights, as you know, sir, were canceled. The United States said they had pretty specific information regarding flights and dates. No plots were uncovered, as you know; no arrests were made.”

    “Do you support the government’s threat warning system? Would you maintain it as president?”

    And from 2007:
    (again, Russert is implicitly encouraging an attack on Hillary)
    RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you said that bill was a justification
    for war in Iran.

    And the fifth question:
    From 2004
    HOLT: Your time is exhausted, Senator. Thank you.

    “Let me address the same question to Ambassador Moseley Braun. Regarding the color-coded warning system, would you keep it or would you do something different as president?”

    And from 2007:
    RUSSERT: “Senator Biden, do you agree with Senator Webb: It was,
    de facto, a declaration of war?”

    We have to get to the 5th question in 2007, before the essense of the question isn’t a criticism of Clinton either directly or indirectly – because, as Russert noted, Clinton is the only Dem on the stage who voted for the bill.

  55. I just did a comparison of the January 11th 2004 debate which the NYT’s regarded as tough on Dean to the Drexel debate the other night for the TPM forums who consider it to have been business as usual. It’s a good example of what an ugly event the Drexel debate really was.

    Take a look at the first few questions of each.

    Here are the transcripts:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8591-2004Jan11?language=printer
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_dem_drexel_debate_extra.html

    Let me give you the first few questions from the January 11th, 2004 debate and compare them with the first few questions from the Drexel debate:

    From 2004:
    HOLT: All right. Maria Celeste, thanks very much.

    “And I’d like to begin the debate by posing a question to you, Governor Dean. There has been a lot of controversy here in Iowa, as you know, on your views regarding the caucus system.”

    “As reported by NBC News, you once said caucuses are dominated by special interests who represent the extremes and the caucus system. And, if I can quote, “You get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other.”

    “You’ve spent a lot of money trying to win under the caucus system. If you succeed, do you believe you’ll be beholden to extremists within your party?”

    And the first question from the Drexel debate:

    “Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you.”

    “You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend,
    pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign
    against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among
    Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.”

    “To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to
    sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security
    issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and
    ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re
    aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama,
    and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or
    voted like a Republican?”

    And the second question:

    From 2004:
    “HOLT: In the same that line of questioning, Representative Gephardt, let me turn to you. Are there pitfalls in the caucus system, and if so, could you tell us what they are?”

    And from 2007:
    “RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your
    campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people
    deserve the truth, not more doubletalk on Iran.”

    “What doubletalk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been
    engaging in on Iran?”

    And the third question:

    From 2004:
    “All right. Let me address my next question, if I can, to Senator Edwards.”

    “The Des Moines Register has chosen to endorse you over your rivals in the Iowa caucuses because, among other reasons, the Register says you conducted a positive campaign.”

    “No matter who wins the nomination, do you think your party would have been better served against President Bush in November if the nominating contest had now been not so negative?”

    And from 2007:
    (Russert uses a partisan spin for the question without acknowledging that many well-informed non-partisans disagree with his assessment)
    “As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only
    member of the stage here who did that.”

    “Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical
    purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded
    sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war.”

    “Why did you vote for that amendment which would — calls upon the
    president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the
    capability of Iran?”

    and the fourth:

    From 2004″
    “The United States just ended it’s fifth orange terror alert since the homeland security alert system was put into place.”

    “During that time, several international flights, as you know, sir, were canceled. The United States said they had pretty specific information regarding flights and dates. No plots were uncovered, as you know; no arrests were made.”

    “Do you support the government’s threat warning system? Would you maintain it as president?”

    And from 2007:
    (again, Russert is implicitly encouraging an attack on Hillary)
    RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you said that bill was a justification
    for war in Iran.

    And the fifth question:
    From 2004
    HOLT: Your time is exhausted, Senator. Thank you.

    “Let me address the same question to Ambassador Moseley Braun. Regarding the color-coded warning system, would you keep it or would you do something different as president?”

    And from 2007:
    RUSSERT: “Senator Biden, do you agree with Senator Webb: It was,
    de facto, a declaration of war?”

    We have to get to the 5th question in 2007, before the essense of the question isn’t a criticism of Clinton either directly or indirectly – because, as Russert noted, Clinton is the only Dem on the stage who voted for the bill.

  56. Another key group likes Hillary: small businessowners!

    Small Business Surveyed on Presidential Choice One Year Before Election
    11-05-2007

    Durham, NC – With the U.S. Presidential election one year away on Sunday, a survey of small businesses owners revealed that the majority would vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama if the election were held today. The Iraq war, the economy and healthcare topped the list of concerns.

    The survey of 522 small businesses owners was conducted this month by iContact, an email marketing and surveying platform for small businesses. Respondents were asked a series of questions on the U.S. Presidential candidates, asked to choose between the front runners in both parties, and what issues were important in the campaign.

    Clinton, Obama Favorites Among Small Business Owners

    Of the small business owners that stated a preference, 26% would vote for Hillary Clinton and 21% would vote for Barack Obama if the election were held today. Rudy Giuliani was the choice for 15% of the respondents while Fred Thompson garnered 8%.

    For men and women, the choices were somewhat different. Hillary Clinton was a clear choice for the males (26%) over Barak Obama (18%) and Rudy Giuliani (9%) and John McCain (9%). Clinton and Obama were in a virtual dead heat for the females (28% to 27%) with Giuliani picking up 13% and John Edwards 10%.

    Survey respondents who identified their party affiliation selected candidates along party lines. Democrats chose Hillary Clinton (44%) over Obama (31%) and Edwards (13%); while Republicans chose Rudy Giuliani (31%) over Fred Thompson (17%) and Mitt Romney (16%).

    Independents chose Obama over Clinton by a narrow margin (29% vs. 27%), with Rudy Giuliani being identified by 15% as their choice for President. Age Matters

    The survey respondents were pretty evenly split in three age categories, with the majority of them (75%) between the ages of 25 and 54.

    When it came to choosing the next U.S. President, there were some differences, however. The 25-34 year olds preferred Obama (29%) over Clinton (22%), Giuliani (14%) and Edwards (9%); while the 35-44 year olds preferred Clinton (31%) over Obama (25%), Giuliani (11%) and Romney (10%).

    The 45-54 year olds also favored Hillary Clinton (26%), but they opted for Giuliani (19%) over Obama (13%) and Fred Thompson (13%).

    Clinton a Favorite Over Giuliani, Romney

    Respondents were also asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

    Of those stating a preference, Hillary Clinton was the choice (54%) over Rudy Giuliani (46%). When asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Clinton’s percentage increased (60% to 40%).

    When broken down by gender, the response was decidedly different. Females chose Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by a large margin (62% to 38%) while Males were almost evenly split between Clinton and Giuliani (49% to 51%).

    When asked to choose between Clinton and Romney, Females chose Clinton by wide margin (65% to 35%), while Males chose Clinton over Romney 56% to 44%.

    Iraq War, Economy and Heath Care Top Concerns

    The survey found that the key concerns in the upcoming election were: the Iraq war (28%), the economy (20%) and healthcare (17%).

    In the Male/Female analysis, the survey found that Males believed the Iraq war was the most pressing issue in the campaign (30%), followed by the Economy (18%) and Healthcare (16%).

    Although the Females surveyed agreed that all three issues were most important, there was a more even split – Iraq war (25%), Economy (24%) and Healthcare (19%).

    Ryan Allis, Chief Executive Officer of iContact commented: “It is interesting to see how small businesses view the election one year in advance. It is important for small business owners to be involved and speak out on the issues that matter to them. We will continue to gather information on issues that are important to the small business community – our key customer base.”

    Aaron Houghton, Chairman of iContact added: “With a customer database of more than 16,000, we can tap into this market and survey elections, buying habits, trends and differences with great ease. Using iContact, we – and our customers – are able to keep our finger on the pulse of American business.”

  57. Ahhh, maybe there is a limit on the size of the post. Well, with that in mind….

    Over at the TPM forums, the partisans of other candidates are having hot flash meltdowns over the idea that the Drexel debate was rougher on Hillary than is typical for debates. They deny this vigorously. So I asked for a debate which was equally critical of the front runner, and was pointed to the January 11th, 2004, pre-caucus debate which apparently was pretty tough on Dean. So, I compared the first five questions to see how tough it was as compared to the gauntlet we saw Hillary pass through successfully the other night. I think a comparison of the first five questions asked is instructive.

    From 2004:
    HOLT: All right. Maria Celeste, thanks very much.

    “And I’d like to begin the debate by posing a question to you, Governor Dean. There has been a lot of controversy here in Iowa, as you know, on your views regarding the caucus system.”

    “As reported by NBC News, you once said caucuses are dominated by special interests who represent the extremes and the caucus system. And, if I can quote, “You get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other.”

    “You’ve spent a lot of money trying to win under the caucus system. If you succeed, do you believe you’ll be beholden to extremists within your party?”

    And the first question from the Drexel debate:

    “Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you.”

    “You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend,
    pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign
    against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among
    Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.”

    “To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to
    sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security
    issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and
    ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re
    aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama,
    and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or
    voted like a Republican?”

    And the second question:
    From 2004:
    HOLT: All right. Maria Celeste, thanks very much.

    “And I’d like to begin the debate by posing a question to you, Governor Dean. There has been a lot of controversy here in Iowa, as you know, on your views regarding the caucus system.”

    “As reported by NBC News, you once said caucuses are dominated by special interests who represent the extremes and the caucus system. And, if I can quote, “You get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other.”

    “You’ve spent a lot of money trying to win under the caucus system. If you succeed, do you believe you’ll be beholden to extremists within your party?”

    And the first question from the Drexel debate:

    “Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you.”

    “You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend,
    pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign
    against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among
    Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.”

    “To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to
    sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security
    issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and
    ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re
    aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama,
    and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or
    voted like a Republican?”

  58. 5. Kostner, again, what do you make of the 6 point drop in Rasmussen since mid Oct for Hillary? Did the debate hurt her?

    09/17 40-21-15
    10/15 46-23-11
    11/04 42-22-12

    The are virtually THE SAME and all within the margin of error +/- 3%

    There has been no discernible movement in the polls either way.

  59. OkieAtty,

    No need to worry about polls. IMHO, Hillary # reached its peak in the middle of Oct. There’s no way you can sustain a 30-point lead. Those stuff is just outlier probably propelled by relatively positive coverage of Hillary, and lack of coverage of other candidates. The coverage is deemed to change. The swing in polls does not mean the real changing opinions… I don’t believe the debate has any impact on the polls whatsoever.

    Remember George W. Bush’s dismal debate performance put Kerry almost on par with him after leading by almost 10 points before the debate. George W. Bush continued to lose debate after debate, but his #s recovered soon.

    I just don’t see the debates will impact the dynamics of this race anymore. The poll #s are certain to tighten, this is just the nature of any political race. Right now, it’s remarkable stable.

  60. OkieAtty,

    No need to worry about polls. IMHO, Hillary # reached its peak in the middle of Oct. There’s no way you can sustain a 30-point lead. Those stuff is just outlier probably propelled by relatively positive coverage of Hillary, and lack of coverage of other candidates. The coverage is deemed to change. The swing in polls does not mean the real changing opinions… I don’t believe the debate has any impact on the polls whatsoever.

    Remember George W. Bush’s dismal debate performance put Kerry almost on par with him after leading by almost 10 points before the debate. George W. Bush continued to lose debate after debate, but his #s recovered soon.

    I just don’t see the debates will impact the dynamics of this race anymore. The poll #s are certain to tighten, this is just the nature of any political race. Right now, it’s remarkable stable.

  61. kitforhill, i will go to daily kooks and recommend. aslo hillfans rassmussen will be in the field in new hampshire with a new poll. next week he will be in iowa. stay tuned!!!!

  62. kitforhill, i just recommended your diary. is see the nutkooks are already attacking you. the diary was great. they just can’t stand the fact their candidate is losing.

  63. Regarding the SNL O-Bomb-A appearance, if SNL was truly an “equal opportunity offender,” as they claim, they would have had BO appear in blackface makeup.

  64. I posted a link to an article about the rumored John Edwards’ affair )with pics of the alleged mistress). That was censored.

    I also posted comments about O-Bomb-A’s recent SNL appearance, stating the real political lampooning would have occurred if BO had appeared in black face makeup. That was censored, as well.

  65. OkieAtty, I wouldn’t worry about Rasmussen. Hillary’s lead there fluctuates between the mid-teens and mid-20s consistently. That’s the nature of a tracking poll.

  66. This is priceless if you haven’t already seen it .. from today’s Der Spiegel (Germany):

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,515666,00.html

    It’s a gray Saturday morning in Des Moines, Iowa. Clouds hang low over the houses on Hutton Street as Barack Obama turns the corner. The residents here are average Democrats, men and women without a high-school diploma or a secure job. Campaign strategists call them “the beer drinkers.” Obama isn’t exactly popular among the beer drinkers.

    If the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would capture more than 60 percent of the vote. This is where Hillaryland begins. Wearing a blue shirt and a dark gray sports jacket, his hands pushed deep down into his pockets, Obama strolls down the street as if he were walking down a runway. He looks boyish for his 46 years, with his wide smile and protruding ears.

    An assistant walks next to him, carrying a bundle of pamphlets. At first, Obama didn’t feel that it was necessary to venture into Hillaryland — not for Barack Obama, the star of this election campaign. Tens of thousands flock to his rallies and campaign events, where he can easily fill community centers and stadiums, and where he exhibits an almost unique ability to arouse enthusiasm for a new beginning in America. Until now, the fact that he has been consistently behind Clinton in the polls hasn’t bothered Obama, who apparently believed that, like a cold, her frontrunner status would eventually disappear.

    He stands in front of 1404 Hutton Street, the house of Fortino and Maria Brito. He pulls himself together and knocks. A woman with a heavy accent opens the door. She is standing there in her robe, her husband peering out from behind her. “Good morning,” Obama says. “I’m Barack Obama and I want to be the next President of the United States of America.”

    Obama has embarked on this somewhat intrusive, door-to-door strategy to warn the good people of Des Moines about Hillary Clinton. He had intended to stay away from negative campaigning, instead focusing on saying good things about himself. In the past, when asked about Clinton he would say that he liked her more and more the better he got to know her. But now practically everything about his adversary seems to rub Obama the wrong way: her lack of decisiveness when it comes to social policy; her support for the Iraq War five years ago; her vote in favor of US President George W. Bush’s new Iran legislation, under which the US Congress is declaring an elite unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. In truth, says Obama, the new law is nothing but the first of the Bush administration’s preparations for its next war.

    The woman at 1404 Hutton Street stares at Obama with what appears to be a complete lack of comprehension. He quickly nods to his assistant, who gives the woman a brochure. “I’ll leave you some information,” he says.

    Dogs have started barking in neighboring houses. Obama has already had enough of the beer drinkers. They aren’t part of his world. And he’s convinced the dogs barking in the house next door, “a whole pack of them,” are pit bulls — the dog of choice of the lower classes. Obama looks around nervously, like a thief caught red-handed. He decides to cross the street, where a group of people, now curious, is standing in a front yard.

    “Have you been involved in the caucuses before?” he calls out to them. They smile shyly, not quite sure what Obama is talking about.

    . . .

    Ya’ gotta love it!

Comments are closed.