Obama Craps Out

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing this past weekend from the Obama campaign about a (Ripublican) Bob Novak column. Here at Big Pink we have ignored the story. We know better.

We know that Obama and the little that remains of his campaign is looking for any excuse, any excuse, to change the conversation from the thumping he received at the Las Vegas debate.

Obama gambled that he could bamboozle and charm and mudsling his way to the presidency but now, as they say in Vegas, Obama crapped out.

After the Halloween debate when Tim Russert led the attacks against Hillary we wrote this blunt assessment in The Real Danger:

The real danger for Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Team and Hillary supporters is that after Tuesday night’s debate there is now a template for attacking Hillary. Big Media, the debate “moderators” – Russert in particular, and other candidates for the Democratic Party nomination attacked Hillary in a united probably coordinated manner.

The Hillary Team has responded to the Russert/Obama/Edwards template effectively. The Las Vegas debate conclusively demonstrated that the attack Hillary template has been smashed by Hillary’s outstanding win in Las Vegas.

Obama is now forced to go back to his desperate and futile attacks.

Here in brief is what happened this past weekend and the results:

Bob Novak took to the airwaves today to defend his recent controversial column, in which he claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was sitting on a bit of juicy dirt concerning her rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

Why the need to defend? Well, to put it bluntly, Novak’s Saturday column has been ridiculed as – among the more noteworthy descriptions — “shamelessly unethical” and “unconfirmed crap,” for naming no names and containing no tangible information. So, to clear up the facts and keep his name in the news cycle, Novak went on Fox News this morning.

Novak disclosed that his source for the story was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was “told by an agent of the Clinton campaign” about the alleged dirt. Got that? So Novak was not privy to the dirt itself, nor did he talk to Clinton’s people. Rather, he heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else. Another secondary source, Novak went on to say, claimed to have heard the same thing. Fact-checking = completed.

For the record, in the original column, Novak suggested he had more personal knowledge of that rumor-mongering. “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton,” the piece began, “are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination…” There was no mention of a source.

Also during his Fox appearance, Novak used his unconfirmed rumor to further smear Clinton, calling her campaign’s supposed tactic “very similar to the kind of tricks that Richard Nixon used to pull, where he would say, ‘I know some very bad information about the communists supporting George McGovern, but I can’t put that out because it wouldn’t be right, because I’m too good of a guy.'” Again, Novak is dragging down both Obama and Clinton.

And if it seems that this whole episode was just concocted up by some Republican operative to make Clinton and Obama look bad, rest assured.

Desperate Obama, like desperate Edwards, is working mud in hand with Ripublicans to smear Hillary.

Marc Ambinder identifies the Obama rumor. Readers of Big Pink know this is no rumor – it is reality. Ripublicans know that Rezko and Michelle’s hospital dealings are a big problem for Obama. Here’s the Ambinder story:

The murmured charge is that as an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama engaged in a real estate deal that benefited him in exchange for legislative favors. In short, what might pass for standard operating procedure in the Illinois legislature could nonetheless prove embarrassing to someone campaigning as a paragon of political virtue for president. So far, however, no proof of the allegation has been presented.Pretty thin stuff. And haven’t we heard the Tony Rezko tale already?

Ambinder has heard only some of the Rezko stuff. Obviously he needs to read The Case of the Missing State Senator.

Obama at the time was a State Senator representing the mostly African-Americans who lived in the Rezko owned tenements. These residents of the Rezko owned tenements presumably contacted elected officials when they found themselves living in substandard housing and freezing in the winter. Where was Obama with consitutent services? Obama should have known and it strains credulity to think he did not know. Obama had helped Rezko obtain government subsidies for these tenements and we presume some type of due diligence was performed by Obama in which he would uncover the nature of the Rezko housing.

In that same article we quoted from the Chicago Sun-Times:

”Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko’s low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers. The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found. “Their buildings were falling apart,” said a former city official. “They just didn’t pay attention to the condition of these buildings.” Eleven of Rezko’s buildings were in Obama’s state Senate district.“

We concluded The Case of the Missing State Senator by writing:

When it came time to defend the defenseless or protect and enrich the powerful. Obama made a decision. He protected his powerful friends and provided them with even more government money. Same old Chicago politics. The poor shivered in cold tenements. Obama bought a new house. Now he wants a bigger White House to entertain his Chicago friends.

Maybe now Big Media will understand why Obama is hiding his state senate records. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Clearly Ripublicans know about this story and its devastaing impact were Obama ever to get the Democratic nomination.

TPM had a little more on Obama’s Novak “turn the page” gambit:

In case you missed it, Novak’s column prompted a furious exchange between the Hillary and Obama camps. Critics lined up to blast Novak for putting out such murkily sourced info.

Now Novak has “clarified” his sourcing: It’s second-hand. In the interview, he says he was told of this by someone who was “told by an agent of the Clinton campaign.”

Not content with all his previous smears and mud slinging, Obama now literally takes a page out of the Ripublican smear book:

Barack Obama has unveiled a new line of criticism against Hillary: In speeches he’s started to point to the allegation made in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta’s Hillary book that the Clintons secretly formulated a 20-year-plan to deliver the presidency first to Bill, and then to Hillary.

“I’m not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me,” Obama said the other day.

Asked if that were a reference to the Gerth allegation, an Obama spokesperson left virtually no doubt that it was, telling Newsday: “Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents.”

But the source that Gerth and Van Natta cited with supposed first-hand knowledge of this plan — historian Taylor Branch — has since vehemently denied that any such pact existed. “The story is preposterous,” Branch told The Washington Post, adding: “I never heard either Clinton talk about a ‘plan’ for them both to become president.”

It’s hard to see how the use of Gerth’s allegations could possibly play well among Dem activists. Many of them dislike Gerth for his role in “breaking” the Whitewater story and see Gerth’s book as an anti-Hillary hatchet job.

Congratulations Obama, you have sunk to a new low.

Hillary meanwhile lays out the case for her clear-headed, experienced leadership. We especially appreciate Hillary denouncing Obama/Ripublican fear mongering to destroy Social Security:

The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can’t afford to break in a newcomer.

In speech that kicked off a two day campaign swing through Iowa, the New York senator painted a bleak picture of a U.S. economy battered by home foreclosures, rising oil prices and lack of good jobs for middle class workers.

The former first lady compared the situation to 1992, when her husband ran against the first President Bush.

“There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush,” she said to applause.

Without mentioning names, she suggested Democratic rival Barack Obama – less than three years into his first term in the Senate – and other candidates lack the experience necessary to address the nation’s myriad fiscal challenges.

There is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for – our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,” Clinton said. “Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.” [snip]

The former first lady, speaking in a community gymnasium, outlined steps she said she would take to stem the housing crisis and help consumers in cold-weather states pay to heat their homes. Among other things, she said she would create a $1 billion fund for states to help homeowners who risk foreclosure.

She also addressed global challenges to the economy, including funds controlled by foreign governments to invest in U.S. stocks, real estate and businesses. She called for greater transparency for such funds, which are currently not required to disclose their assets or investment returns.

While she directed much of her criticism at the Bush administration and GOP presidential candidates, the subtext of Clinton’s speech was clear: She has more detailed understanding of U.S. economic woes than her rivals. [snip]

Her speech also tackled the issue of Social security.

In recent weeks, Clinton and Obama have traded barbs over the retirement program for seniors, which is forecast to run out of money around 2041 Presently, the first $97,500 in individual income is subject to the Social Security tax – a level Obama has said must be increased in order to keep the program solvent.

Clinton has refused to say what she would do as president to preserve Social Security but has insisted such a tax increase would place an undue burden on middle class families.

She reiterated that point Monday, even suggesting that Social Security is not under imminent threat.

“We don’t need more Republican scare tactics about a ‘Social Security crisis,'” Clinton said. “And we don’t need a trillion-dollar tax increase that will hit families already facing higher energy, health care and college costs. What we need is to focus on the real crises of health care and Medicare, and on expanding opportunities for poor, working and middle class families who are struggling now.”

Hillary is ready to lead from day 1. Americans don’t need Rezko economics in the White House.


198 thoughts on “Obama Craps Out

  1. Novak has lost all credibility with most media. I guess Fox
    News holds him in esteem. But at least Fox was able to
    get him to acknowledge that it was not “first hand”
    attribution. Novak seems to sunk to an all time low.

    I am wondering:

    Some weeks ago, the LA Times was supposed to sitting on
    a “scandel.” It never materialized. I’m wondering if the L A
    Times and the Novak article have a common source.

  2. Some more info. on that Harris poll.

    The latest Harris Interactive Poll has encouraging numbers for front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton, with Clinton for the first time earning a majority of support, 52%, among Democrats since the poll started tracking the race in April. Sen. Barack Obama comes in second with 29%, followed by John Edwards with 11%. None of the other Democratic candidates scored more than 3%.

    Giuliani expanded his lead by three points since October, earning 34%, with next closest rival Fred Thompson coming in at 20%. However, Thompson’s number two position in this poll may be misleading as his numbers continue to slide. He has dropped 12 points in the poll since he formally announced his candidacy in September. Mitt Romney is in third place with 16%, followed by Sen. John McCain with 13%. Mike Huckabee is polling at 9%, followed by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 6%.

  3. “Americans don’t need Rezko economics in the White House.”

    That is a good one. He is practising Rezko politics and economics.

  4. Brilliant analysis by Harold Meyerson for The American Prospect;

    f the zeitgeist were all, Barack Obama would be winning the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Every poll shows record numbers of Americans despairing of their nation’s direction and clamoring for change. Two surveys conducted in late October, one for ABC News and The Washington Post, the other for the Stan Greenberg-James Carville group, Democracy Corps, showed that just under three-quarters of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track, while just under one-quarter believe things are going in the right direction. As the voters see it, the Republicans are chiefly to blame. On one crucial issue after another, and in the partisan identification of voters, the Democrats’ advantage over the Republicans continues to grow. The incumbent Republican president has an approval rating worthy of a disease.

    At first glance, then, this should be the Obama moment. He is, among his fellow candidates, uniquely innocent of our past sins. No other candidate personifies change so viscerally and completely; no other candidate promises an end to the era of hyper-partisanship that vexes millions of Americans; no other candidate could so instantly dispel the disrepute into which America has fallen across the globe.

    Or, if not Obama, then surely John Edwards should be the beneficiary of the public’s profound dissatisfaction with the increasingly misshapen American economy. When the Democracy Corps followed up among those respondents who said that the nation was on the wrong track, it found that both Democrats and independents were particularly dissatisfied by the power of big business and the disinclination of government to do something — anything — for Americans’ beleaguered middle class.

    Within the presidential field, Edwards alone has waged an anti-plutocratic, help-the-middle-class campaign. No other candidates have been so explicit or far-reaching in their commitment to help unions rebuild, or in their opposition to trade deals that advantage banks and corporations over workers.

    There are, to be sure, some elements of the zeitgeist that have worked to Hillary Clinton’s advantage. George W. Bush has given zeal, impulse, ideology, and incaution a bad name; he has, by omission, demonstrated the need for expertise, experience, realism, mastery of government, and simple competence. Nonetheless, a season defined by a yearning for wholesale change, for an end to the Iraq War, and for moderation of partisanship without progress — you would not think this would be Clinton’s time.

    And yet, manifestly, it is. The caucus-goers of Iowa still have time to alter that equation, of course, but so great is Clinton’s lead — nationally, as of late October, she was commanding roughly 50 percent support in most polls, leading Obama by a 2-to-1 margin and Edwards by 4-to-1 — that Iowa is shaping up not just as Obama’s and Edwards’ first chance to derail the Hillary Express but quite possibly their last. If Clinton wins Iowa, it’s hard to imagine where or how her rivals could stop her.

    Remarkably, Clinton has widened her lead by winning over the very voters whom Obama and Edwards had reason to think would be theirs. Looking at the ABC/Washington Post polls for 2007, Clinton’s support among moderate and conservative Democrats has held steady: She had 44 percent support among them in February, and 46 percent in October. Among Democratic liberals, though, her support has jumped from 40 percent earlier in the year to 54 percent in October. Obama, meanwhile, has seen his support among liberals decline from 36 percent in midsummer to 25 percent in October. And among Democrats who favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Clinton holds a commanding lead over Obama, 45 percent to 26 percent.

    So the candidate of the Democratic establishment, who voted for the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq and, more recently, for a resolution that Bush might invoke to justify war in Iran, has become the clear front-runner in a party screaming for change and peace. That Clinton has managed to pull this off is a tribute to the strategic and tactical brilliance of her campaign, and to the mistakes, misfortunes, and limitations of her rivals’. It is also a tribute to the fact that the divisions among Democrats these days just ain’t what they used to be.

    Clinton began the year under pressure to renounce her 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq. She never did, but by calling for the withdrawal of the vast majority of U.S. forces from Iraq, she made it all but impossible for Democratic voters to distinguish her position from Edwards’ and Obama’s. On big-ticket domestic issues like health care and energy, she has proposed policies as, if not more, progressive that those of the other leading Democrats.

    In short, she hasn’t left Obama and Edwards with all that much to attack, at least by the historic standards of Democratic presidential primaries. That’s not to say that there aren’t real differences among the candidates. I would trust Edwards to fund needed social and infrastructure investments far more than I would Clinton (or Obama); I would trust Obama to clean up campaign finance far more than I would Clinton. But on the front-burner issues, the only area where Clinton has truly opened herself to attack is her vote labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    Edwards and Obama, of course, would have to make something of this — something that they have yet to do on any major issue. When it comes to attacking, Obama has an instinct for the capillary. He is a man for synthesis, not differentiation; you want him on your side before and after a fight, though not necessarily during it. (With Clinton, apparently, the time to be wary is before the fight, as her votes on Iraq and Iran make clear.) Edwards, by contrast, knows where to find the artery, though the odds are that his attacks in Iowa may end up helping Obama more than they help him — if they help either of them at all.

    Obama, in particular, is the candidate who has failed to help himself. A candidate of freshness has to be a fount of new ideas, and on domestic policy, Obama’s campaign has been bewilderingly timid. (His health-care plan, for instance, does not propose universal coverage, as Clinton’s and Edwards’ do.) On foreign policy he has offered some bold ideas — most recently, his commitment to negotiating with Iran — though whether he has the ability to contrast this sharply with Clinton’s Iran vote is open to doubt.

    More generally, Obama has needed to build on his early advantage among younger voters and college-educated professionals by bolstering his thoughtful image with some breakthrough proposals; and he’s needed to win over more working-class Democrats by conveying a surer sense of advocacy on their behalf. He’s done neither, a sin of omission that has directly benefited Clinton: He has steadily declined in polls of Democratic college graduates, and of young people, as Clinton has steadily risen. Obama’s caution has also heightened the one distinction between him and Clinton that has always worked in her favor: the experience gap. With each debate, at least until the one in Philadelphia, she seemed the candidate who could more plausibly stand up to Rudy Giuliani — and to foreign adversaries, too.

    But the story of the campaign, so far, isn’t simply the transfer of many Democrats’ support from Obama’s column to Clinton’s. It’s also the inability of Edwards to capture any of that shift. Some of Edwards’ problem has been beyond his control: He is running against two demographic breakthrough candidates, two major candidates who are making history simply by being major candidates. He is also running a populist campaign, raising themes and defending Americans that most of the media are disinclined to take seriously. (Unions do take them seriously, but many have shied from endorsing him because he’s trailing in the polls.) But the ability of Clinton to co-opt just enough of his themes has proven his most formidable impediment. She has stolen some of his thunder on domestic issues as, even more remarkably, she has stolen some of Obama’s on foreign policy.

    Clinton’s ability to co-opt issues is a tribute to her political adeptness, but it is also a consequence of the fact that this is a time of Democratic cohesion. In Congress, Democrats are voting the party line more than ever before. Everyone is for universal health coverage; everyone (except Joe Lieberman) is against the Bush-neoconservative foreign policy. Real intraparty differences on trade and other issues remain, but the pitched battles and opposing armies that defined the party in decades past are nowhere to be seen.

    Instead, the real differences in American politics are those between the parties, not within them. That means that the key to enacting universal health insurance or labor law reform isn’t whether Edwards or Clinton is president, though Edwards’ commitment to creating a fairer labor law exceeds his rivals’. Rather, the fate of such measures depends on having a Democratic president, any Democratic president, and picking up enough Democratic senators in 2008 to break Republican filibusters.

    No one can predict which Democratic presidential candidate is likely to bring in the most new Democratic senators in his or her wake. In some states, Clinton could certainly be a drag on down-ticket candidates, but at this juncture, who can say if she’d be better or worse than Obama? At the same time, if Democratic voters, like Democratic bloggers, are looking for a candidate tough enough to withstand the forthcoming Republican swift-boating, Clinton certainly has enhanced her credentials on that score. Clinton has played 2007 very well, but the year isn’t over yet. Her vote on Iran, and her pirouettes on the issue of driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, could reinforce the perception that she’s too smart by half, too calculating, too triangulating, too — well, Clintonian. If Obama or Edwards can make this charge stick over the next two months, we may yet have a race. So far, they haven’t even come close.


  5. Actually Realist, the Margin Of Error is 4.5%.

    Politico has the ABC analysis:

    An analysis by Gary Langer of ABC News says those are little changed since July: Edwards is up four, Obama is up 3 and Clinton is unchanged.

    The ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Wednesday through Sunday, from a random sample of 500 Iowan adults likely to vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus.

    So the poll includes some respondents who had seen Clinton’s well-reviewed performance in Thursday’s debate in Las Vegas, and some who had not.

  6. The new Wash Post poll from Iowa has Obama at 30, Hillary at 26, Edwards at 22. Chris Matthews is delirious.

    Novak is pathetic. Obama is beyond pathetic to believe Novak over Hillary. And his protestations about slime — and “we have to get on this stuff quick” is illogical. What stuff? Does Obama know what the column is about? Does it make sense that “agents” of Hillary would tell non-supporters that Hillary won’t use a scandal? What is the point? This is the one leak from the Clinton campaign?

    The press believes this story? They, like Obama, are skipping the facts and going straight to the innuendo as if proven. Ah well, eventually someone will point out that NOT using detrimental information is not sleazy.

    HRC is being accused of honorable behaviour. Gee, how rotten can you get. No wonder Obama wants to nip it in the bud.

  7. One thing about that IA poll — 1/3 have actually met candidates. Of that 1/3, there’s a real bias in Obama’s favor. Seems odd, since Edwards has been there for years and campaigned in all 99 counties.

    22. If Met Candidate, Who’d You Meet?

    Obama 51
    Edwards 38
    Hillary 36

    The only time Obama’s in the lead, it’s this poll.

  8. interesting poll admin, looks like Edwards needs to take on Obama, else he will remain irrelevant. Hillary’s support is strong 26-30% which has reflected in several polls, however it is Edwards who is slipping. there is NO forward momentum for him, and people are not buying his “I will take on lobbyists” message. I doubt if obama will take him as a VP since he has very limited clout in south as polls reflect. I think clinton shoud spend more time in Iowa. she has spent only about half as much time as Obama, so I can understand why she has made a strong push in iowa this week. on top of it, she has also started running lots of ads and bill is all over NH and iowa for coming two weeks. Infact, I think she needs to cancel attendance to CBS debate, since it will only be a setup to ambush her IMO. she needs to get her message out fast.

    she only needs to come second. if she comes third, its a tough time for her.

  9. HillaryLandRocks,

    Actually this polling firm is quite odd. I analyzed it before, they have no track record in political polling.

    I think it’s good the MSM can lower expectations for Hillary’s chance.

  10. He leads in this poll, at least. Rasmussen is polling Iowa this week and I believe that the DesMoines Register Poll is due soon also. Let’s see if those mirror this one. At this point, what you can say is that Iowa is up for grabs, that Obama is trending up and Edwards is slowly receding from the lead he held going into the fall. We have to hope that Edwards continues to be viable until at least the caucus for our purposes. The goal is to finish within striking distance of first and no worse than second. If it is second place, It would be far preferable to finish 2nd to JE than BO.

  11. I agree — let them lower expectations.

    I think last time this same outfit oversampled the youth vote.

  12. It’s NOVEMBER guys. There is no more need to concede Iowa today than there is to declare victory. I’m sure the candidates see a mile of hard road to the caucus right now, all of them. My money (figuratively and literally!) is on the one wearing the PantSuit!

  13. TheRealist,

    I’m not conceding IA at all, I’m just being realistic. I think Clinton needs to campaign hard there, the main purpose is not to win IA, it is to stay very close. If she can maintain a healthy lead in NH, and if the all three contenders are fairly close in IA, Obama won’t get the MO he needs to win NH.

  14. Only 3 polls (of 47) this year have Obama ahead in Iowa – The Newsweek poll from September, and the ABC/Washington Post polls in July and today.

  15. Oh I still think she should and can win it. But caucuses are a little less democratic than primaries, and given that his state neighbora Iowa, and given Edwards melt down, it’s still a battle for Clinton, otherwise she would completely be running away with it. She’s leading by healthy margins in every other early state.

  16. Kostner and mj: I always make a point that Hillary is ahead when the polls say she is ahead, so for consistency sake, even if I wish it weren’t true, my assumption needs to be it is. If Hillary were to lose in Iowa, what would happen five days later in New Hampshire?

  17. She has an uphill battle in Iowa, and she knows it as well as anybody. My minimum goal is for her to finish second there, as kostner says. A win would be gravy.

  18. So this poll showed a 4-point decline in HRC’s Iowa standing relative to Obama. Isn’t that what other Iowa polls have shown in the past few weeks? Considering what she’s gone through, no surprise. And state polls are lagging indicators, so the effect of her strong debate performance may not be felt yet.

  19. Honestly, I’m just going to disregard this poll completely unless future polls confirm a change in the race.

    1. It claims that Obama leads with previous caucus-goers — very inconsistent, Edwards always has the advantage here.

    2. Bias to people who’ve met Obama

    3. Statement that Obama/Clinton running even with women.

  20. I was surprised to read a negative story about Obama at The Obamington post, but there it was, saying it like it is. It’s a good read.


    “What a difference a day makes … twenty-four little hours and apparently no lessons learned by the spinmeisters at the Barack Obama campaign. Only hours after his none-too-impressive performance in Las Vegas–that was when the Democratic presidential candidate was loudly booed after comparing a key policy difference with Hillary Clinton as “the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani”–the campaign continues to test drive none-too-clever and patently obvious Republican talking points.”

    “Robert Novak is a right-wing apparatchik and his version of “hope” is a throwback to the 1950s. This is the exact opposite of the politics of “hope” that is basis of Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations. If there is anything “scandalous” to the Novak column, it’s the fact that Obama’s not-ready-for-prime-time team actually fell for it.”

  21. HillaryLandRocks,

    I agree with your analysis. Over 50% met Obama in this poll, very significant bias towards him considering Edwards has been in IA all the time.

    Anyway, let Obamaniacs rejoice for the moment. I have no doubt IA will be very tough, but it may be a good thing to pin down Obama here. When he neglects NH in the process, even if he squeaks out a win, I doubt NH will be close.

  22. Over 50% met Obama in this poll

    It’s actually over 50% of the 1/3 who have met candidates. It’s a small bias but accounts for a couple of points.

    More ludicrous to me is that he’s leading w/ previous caucus-goers. Edwards has the firm lead there.

  23. It will be interesting now regarding the latest poll from Iowa, if Edwards will finally go after Obama, as he desperately needs to win there.
    Or if he will continue to save his attack for Hillary.

    This would once and for all reveal whether he and Obama has something going on…..
    It would certainly make no sense to just go after Hill and meanwhile be ‘nice’ to Obama.

    Hehe, with plenty of time left to change the outcome in Iowa, this could play out nicely for Hillary, as the two ‘boys’ would have to duke it out amongst themselves, leaving Hillary alone to put forth her case and being able to stay above the fray, only making her seem a better candidate as they don’t like bickering in that state. 😀

  24. mjs,

    The MSM has already picked up this poll. CNN has been touting it breathlessly. They need a horse race. lol.

  25. Oh man, people, I gotta post a comment I read on Huffpo under the article I posted above, I thought it was a funny comment and something I never thought about myself.

    Ben Dixon:

    “If there is anything “scandalous” to the Novak column, it’s the fact that Obama’s not-ready-for-prime-time team actually fell for it.”

    Just more proof that Obama’s biggest problem isn’t that he’s black, its that he’s green.

    (lol) If anyone sees this as anything bordering racism, I just want to add that I take offense to that, as I see this simply as a word play …of colors! Have a nice evening, I’m off to bed.

  26. Gladiatorstail..

    Edwards is the sacrificial pawn in this game. He is Obama dual purpose dog, part Lap dog, part Attack dog. Edwards will give his caucus votes to Obama and support him to the Nom. I’m sure Edwards has his deal in place as a guaranteed VP.

    Now it makes a whole lot of sense, why Edwards isn’t burning himself up fundraising. And why, Edwards is completely satisfied working with the cursory amount he will acquire from Public Funding.

    Thats it!

    Mrs. S.

  27. Hmm, I tried to post it in a clearer way then it now seems, hehe, I hope you see the lines after ‘green’ are mine. I just wanted to add those last words.

  28. ps. Kostner was it you that posted the story of Elizabeth from the view telling she received a congrats card from Hillary?

    In there it said: Watch it here….
    But there was no link, do you, or anyone have a link to the video from the view? I want to see this, this was very nice (and to me unexpected) of Hillary. (but of course a nice play by them, wanting to reach women voters)

    Of course I doubt Elizabeth would ever vote for anyone other then a repugh!

  29. ok.. the dreaded slide is already happening and I think this trend will continue. point is what is strategy for Hillary.

    here is edwards supporters post on mydd.

    “I sent Obama some money today and I guess now I am leaning to him. I’m not sold, yet. Ideally, Edwards fits with my issues the most, but he isn’t viable financially in the GE.”

  30. http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gardner+says+NH+will+preserve+its+first-in-nation+tradition&articleId=76877102-d18a-4078-9ce3-16a17afed6e7

    The date for the New Hampshire primary will remain up in the air until the Michigan presidential nominating contest finally has been scheduled, Secretary of State Bill Gardner said yesterday.

    “The primary will be on a date that preserves our tradition,” Gardner said. “It will be a humdinger.”

    On Friday, a Michigan appeals court upheld a lower court ruling against a law that set the date in that state as Jan. 15. The decision could be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, or the Legislature, which is still in session, might pass another primary law, Gardner told reporters at St. Anselm College.

    “I’m waiting for some resolution and I don’t know when that will be,” he said.

    He said, repeating past statements, that the New Hampshire primary would be no later than Jan. 8, if Michigan sticks with the Jan. 15 date. Gardner said Michigan state officials had told him their date could be as late as Feb. 26, while there are also advocates of a date earlier than the original one.

    Gardner said he is willing to wait Michigan out and is prepared to organize the New Hampshire primary faster than he ever has. The shortest window of time between an announcement and the date of a presidential primary has been six to seven weeks, Gardner said, but he once was able to hold a state primary within a month.

    Other than Jan. 8, he would not speculate on possible dates for the New Hampshire event. His preference is a Tuesday, he said, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that would prevent it, such as the fact that both Christmas and New Year’s are on Tuesdays.

  31. This is good news in a way. It lowers the expectations for her in Iowa. She is not supposed to win Iowa now. So, even if she loses there won’t be any surprises there.

  32. ra1029, the feb 5th and on will wrap this race up. but in the meantime iowa looks tough. nevada and nh looks great. the nutkooks are touting iowa as the stop hillary test. did anybody read what bill o’reilly said about the dem nomination? he said even if hillary lost iowa and nh she will still win it. the nomination anyway. close with guliani in the general.

  33. ra1029 — I consider an IA win very important. It’s not about winning overall but about sore feelings and party unity in the long run. Anyhoo, I’ve put my money where my mouth is, I’ll be in IA caucus week.

  34. Oh I’m no depress but I needed a time out to de-stress.

    Also that pole is fishy and I don’t think it’s random but that’s okay, I like to know what the pole is after people see his melt-down with that generational lady…i.e. Old folks.

    I still believe Obama is a Repug in sheep clothing.

    Obama is going to have another meltdown soon because he’s a straw man and the only smart thing he has down is to mimic Hillary. And that is his problem, he’s like a blind man lost in the wilderness.

    I hope CNN keep running that debate all through Thanksgiving.

  35. HillaryLandRocks:

    It looks tough in Iowa considering that she is not even the second choice of many. The sad part is Edwards is folding so rapidly that most of his support is quickly shifting to Obama. However, in a way it lowers the bar for her. People think she might not win Iowa.

  36. The funny part of this poll is this:

    22. If Met Candidate, Who’d You Meet?

    Obama 51
    Edwards 38
    Hillary 36

    This means the sample is overtly biased in Obama’s favor. So, I won’t put much stock into this poll. However, it is good to set the expectations low for the big media so they know that she is not expected to win there.

  37. You can always remember what former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu said in 1988 about the Iowa caucus:

    “The people of Iowa pick corn, the people of New Hampshire pick presidents.”

    However, I still have hope that Hillary can have a modest win the Buckeye state! Just thought that quote was kinda funny in light of the Iowa debate on the board.

  38. hi everyone,

    I’ll get away for a few days. I just want to say I’m not depressed at all. I actually feel liberated. Let’s just assume we’re going to lose IA, so what? If we ourselves have lowered expectataions, we really have nothing to fear.

    IA is very tough to crack, I said a few days ago, it’s a hopeless state for Hillary for a variety of reasons. Now media start to talk about the real possibility of Clinton losing this state, this is actually good news. I am not spinning at all. MO is all about expectations, if expectations are low, there won’t be lots of MO generated from an Obama IA win.

    He has some advantages there, no doubt, he lives in a neighbouring state.

  39. I agree with Kostner about Iowa.

    The aim is to stay competitive in Iowa and stay in the race. If there is an Iowan victory that’s great but that is not the aim.

    Besides if Obama is shown as winning Iowa – let’s take it at the face value and leave it at that. Just work on NH and make sure Hillary comes a close second in Iowa.

    The idea is that it is very good that she is not tipped to be winning Iowa. I am so bloody pleased about that. Because if you are touted to be winning Iowa – and you don’t and you come second – it is a big let down. You loose steam. So – let’s actively lower expectations in Iowa.

  40. Can we not talk of losing until we do?

    That’s defeated talk and it shows no faith in our candidate. Let’s focus on getting Hillary the nomination and that Iowa is not the be all and end all to this race, it’s only one battle of many.

    “Remember winners never quit and quitters never win” should be our mantra until Iowa Caucus is over.

    Does anybody else have any more positive affirmations?

  41. I have faith in my girl and totally agree with Paula’s mantra! I just do not expect Iowa to be a Nevada or Florida (both states were she is basically 2 to 1!).

  42. Here’s an example of what we’re dealing with in Iowa (from the WaPo poll).

    12. Regardless of who you may support, do you think (NAME) is or is not willing enough to say what [he/she] really thinks about the issues?

    11/18/07 – Summary Table

    Is Is not No opinion
    a. Hillary Clinton 50 45 5
    b. Barack Obama 76 20 4
    c. John Edwards 73 21 6

    Voters also think Obama is the most honest and trustworthy candidate running. Too bad they don’t know what his campaign is really up to.

  43. Hillary should follow Steve Soto’s advice:

    “Hillary should start talking directly about moving away from a Wall Street economy back to a Main Street one, where the concerns of everyday Americans carry more weight than those of multinational CEOs and campaign contributors. She is already wisely confronting her vulnerabilities. And she can get the jump on her rivals by pointing out that the military has done its job so well in Iraq that the Guard can be brought home now while we gradually redeploy ground forces out of Iraq towards establishing a regional security and counter-terrorism presence.”

    By the way, this comes from a favorable post he wrote about her today at the left coaster.


    and i know everyone here knows in their souls, that this is almost like destiny, although i dont believe in destiny.
    this is not only hillary’s time, its also womens time. and it is not only womens and hillary time, but its something even more moving and profound.

    this is will be the year, the election, the time, that simple everyday citizens, will take back the government, for the people by the people.
    and it will be hillary who will do it.

    and on the day that she is sworn in, not just women, not just minorities, not just the poor and middle class, not just democrats, not just americans, but also republicans, and people around the world, will stop what they are doing, and tune in to watch the inaugural.

    and women will cry, and men will feel strangly proud, republicans, will feel satified…

    and it is bigger than even hillary herself… in this she is just an agent of change, and she is the right person at the right time.
    and neither republicans nor democrats will take back the white house, but the people will.

    so dont be afraid… it is bigger than anyone can see…

  45. Good grief.

    This poll says that obama is leading with:

    1. women
    2. previous caucus-goers

    So, either there’s been a dramatic shift to obama in the past few days, or the poll is crap. Until there’s more evidence of the former, I’m going w/ the latter.

  46. is polling really an indicator of how a caucus will go? i do not think so really. better obama rise now rather than the end of dec. i do worry about debate amnushes comming up-the one in des moines on the 13th could be brutal. iowa will c ome down to can hillary or obama bring out and expand the most of their bases. emily’s list is working on 100000 young women to caucus. obama is working his groups. as far as the poll’s point on 2 to 1 voters in iowa say obama is more trustowrthy than Hillary-that is concerning. some folks are buying rezko’s buddy’s holier than thou attitude. i bet those numbers will go way down -but it will require some gusto from camp hillary to do so. obama is corrupt-and hillary wont lose this fight and will make sure the voters get the message. just some thoughts here. clark, bill and many others will be in iowa working hard. and obama has nothing on them. bring it on

  47. To Whom It May Concern:

    Hillary CAN break through in IOWA!

    Here’s how:

    Answer the THREE Questions Obama “failed” to answer.

    1. How do you specifically plan on protecting the country?

    2. How do you plan to close the borders?

    3. How do you plan to get rid og illegals?

    Her choice of words, not mine.

    Mrs. Smith


  48. If Hillary undertakes this difficult task, she will accomplish 3 things.

    1. She will cast a light on the Obama cover-up

    2. Satisfy questions apparently important to a large segment of Iowans.

    3. Draw in crossover voters (namely Republicans)

    sorry for the errors in the previous post.. writing in the blind into the “pink”!

    Mrs. S.

  49. Something new to focus on…was reading about this over at HuffPoff and google.

    Another church sex scandal and this is big…one of the religious right tent poles. Also this fits into Sen. Grassley’s investigation of televagelists because I remember seeing these group on TBN pushing the run-up with the Iraq war and still to this day saying this was a just war to secure Israel and Christians.

    Also they are big repugs and Bush supporters and they where pushing the faithfuls to vote for Bush at the last elections and the not vote democrat…I couldn’t believe it, that during and worship and fundraisers they were pushing people to vote for Bush and the war and swiftboating all demcrats running for elections.

    Here’s the link.:

  50. I agree with everyone on the expectations game in Iowa. But to cheer up the troops who are mystified and depressed by the news, this is what happened to me two hours ago.

    I was in the grocery store and came upon an older woman who was saying to a man passing by, “I think we’re in a recession now” and then to me, “We may soon be in a depression.” I answered, “That’s why I’m supporting Hillary.”
    The lady broke out in the largest smile, and said “Absolutely!” I said “It’s the economy again, stupid.” The man (an African American) said, “Give the woman 8 years, then we’ll find a black man and then we’ll be back in business.”

    30 minutes later, I was in a darling little English shop with an elderly English lady who has been here for nearly 50 years. She was talking about retiring but not being able to afford retirement. I said, “That’s why I’m voting for my candidate”.
    She literally sucked in her breath and said warily, “Who are you voting for? I said, “Hillary.”
    She let out her breath as she grinned. “My sister just told me she’s supporting her too — we decided this separately.” She was so pleased and it made me feel teriffic — maybe I’ll ask my own sisters who they are supporting.

    At any rate, I will have some faith in the little old ladies of Iowa — forget the soccer moms, it’s the grandmother vote we’re after!

    Tip to supporters esp. in Iowa: Wear a Hillary button wherever you go — her supporters will find you and you can sign them up.

  51. WTF is wrong with Adriana Huffington? I mean who is running that site, I’ve already voiced my objection to a very obvensive Hillary Clinton video they’d posted on that women hating site. Just down right objectable and a disgrace.

    Please go and voice your protest…have as many people let you know how you feel or let other people know how you feel…Just disgraceful.

    If you have any ideas to get the word out about how far Huffpuff has fallen..let discuss.

    I mean it’s demeaning to all women to let that video stand.

    Here’s the link

  52. So this Novak/Obama story…y’know what it reminds me of? Remember when Dominick Dunne went after Gary Condit? He posted that story in Vanity Fair about how Condit ran around with leather daddies on the back of their motorcycle and they would, uhm, perform anal sex on him. That was the only way he could get aroused enough to have sex with a woman (my apologies if anyone is offended). And he suggested that one of those bikers had done in Chandra.

    Now, it’s story that doesn’t make a bit of sense on any level. But it made the pages of Vanity Fair and helped sabotage that Democrat’s election bid.

    So Dunne got the story from Lucianne Goldberg who got the story from unnamed sources. Uh huh.

    Same kind of smear.

  53. carbynew, the HuffPo video was co-produced by Arianna Huffington … See sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=236.com (remove space) for info about 236.com, which produced it.

  54. Marc Ambinder put up an extremely informative foreign policy analysis put together by none other than the RNC.


    Foreign Policy Credential #1: “Life Of Living Overseas” For 4 Years…In Elementary School:

    Foreign Policy Credential #2: Took Some College Courses In International Relations:

    Foreign Policy Credential #3: Has Passed Only One Bill As A Senator…It Dealt With A Foreign Country:

    Foreign Policy Credential Number #4: Already Developed A Relationship With Australia’s Prime Minister; Now Ready To Meet With State Sponsors Of Terror:

    Foreign Policy Credential #5: Member Of Foreign Relations Committee…Reluctantly.

    – – – –

    My favorite part, though, is “In His Senate Career, Obama Has Been The Lead Sponsor On 114 Bills … [list follows] … Only One Of These Has Passed The Senate (The Bill Went On To Become Law). S. 2125, a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo” became law in December 2006. (S. 2125, Became Law 12/22/06).”

    Read the rest.

    marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/ 2007/11/rncs_caustic_response_to_obama.php

  55. Got to keep moving..Bring the focus back to Hillary. She walked away with control after the debate..all this BS from Novak and Rove turning the focus on Obama. Obama has to be broken.

    You must always bear in mind, Obama is a media creation. His persona is tangential.

    What do Tom Cruise and Barack Obama have in common?

    They are both lousy actors and you always feel robbed after watching a performance.

    Mrs. S.

  56. From Digby:

    As friendly as Chris Matthews may be right now toward Obama or Edwards, he’ll be right in there helping the Republicans do it, along with all his fellow members of the Ladies Circle Jerk society who seem to have some problems differentiating between facts, gossip and dirty tricks and so just blurt it all out while daintily dabbing at the drool on their chins and decrying “slime politics.”

    This was a reprehensible and shameful show this afternoon and it’s only the first of many to come. I’m very worried about the campaigns at this point. This looks like the worst circular firing squad I’ve seen in years and it’s the worst time to do it. We desperately need to win this one.

  57. That’s right B Merry. Matthews was in republican camp from before. Only of late his interest in Obama picked up as a means of trashing Hillary. Matthews will be firmly in republican camp come general election. The NH poll will come out in the evening.

  58. I’m very concern about China’s influence around the world and it’s relationship building. With the greedy Repubs and Bush bending over and letting China stick it to us time and time again and now I see China’s influence with the ASEAN trade agreement that dropped Australia, India and New Zealand from joining…3 strong pro US allies.

    And this White House and Congress, what is it doing…..nothing. This is terrible and if we don’t get our act together in another decade we will leave our children with a very different world then what we have.

    It’s not brain surgery to see that most of US enemies talking down on the dollar, from China, Iran, Venezuela. How clueless is this government…geesh.

  59. It was one poll that was so….interesting, that I’d found it suspected. I don’t trust anything coming out of “Big Media” due to all the mergers you can’t trust them for anything.

    If you thought Gonzo was bad, then you don’t know what been happening under the consolidation of media to a few…they have no loyalty to any nation only to their bottom line. And with the Dumbass Ripugs Congress that outsource and lined some of their pockets with there “thirty pieces of silver” to anybody with the biggest check. We now have this mess of a propaganda media where the few good ones are the exception and mediocrisy is the norm.

    Never in my life have I seen such blatant media interference as this election. Chris Matthew is a friend to the Repugs and the only reason they like Obama so much is he controllable and to send this message about how great and tolerant the USA. Plus if a democrat is in then at least it someone who is a leaning Ripug on what we care about.

    I don’t see Obama as this great person of change, what has he fought to change? Outside of shadowing Hillary on her position but when you read the details of his package…it’s full of the same Ripugs talking points.

    A push for Nuclear power, Mining, weak Healthcare, Foreign Policy…pretty much the status quo.

  60. That’s funny, I said the same thing. I think the Novak story was to give Obama a lifeline. I think his folks may have actually planted it.

  61. Nothing would be more depressing than Obama being rewarded in Iowa for his negativity and spiteful attacks. And the media will make sure he gets enough bounce to proclaim him as a winner in NH as well.

    I am just imagining a worse case scenario of Obama victories in Iowa and NH and I do hope that Hillary firewall in NH is strong enough to withstand and prevent this. But it will be so damn depressing if someone who has indulged in downright mean attacks quoting discredited republican talking points against a fellow democrat and who talks of “hope” and “reconciliation” but continues to plot personal attacks without being called out on them, manages to win using these tactics.

  62. Not sure how to weight this info, but Pollster.com has the following stats for 11/18/07:

    Hillary 28.5
    Obama 25.2
    Edwards 20.4

    The only poll not showing Hillary in the lead is the ABC/WaPo, which, based on what everyone has said, seems suspect.

    JoeCHI (my source for finding Pollster.com / FYI polls not something I have followed much in the past), wrote the following in comments at TaylorMarsh:

    At this point, it should come as not surprise that Clinton has to earn every bit of positive media coverage that she gets. Even then, the positive coverage will always be given with a caveat and a qualification.

    Take for example the latest ABC/WaPo Iowa poll.

    From their last poll in July, Clinton maintains the same level support while Obama’s support grows by only 3 points.

    Yet, we are bombarded with headlines that declare “Clinton Slips!”, “Obama surges!”, and “A New Democratic Frontrunner?” despite the fact that the Iowa race remains statistically tied and unchanged.
    Indeed, Pollster.com shows the current Iowa Poll Average to be Clinton (28.5), Obama (25.2), and Edwards (20.4).

    The medias fawning over Obama reminds me of the way some kind and supportive adults react when a special-needs child accomplishes a task that is otherwise an unremarkable activity in a normal child’s day.

    I mean, hopping over the finish line in a potato-sack race some 5 minutes after your competition may be a charming and relatively-impressive achievement, but it doesn’t make you a Presidential front runner, no matter how much it may warm the media’s heart.

  63. I used to believe that there would come a time in this primary when Edwards would turn hard against Obama to establish himself as the alternative to Hillary. He could have easily said that Obama lacks the experience, is devoid of the fighter instinct, and is the one surefire way for the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the General Election– all of which is true. But has not taken this tack, even now as the election date approaches and he starts to slide.

    The question is why. The one thing we do know for sure is that he has no qualms about hurling mud. In fact, it seems to come natural to him, beneathe that very thin veneer of southern charm. Thus, the explanation must lie elsewhere. Perhaps the suppostion about Trippi, a secret alliance and the promise of a future benefit by Obama to Edwards is true.

  64. I hear you dt, if people don’t begin to see the hipochrasy of Obama going on the attack while claiming it’s a different kind of politics…then ‘that’s all folks’.

    But I think this Iowa thing can be good for Hillary, she should focus on building a wall in NH, and continue to increase the effort in Iowa. This way she has NH as a backup, and at the same time she is forcing BO and JE to stay and fight in Iowa, as without it they are sure to loose.
    But with NH as a big wall, even if they were to win Iowa, this win would not be enough to break the big wall of victory for Hill in NH! So it’s kind of a win win for her.

  65. Seems that Bob Kerrey sees the light:

    New School President Endorses Old Foe Hillary Clinton
    by Steve Kornacki

    Published: November 19, 2007

    Tags: Politics, Bob Kerrey, Hillary Clinton

    The news that New School president and former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey plans to endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign on her behalf in Iowa is noteworthy for its irony. Perhaps no Democrat in the 1990’s was as persistent a thorn in both Clintons’ sides as Kerrey was. A brief rehistory:

    * In 1991/92, both Kerrey and Bill Clinton seek the Democratic nomination. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, Kerrey is initially deemed the front-runner, but his chaotic and unfocused campaign quickly loses traction, and Clinton seizes the top slot. Kerrey then shreds Clinton for avoiding service in Vietnam and says that Republicans will open him up “like a soft peanut” in the fall. Besides a meaningless win in South Dakota, Kerrey drops out of the race in early March with little to show for his effort.

    * Despite the contentious primary sniping, Kerrey emerges as a finalist for Clinton’s vice-presidential slot in July 1992, with many Democrats pushing the idea that Clinton, a southern governor with a potential draft-dodging problem, badly needed the balance that Kerrey, a midwestern senator and war hero, would provide. Reports surface that Hillary Clinton — still enraged over Kerrey’s primary season tactics — vetoes his selection. Publicly, Bill Clinton denies the reports, but Kerrey is bypassed in favor of Al Gore.

    * In the summer of 1993, Clinton’s infant presidency, already knocked off course by the gays in the military fiasco and his futile push for a $16 billion “economic stimulus” package, seems to hang in the balance. Facing a wall of Republican opposition and southern Democratic defections, his controversial budget is one vote shy of final passage in the Senate. The lone hold-out? Kerrey, who torments the White House (at one point he and Clinton had a heated phone call in which Kerrey told the president that he resented the implication that Kerrey would bring down his presidency by voting no) until finally, late in the night, assenting to give the budget its 50th vote. (Vice President Gore then broke the tie).

    * Kerrey, who championed an expansive national health care program during his ’92 campaign, sounds a much more conservative note on the subject as Hillary Clinton pushes her health care plan in 1993 and 1994, delivering a blow to the administration when he joins several moderate-to-conservative Democrats in endorsing a scaled-back plan drawn up by Republican Senator John Chafee.

    * As Democrats, hobbled by President Clinton’s low poll numbers, suffer historic defeats in the 1994 midterm election, Kerrey publicly brands the President “an unusually good liar,” stoking talk that he will challenge Clinton in the 1996 Democratic primaries. Paul Tsongas, who competed with Kerrey and Clinton in the ’92 primaries, publicly endorses a Kerrey candidacy. Ultimately, Kerrey begs off and instead chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1996.

    * As Bill Clinton and his allies seek to clear the 2000 Democratic field for Al Gore, Kerrey (after himself declining to run) opts to endorse Bill Bradley, the only Democrat who ends up challenging Gore, and cuts an ad for him in New Hampshire.

    Kerrey’s motives for endorsing Hillary now are anyone’s guess. His actions have been unpredictable, and in many cases contradictory, through the years. Maybe he simply genuinely believes she’s the right candidate. Maybe as New York’s Senator she’s been particularly good to the New School. At least we can rule out one typical endorsement motivation: wanting to be vice president. Since Kerrey and Clinton are both New York residents, they are constitutionally barred from running together next fall.

    UPDATE: Local side-note — as Azi points out, the endorsement can probably be chalked up as a small victory for Fred Hochberg, a New School dean who is a major Hillary fund-raiser.

    And heres the link: http://www.observer.com/2007/strange-bedfellows-bob-kerrey-endorses-hillary-clinton

  66. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/announcing-huffposts-pol_b_73395.html
    New, potential anti-Hillary feature from HuffPo

    The impact of polls and polling on our political process continues to be one of the unexplored stories of the 2008 race.

    Take the remarkable gap — chasm, really — between the widening lead national polls continue to anoint Hillary Clinton with and the current dead heat in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    It’s enough to leave one wondering: are polls measuring the 2008 election or are they driving it?

  67. Tanks for posting this. Strange decision indeed by Kerrey.
    By the way, I didn’t know this, that since they are both New York residents they can’t run together. Why is this?

    But I must say it was funny to read that Hillary had apparently vetoed the choice to pick him as a running mate in 92, hehe, and who says being the wife of a former President isn’t valid experience??
    I think all the wifes out there sees the importance!! 😀
    She was probably more powerful in the White House then Al Gore…..

  68. Its in the constitution that you can’t have both the President and Vice-President from the same state.

    I’ll see if there is anything else on this.

  69. NPR ran a story last night about the exchange of words between Hillary and Obama over who has the experience to run the economy. Obama’s attack on Hillary was “It is my understanding that Hillary was not the Treasury secretary.” I’m laughing now thinking about how pathetic Obama is, and why all of his attacks, anonymous included, have gotten him no where – because he doesn’t really attack, he gossips behind people’s back’s like the cowardly little school boy that he is, hedging his words with lawyerly modifiers that he somehow thinks wills mollify the attack, making himself come out clean, all the while playing in the mud.

    That’s why he his language is always tempered with grade-a pablum like “it is my understanding!” Maybe this is giving the Obama people a lesson I would rather them not learn, but they are too obtuse, and he will never lose his his inner school-boy, because, after-all, that’s really who this guy is, and the only reason EVERYONE hasn’t figured it out yet is because Big Media has been stupid enough to hawk the deluded fantasies from his book.

  70. Just when you think it couldn’t get any worst.

    Stem cell breakthrough using no embryos:

    Now we’re going to see Bush jr. up on his throne talking about his support of science…blah, blah, blah.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that an American team helped discover this new procedure but now Hillary is going to have to modify her rhetoric.

  71. Speaking of Obama’s propaganda, I found something interesting:
    Whose Facts Are Factier?
    The Obama-Clinton Enemy at the Gates-style sniper showdown escalates today, as Barack Obama unveils “Fact Check,” a site dedicated to rebutting attacks and setting his record straight. It’s similar to Hillary’s “Fact Hub,” which she unveiled earlier this month, only Obama’s has a special section dedicated to refuting “Rumors & Smears.” (Examples: “Obama Is Not And Has Never Been a Muslim;” “Obama Is a Patriot Who Loves His Flag and His Country.”) Whereas campaigns used to trade vollies in the form of obviously biased press releases, now they can do the same thing behind a thin veil of purported objectivity!

    On the bright side, the two sites provide front row seats to the daily propaganda war. Check out a few of the current flaps playing out:

    On Social Security: Hillary blasts Obama for shifting his stance. Obama upbraids Hillary for contradicting her husband.
    On NAFTA: Hillary tweaks Obama for misquoting her. Obama clarifies his record of opposing the free trade deal.
    On personal records: Hillary bombs Obama for keeping his papers under wraps. Obama defends his commitment to transparency.
    On Health Care: Hillary slams Obama for claiming that his plan insures everyone. … Obama has yet to respond. Get on it!
    Published Monday, November 19, 2007 6:59 PM by Christopher Beam
    And the link: slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2007/11/19/dueling-fact-checkers.aspx

    And now more reletively favorable coverage in the New York Times- in the Caucus blog:

    Clinton Confronts ‘Polarizing’ Issue
    By Patrick Healy

    TAMA, Iowa – On one of the most provocative political questions of the day – is Hillary Rodham Clinton too polarizing to be president? – Mrs. Clinton delivered a punchy and pointed rejoinder at a town meeting last night, using some of her most memorable language in a recent string of campaign stops in Iowa.
    Appearing past 8 p.m. at her fifth event of the day, Mrs. Clinton found herself facing an audience member who asked what she could do to heal a country that had become “so polarized and so divisive.” Mrs. Clinton responded with tough words about President Bush, though she also didn’t shy away from her own unpopularity (while seeking to put it in a good light).
    She first recalled going to the Oval Office two days after Sept. 11 and telling President Bush, in his words, that “I would support him publicly and privately any way I could.”
    But she accused Mr. Bush of pursuing narrow interests to please and reward his conservative allies. “I think history will judge President Bush very harshly because he pursued a divisive political agenda rather than a unifying political agenda,” she said.
    “If President Bush had been a unifying president after 9/11, I think he could have been re-elected with a very large majority,” she added.

    Then she pivoted and cast herself as the anti-Bush. She recalled how some people told her not to run for the United States Senate in 2000, that winning over so many people would be too difficult – tacitly acknowledging that she herself was then a polarizing figure who needed to find a way to convert her skeptics.
    “I consider myself a servant-leader,” she said. “I’m not running to be president of the Democrats. I’m not running to be president of states that vote for Democrats. I’m running to be president of the United States. And I think I understand very well what it would take to do that.”
    “I’m not running to live in the White House; I’ve already done that. I’m not running to get publicity and become famous; unfortunately, that’s already happened. I’m running to get the country on the right track for the future,” she continued.
    “I’m looking for a way to isolate the negativity, to diminish the extreme political positions. America is not a country of extremism – we’re centrists. We look to solve problems together and that’s the best way to diminish the extremists.”
    Referring to unspecified “special interests,” she continued, “We can surround them and defeat them, and isolate and marginalize them, because they’ve been after me for 15 years, and I’m still here. I’m still standing. And I know we can take them on and get our country back.”
    The few hundred people in the audience in little Tama, hardly a Democratic hotbed, gave her a hearty round of applause when she finished.
    She drew another ovation, too, with her response to an Air Force major, a 20-year veteran of the service who had served three tours in Afghanistan, when he asked how she would protect the privacy of service members if she went ahead with her plan to let gays serve openly in the military.
    Mrs. Clinton hewed closely to conduct regulations in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, saying that, under her, the armed forces would punish or discharge any straight or gay service member whose conduct was inappropriate.
    Most gay people, she said, were not dismissed because of conduct, but because they had been seen attending a gay rights parade or socializing with openly gay people. She drew a comparison with female service members, noting that some of them had been harassed and mistreated, but said the proper response to such tensions was not to bar women from serving.
    “I feel strongly that if someone wants to serve their country, if they’re a patriot, if they comply with the code of military justice and they have the appropriate behavior, they shouldn’t be disqualified from serving simply because they’re gay,” Mrs. Clinton said to applause.
    The Air Force major, Gary Mathis of Cedar Rapids, said afterward that he appreciated Mrs. Clinton’s points about conduct, but that she had side-stepped his question about privacy – specifically, what she would do to ensure the privacy of male soldiers who shower, sleep and work out in the gym alongside other male soldiers.
    “I don’t think her answer fully recognized the day-to-day realities of military life,” Major Mathis said. “You could extend her argument and say that you don’t need any separate facilities for men and women because as long as their conduct is appropriate with one another, there is no privacy concern.”
    Mr. Mathis said he believed that Mrs. Clinton said what she thinks – a good trait, he noted, though that didn’t mean he would vote for her.
    “I wanted to come out and see what she was like,” he said. “But I tend to vote Republican, and I’ll probably go with McCain or Huckabee. I respect her, but I can’t see voting for her.”

    And the link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/clinton-confronts-polarizing-issue/index.html?hp

  72. I understand some of the obstacles which the campaign faces in Iowa, from the early memo, to the fact that the state has not elected a woman to a senior position, to the vulnerabilities of the caucus system, to the 15% rule and all that.

    But if we want to do well in Iowa, it seems to me we are far better off focusing on winning, rather than a strong second place showing, firewalls and all that. It stands to reason that enthusiasm will play a larger part in a cacucus system than it would in a secret ballot election.

    If you look at the great project teams of the past, the ones like Los Alamos, Lockheed, NASA, Disney–the ones that succeeded beyond all expectations, the key ingredient was a shared belief that they were an underdog fighting a battle that must be won for the organization to survive and prosper. If the Iowa polls slide, that should be our message.

  73. Per Politico:

    Poll hype?

    A dissent from the excitement around yesterday’s ABC/Washington Post poll from Stuart Rothenberg, who notes that their last Iowa poll also had Obama up, and way out of line with other results at the time.

    Also, her trust number is actually up slightly from the previous survey

  74. Two Networks Flop in Reporting on New Poll
    If there is something surprising about the new ABC News/Washington Post survey of likely Iowa Democratic caucus attendees, it isn’t the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (30 percent) holds a narrow lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (26 percent) and John Edwards (22 percent). It’s the curious way ABC and rival NBC reported on and interpreted the results during their Monday night national news programs.

    For years, Independent political analysts have been warning about reporters’ tendencies to compare polls conducted by different polling firms, to over-interpret small changes in poll results and to treat the results of the most recent survey as if they are etched into stone. And yet that’s what the two networks seemed to do.

    Interestingly (though probably not surprisingly), ABC News’s partner in the Iowa survey, the Washington Post, played the story in a much more measured and thoughtful way.

    ABC’s World News opened with the network’s new survey, treating it with a breathless quality deserving of momentous breaking news. In fact, the ballot test in the new poll wasn’t all that different from the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted in late July, which had Obama leading with 27 percent, to 26 percent each for both Clinton and Edwards. Obama’s lead both in July and in the most recent survey are statistically insignificant.

    Oddly, ABC’s Kate Snow commented that one of the interesting things about the new survey is that likely caucus goers have “come to a different conclusion than what national polls say.” That’s a strange comment since the difference between the Iowa numbers and the national numbers has existed for many months, and many observers have questioned the networks’ focus on national survey data.

    A minute or two later in the show, anchor Charles Gibson told chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos that he was struck by “what retail politics this all is.” This is news? Gibson didn’t know that Iowa (and New Hampshire) are famous for being retail politics states?

    NBC also botched its report of the new survey. First, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, referring to the Iowa race and the new poll, said “It’s tightening among the Democrats,” and then NBC Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory compounded the error by telling viewers that “For the first time, [Obama] has a lead in the state.” Given the results of the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, “tightening” is not an apt description. And of course, Obama held a “lead” in the July survey.

    It’s worth noting, though nobody did, that the July ABC News/Washington Post survey was dramatically different than other surveys taken at the time. This does not mean that the July ABC News survey was wrong or that the current one is incorrect. It is a reminder, however, that it’s better to be cautious about reading too much into this, or any, poll – even if you are paying for the survey.

    In fact, some campaign operatives with the Presidential campaigns are skeptical about many of the polls being conducted in Iowa because of the difficulty in predicting exactly who will participate in the January caucuses

  75. kostner:

    Don’t pour water on big media’s celebrations. They wanted to have a happy thanksgiving. What better way for them to do it with other than “Hillary falling, Obama rising” story.

  76. From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
    In post-Iowa poll spin, the Clinton campaign rolled out Chief Strategist Mark Penn. He dismissed the latest Washington Post/ABC poll showing Obama ahead, saying there’s been “a lot of over-reporting” on it.

    “Iowa’s always been a competitive race,” Penn told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski this morning. He finds it “very funny” hearing “we slipped” because “our vote is staying exactly the same. He’s [Obama’s] moving within the margin of error.”

    He implicitly questioned the poll’s accuracy, citing that the last one in July also showed Obama ahead. “It’s the only poll to do so,” Penn said.

    Obama was ahead of Clinton and Edwards in that poll 27%-26%-26%. Obama was also leading in a late September Newsweek poll 28%-24%-22%.

    Penn also dismissed questions of Clinton’s honesty. This poll showed her lagging in that area as did our NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll as we noted in a post on her new ad yesterday.

    “A lot of the other polls show honesty is about a wash or equal,” Penn said. He then played up where Clinton scores better: experience. He called health care, experience the “kinds of things they’re [voters] looking for from the next nominee….”

    He then took a swipe at Obama’s qualifications to take on the economy. “Voters are sure done with Bush,” Penn began, reacting to Hillary Clinton saying that “It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.”

    “Democrats think Bill Clinton did a great job and think she’s ready to be president and ready to manage a tough economy,” Penn said. “Three years ago, Senator Obama was State Senator Obama. There’s a huge gap between these candidates, in a time of war” and in a struggling economy.

  77. Did anybody watch MSNBC? Mika Brzezinski might be biting her teeth. She is a hard core Obama supporter and is firmly in anybody but Clinton crowd.

  78. New HRC ad in NH goes after Repugs.

    youtube.com/watch?v=sZAuXvbP77c (delete space)

    Greg Sargent wrote:

    It would seem there are three reasons to run this ad: 1) Republican attacks against her that win over their own loyalists might also turn Dem-leaning independents against Hillary; 2) Going after the Republicans for attacking Hillary could have a rally-around-the-flag effect for Hillary with her own partisans; and 3) The Hillary campaign has been likening the intramural attacks from Barack Obama and John Edwards to those heard from Republicans, so this ad could be seeking to marginalize their critiques.

  79. Folks in NH don’t like negativity/negative ads anymore than do Iowans.

    I phone canvassed here yesterday and spoke with a 90-year old woman who told me her parents had raised her to be a good Democrat. She told me she had already submitted her absentee ballot for Hillary. She also said she had seven living children (failed to mention how many grands) and that she had told every one of them that they had to vote for Hillary. And, she said, they were going to.

    On the other hand, I had three women who fell on the other side of the spectrum, the Hillary Haters … “don’t talk to me about Hillary”, “I won’t vote for Hillary”, etc. Unfortunately, I can never get them to tell me why … but the venom is dripping in their voices. I just can’t understand where that unwarranted hatefulness comes from.

  80. Is this new?

    AP-Yahoo Poll Highlights

    By The Associated Press – 5 hours ago


    Hillary Clinton: 48 percent

    Barack Obama: 22 percent

    John Edwards: 13 percent

    Undecided: 12 percent

    All other candidates: under 5 percent


  81. Yes, they were Dems.

    Here’s an even better response I received last week and I have seen a similar response in blog comments.

    This woman was real perky and just had to let me know that she would never vote for HRC but planned to vote for BO.

    I always want to know the “why” and this particular woman told me it was because she likes the way that he looks, she likes looking at him, and she likes the way that he moves.

    Not trying to psychoanlyze this but I think that there is definitely an odd psychology at play here … he represents the exotic, forbidden fruit. For some women in particular it can come down to the power of voting the object of their interest into office and keeping that video playing in their heads.

  82. Women have always been their own worst enemy in the US. I’ve had european women ask me why are american women so hostile to hillary?

  83. I just LOVE reading blog comments and this one is a doozy:

    So this is what the Democrats want for another eight years? The infighting amongst Obama, Edwards and Clinton is disgusting. Obama needs to just shut up and stop accusing the Clinton campaign of everything. The fact that he bought into the Novak column over the weekend just shows how inexperienced he is. Instead of challenging Novak on his “story”, he immediately assumed the worse. Good diplomacy. So the Democrats continue to fight and the guy who wants to “turn the page” doesn’t know his presidential history for the past 40 years. All the Obama supporters think that he is going to bring peace, civility and love to American politics. I’m too old to want that anymore because it just isn’t going to happen. And the far left better figure out that they are not the only Democrats in this country. I’m sick and tired of their agenda. I’m a lifelong Democrat and I want another Democrat in the White House. Obama will be sliced and diced and in the Chicago river before the end of February if he is the Democrat candidate. Then the Republicans deserve to win because of Clinton hatred. But oh well we stood firm on our principles. Throw out Roe v. Wade, civil rights, habeus corpus, bring on the torture and economic ruin but we didn’t vote for that evil woman (and you didn’t vote for Gore either!)

  84. TheRealist,

    Yup, those are new sets of polling from AP. Clinton continues to have an uptick in AP polls. Here’s the trendline.

    Clinton 48(45)
    Obama 22(22)
    Edwards 13(12)

    AP usually gives Clinton bad #s, so definitley looks good nationally.

  85. I agree with that poster 100 percent. If Obama gets the nomination and loses the GE because’s he’s swift-boated, the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves.

  86. Paula:

    I am in the camp only if Hillary or Biden are the nominees. Otherwise, I am an independent. I will go for the best of two under those circumstances. At the moment, I don’t think I can bring myself to vote for Obama or Edwards.

  87. ra1029, I understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t think this country can afford another GOP administration.

    BTW, here’s the newest item on FactHub:

    Hillary Clinton has consistently opposed merit pay for individual teachers and supported merit pay on a school-by-school basis. Here’s Hillary explaining her position on the Today Show on May 11, 2000:

    You know, I am for pay for performance, but I do not believe singling out individual teachers is the way to do it. I think we should look at school performance. And I think we should look at some of the extra training that we know now makes a difference in teachers’ qualifications. Because if we have merit pay, who’s going to want to teach the poorest kids? You know, if you know that your pay is connected to, OK, you take this group of children, who come from very disadvantaged backgrounds in September, and you have to move them to advance by June, who’s going to want to go to that classroom? I want to go where the kids are easier to teach, you know. So I think we can do pay for performance, and we can provide financial incentives, and I’d like to see that.

    Yesterday, the Obama campaign falsely asserted that she has “flip flopped” on merit pay for individual teachers.

    The Obama campaign provides two examples. The first example, from New York Daily News, simply quotes Hillary discussing her support for school-based merit pay. The second example is a clip from a New York senate debate. If you look at the original source, you’ll find that it is part of an exchange where Hillary expresses her opposition to merit pay for teachers and is attacked for it.

    The citations the Obama campaign provides only illustrate Hillary’s consistency on the issue of merit pay.

    Recently, it was reported that the Obama campaign was forced to remove another inaccurate item on their website about Hillary’s position on NAFTA.

  88. There’s zero chance I would support Obama or Edwards in GE, but that’s moot, Hillary will clench the nominee although we don’t know whether it’s an easy process or brutal battle.

    Anyway, suicide bomber Edwards is now shifting gear. He has launched a warm-and-fuzzy new ads on Thanksgivings… Geez, too little, too late.

    Trippi is the dumbest campaign strategist I’ve ever seen, or maybe he really is a double agent.

    I think Edwards is doomed in IA. He just can not expand support outside prior caucus goers. There is increasingly evidence that firt timers will place a significant role in the outcome of IA caucuses.

    This is why it’s important to engage Obama more aggressively. Obama’s only assets left in that state are perceived ‘hope’, ‘honest’ stuff like that. He’s certainly benefitting from Edwards’ suicidal mission. If Obama can be dragged down to the mud, he won’t win IA.

  89. BTW something SMELLS really badly here: Ben Smith has some interesting info on that Iowa poll (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/ More_detail_on_the_controversial_Iowa_poll.html)

    I spoke this morning to a source closely familiar with the details of that Iowa poll that raised eyebrows last week, though he was unable to definitively say who sponsored the poll, and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    The poll drew public attention after bloggers reported receiving a call asking about John Edwards’ decision not to stay home with his ailing wife.

    My source says the poll actually took two tracks, and included questions about all three leading Democrats.

    The first question asked for the voter’s preference, and then asked “what concerns you most” about two candidates.

    If the voter favored Obama, the poll tested two negatives: that he “lacks the experience necessary to be president” or that he “would be a weak general election candidate”? The poll then moved on to ask about Edwards.

    If the voter favored any other candidate, the pollster asked questions about Clinton, and then about Edwards.

    The Clinton negatives were whether she’s “insincere and changes her mind too often;” whether she “would be a weak general election candidate;” and whether she wouldn’t “bring real change to Washington,” the source said.

    The pollster actually changed the Edwards question after complaints became public, a few days into the survey. It began by testing the message about Elizabeth Edwards’ health. But after that stirred controversy, the question was changed to focus on his past as a trial lawyer.

    As I said, the poll’s sponsor remains a mystery, but if you know more, let me know.

    UPDATE: I have it from another source that the calls originated with the Ohio-based firm Influent, which runs call centers. The question is who their client was.

  90. I understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t think this country can afford another GOP administration.”


    That is why I cannot bring myself to vote for Obama.

  91. I love this:

    Then the Republicans deserve to win because of Clinton hatred. But oh well we stood firm on our principles. Throw out Roe v. Wade, civil rights, habeus corpus, bring on the torture and economic ruin but we didn’t vote for that evil woman (and you didn’t vote for Gore either!)

    I’m going to quote this all the time with me Hillary hating dems.

  92. ra1029 makes an interesting point.

    Actually, even Dodd as a nominee (imagine that happening ha ha!) would not create such negative feelings as either Edwards or Obambi does. And Dodd has gone after her too. I think when Edwards calls her as representing and defending a “corrupt” system implying she is corrupt herself, that is going too far . When Obambi refers to a discredited book as a source for sliming her, not once but repeatedly (he did it at the JJ dinner too), rehashes the same rethug talking points against her AND the last popular democratic president, he crosses the line into repub territory. I am sure Biden, Richardson and Dodd feel the same way about them. That’s why Richardson thought enough is enough and said at the NBC debate that he trusted Hillary “completely”. Even Kucinich had a nice dig at Edwards at the CNN debate – “you are a trial lawyer – you should know better “, putting him in his place.

    Those two guys have made it personal and it shows. And what’s galling is that they themselves are NOT paragons of virtue at all. There is tons of stuff in their records that shows them to be very unprincipled when it suits them.

    It will be interesting to see what a petulant Obambi does when he goes back to the senate if Hillary is sworn in. I can’t wait for that day to dawn.

  93. Like some others here, I could not vote for Edwards or Obama.
    In this case, I vote not for anybody, unless there is a 3rd party candidate!

  94. I personally believe if Clinton does not clench the nominee, it’s better to elect a republican.

    Look, dems are going to widen their control over the Congress, and both Edwards and Obama are extreme leftists. Clinton is the only candidate on the democratic side has a sense of reality. It’s going to be a disaster for U.S. to swing from the right wing George W. Bush’s presidency to a Jimmy Carter style revolution.

    If Romney or Rudy gets the nod, they won’t be able to appoint judges to the bench anyway since the senate will be in firm hands of dems.

    Yes, I think it’s going to be a disaster if Obama/Edwards gets to the white house.

  95. I think the last time my family voted repug was in 1964 and it was a state race, not a national, presidential race. That said, I could not vote for a man who will say anything to become president. I cannot vote for a man who has slimed his party’s own leading candidate, a man I consider to be personally a bit dangerous. I don’t think he has women’s best interests at heart, much less other constituencies that are traditionally democratic. Hell may freeze over when I say this, but I would rather vote for a known bigot than a man who hides behind liberal rhetoric and lies just so he can become president. All this is moot, however, because Hillary will be the nominee and she will win! I am with Wbboei, if we can dream it, we can do it (to quote old uncle Walt Disney). Dream big, work hard for Hillary. Make some calls today! Write some letters today! (I am not yellin’ at yall, just psychin’ myself up). Hillary can handle all the crap they throw at her. We must not stray off course! mollyj

  96. I’ve been thinking – what about pen pal for first time caucus goers in Iowa? Team them up with experienced voters in other states. Just sortuva system to cheer them on and make them part of a bigger community – a National Sisterhood of Hillary, if you will. Those of us who vote later are depending upon them to show and make sure our candidate is still in the game big time. Suppose we had a chance to express that directly and encourage the caucus-goers on?

    It’s something that could be a huge amount of fun, boost voter turnout and create a community of support for her to get work done once she in office. I mean, think of the possibilities! If the women who voted for Hillary joined together in kind of a Move-On like association, when she’s trying to get legislation passed, it would give her a resource that could flood congress with emails when they balk. And if women can take credit for electing the president, then our presence will scare even the blue dogs.

  97. BTW, the Southern Political Reports’ daily video blurb yesterday said that their polling over the weekend showed a positive bounce for Clinton across the South.

  98. oh yeah, Re science and stem cells: There is plenty more to say about Bush and science other than just stem cells. He’s chronically underfunded science, medical research. Hell, I don’t even think he “believes” in science and he sure as hell doesn’t understand it. We don’t need this wedge issue in the way, actually. We can focus on other scientifically based issues. Hillary’s science agenda is much bigger than stem cells, and there is plenty more to do in science than just stem cells. She’s not in a corner at all because of the stem cell breakthrough. mollyj

  99. Edwards Campaign’s Response to Obama Education Plan

    From Chris Kofinis, communications director for the Edwards campaign:

    “In the days before Thanksgiving, we are grateful for the existence of actual facts. In his rush to criticize others, Senator Obama left out the inconvenient fact that he supported No Child Left Behind as an Illinois state senator before he opposed it as a presidential candidate. It’s not ‘a new kind of politics’ to try to have it both ways. When John Edwards is president, he will make sure that every school in America has the resources it needs to give its students a world-class education.”


    Edwards’ first salvo in what he now sees a s a two-front war.

  100. He’s got to start hitting OB if he wants ANY chance of moving past Iowa. 3rd place is DEATH for him, and he knows it. Look for him to really turn that trial lawyer’s mind to framing the differences between him and Barry over the next days. We NEED Edwards to do well in IA. I’m glad to see him finally realizing that his attacks on Hillary have helped OB more than they have him. Go get ’em Johnnie!

  101. Today’s WMUR NH poll:

    Here it is:

    HRC: 36% (was 43)
    Obama: 22% (was 20)
    Edwards 13% (was 12)
    Richardson 12% (was 6)

    That’s a margin drop from 23 to 14 points for Clinton….

  102. Mrs. Bo deals the race card, again…

    ORANGEBURG, South Carolina (CNN) – Michelle Obama told an audience Tuesday that electing an African-American president will challenge America to “look at itself differently.”

    “Imagine our family on that inaugural platform,” she said. “America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is NO OTHER CANDIDATE who is going to do that for our country. You know that.”

    Obama was campaigning on behalf of her husband, Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama told the audience at the historically black South Carolina State University that she and her husband realize there are doubts among black Americans about whether an African-American can win a presidential election. But she called those fears “the bitter legacy of racism and discrimination and oppression in this country.”

    “We would never entered this race if we were not confident that America was ready,” she said. “We’re not crazy.”

    There’s more, but that’s enough to clearly see her playing the race card (something she seems to do ALL the time) in her usual ham-fisted way.


  103. IShe’s still got a 14 point lead. You have to realize all the candidates, dem’s and rep’s, are running negative advertising against Clinton. I’m not concerned with NH.

  104. JE was responding to BO’s announcement on education: “Obama unviels $18B education plan, goes after Edwards and Clinton”.

    HRC should be “The Fact Hubbing” any moment, I’m sure.

    boston.com/news/local/politics/ primarysource/2007/11/obama_unviels_1.html

  105. This is just funny. Obama’s plan for universal pre-k is a rip off of Hill’s plan. I really can’t stand that loser.

  106. PEW Research Poll 11/20/07 (pewresearch.org/pubs/638/cross-party-voting)

    While a 33% plurality of Republican voters express no opinion about the Democratic contest (22% say they want to see “none” get nominated, 11% say they just don’t know), Barack Obama and John Edwards stand out as the most favored Democratic candidates. Roughly a fifth (21%) of Republican voters say they would like to see Obama win the Democratic nomination, and 17% would like to see Edwards win. Notably, Joe Biden also garners significantly more enthusiasm among Republican voters (8% would like to see him win the Democratic nomination) than within his own party (2%).

  107. More PEW:

    Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity among Republicans is abundantly clear. Just 11% of Republican voters say they would like to see Clinton win the Democratic nomination, compared with 45% of Democratic voters nationwide who back Clinton.

  108. obama in the general? it will test my democratic party leanings to the extreme. huckabee all the way? chris dodd, biden, hell even richardson. edwards, obama, and kusinich. HELL NO!!!!

  109. Based on all recent NH polls, Clinton has an average of 15 points lead in NH.
    Obama’s message has gained no traction whatsoever, he’s stuck at 20-25 range.

    I doubt NH will welcome his message of heavy spending, high taxes…

    I start to think Jerome’s analysis makes some sense, the key is to not let Edwards drop out after IA. If the expectations in IA for the next few weeks are Obama is going to win, and if we still have four candidates in NH. Clinton will likely have a win there.

    Ideally, I’d like to see her margin to bounce back to 20 points going into IA, but that probably won’t happen.

  110. Earlier on CNN, candy crowly (spl?) had a reportage on the standing amongst the candidates. And I loved her line; The front runner is still the front runner. And later she said; And the not front runners are still the not front runners. LOL!

    But what was interesting was that she showed a clip from Obama speaking, at someplace Hillary was speaking at as well, but I just don’t know where this was, and he was spewing the same republican lines about “This is what I would expect to hear from Mitt Romney or Rudy…”

    Did he learn NOTHING at the debate when he got booed at, for spewing the same crappy lines??!!! unbelievable!

    I don’t want us to once again have a discussion over who we would or wouldn’t vote for if Hillary doesn’t get the nom, since this is unrealistic 😉
    and distracting, and has proven in the past to drive up strong emotions.

    But, that said, hehe I still want to put my opinion out there:

    I’m a PROUD LIBERAL, Democrat, Liberal, Democrat…etc… Hell will freeze over before I would support a repug, which come to think about it is what will happen in my view if a repug is elected after this President and at
    this dangerous time in history.

  111. Tune in to ABC News tonight at 6:30 EST and watch netkooks go mad! LOL…

    Bush: Clinton Understands White House Pressure
    Exclusive Interview Details President’s Thoughts on 2008 Race, Last Year in Office

    In an exclusive interview with Charlie Gibson airing Tuesday on World News, President Bush and first lady Laura Bush said that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the “pressure” of a presidential race and the White House.

    “No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race,” the president told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson Tuesday afternoon at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

    Watch more tonight on ‘World News With Charles Gibson’ at 6:30 p.m. and ‘Nightline’ at 11:35 p.m. ET

    The president emphasized, “I do believe our candidate will beat her, if she happens to be the nominee,” although he refused to speculate on the Republican presidential field, calling it a “wide-open” race.

    Bush, whose father was defeated for re-election by Bill Clinton in 1992, called the former first lady a “very formidable candidate,” saying repeatedly that she and the former president “understand the klieg lights.”

    Laura Bush said experience as first lady would be “very helpful” in the White House.

    “You certainly know what it’s like,” she emphasized. “You know the pressure there is, you know the difficulties.”

    The first lady later said, “I think it was very helpful for us to have been … around the White House as much as we were when his parents served there.”

  112. Clinton hits back hard on Obama’s foreign experience…

    Clinton unimpressed by Obama’s Indonesia years

    More long-distance sparring on the question of experience, with Hillary speaking, via phone, in Shenandoah, Iowa:

    I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next President. With a war and a tough economy, we need a President ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges.

    Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don’t think this is the time for on the job training on our economy or on foreign policy.

  113. The new NH numbers look good for her – wasnt it just last week that some polls showed her leading by only 10 points or so ? and some folks thought that she was falling ? a 14 point lead after facing republican attacks from the democrats (and the republicans !!) looks pretty good to me. Most of all, breck girl and obambi seem to spinning their wheels (pun intended) getting nowhere .

  114. BTW, Rasmussen’s numbers today show the bottom falling out from under Obama on Sunday and Monday night’s polling. He lost 6 points on his moving four day average in those two days which means his poll numbers on Sunday and Monday night had to be well down in the teens.

    As always, take short term changes in the Rasmussed daily tracking polls with a huge grain of salt. They tend to be quite volatile.

  115. mj: how close is the education plan? this is like twice in two weeks that’s happened. Is it close enough in the wording that it’s like copied?

  116. You what is going to happen, don’t you? He basically copied her plan, added one or more aspects to it, and he will criticize her in the next debate saying her education plan does not do x,y, or z that his does.

  117. Obama double smackdown (HRC and JE) on education plan: Christi Parsons, “Obama: Clinton and Edwards left the money behind,” ”The Swamp” Blog/”Chicago Tribune”, November 20, 2007.

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) often tells voters that the problem with the “No Child Left Behind” effort to improve public schools is that George Bush “left the money behind.”

    But in a policy speech on Tuesday, Obama added two of his rivals for the Democratic nomination for president to the list of culprits – immediately inspiring them to point the finger back in his direction.

    In a speech unveiling his $18 billion plan to improve public schools, Obama accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina of making a “serious mistake” in not voting for a measure in 2003 to require full funding of the program.

    “It’s pretty popular to bash No Child Left Behind out on the campaign trail, but when it was being debated in Congress four years ago, my colleague Dick Durbin offered a chance to vote so that the law couldn’t be enforced unless it was fully funded,” Obama said. “A lot of senators, including Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton, passed on that chance. And I believe that was a serious mistake.”

    But aides to the two Democrats noted that, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to implement it at the state level without a requirement for full funding. And both camps pointed out other instances in which their candidates supported full funding of the law.

    Obama left out the “inconvenient fact,” said Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis, “that he supported No Child Left Behind as an Illinois state senator before he opposed it as a presidential candidate.”

    The back-and-forth broke out shortly after Obama unveiled his plan for primary and secondary education, which would encourage but not require universal pre-school programs, allow school officials to extend the school day or school year and reward high-performing teachers with pay increases.

    His staff says he help to would pay for the program with cuts and savings in several agencies – including by delaying NASA’s Constellation program, which aims to send human explorers to the moon and beyond.

    Obama said the improvements would help fix some of the problems associated with No Child Left Behind, passed in 2001 with the goal of improving schools by raising accountability standards for educators.

    But his criticism of Edwards and Clinton drew fire immediately. Obama was referring to a September 2003 vote on a measure offered by Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.). It was designed to protect states from the new federal mandates if the government failed to provide full funding.

    Clinton voted against the measure and Edwards didn’t vote. Edwards also voted against an amendment allowing states to limit participation in the program if there wasn’t full funding.

    But “Sen. Clinton has repeatedly called for fully funding the law, and has voted several times to do so,” spokesman Phil Singer said.

    Aides to Edwards also pointed out several instances in the past in which he supported an increase in funding for the program. One of those instances was a 2004 vote and the others were press releases.

    As for his vote, aides to Obama say he was just trying to get what little money was made available by the “No Child” program. And they objected to the comparison of Obama’s state Senate vote with the ones Edwards and Clinton cast in the U.S. Senate.

    “We realize it’s a textbook Washington tactic to pass the buck for your mistakes, but the truth is, states are not to blame for Washington’s failure to fund NCLB,” said spokesman Bill Burton.

    Meanwhile, at Republican National Committee headquarters, Obama critics scoffed at the idea of cutting that particular NASA program.

    “It is ironic that Barack Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars,” said spokesman Danny Diaz, “is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”


  118. well you know “stars” and NASA that’s stuff that got started in the 60’s and 70’s etc., he probably wants to cut math and science ed, too

  119. Narcassist MO lashes out…

    Campaigning for her husband today at a historically black college in South Carolina, Michelle Obama told the audience that a Barack Obama win would change the country’s image in a big way. “Imagine our family on that inaugural platform,” she said. “America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is no other candidate who is going to do that for our country. You know that.”

  120. Most of the stuff that comes of BO’s mouth is all gas. He has done nothing so far, nada, led the fights on nothing. He was a state senator a few years ago. The only thing he knows how to do is give lofty speeches, less on specifics, more on rhetoric. Just because the voters in Iowa fall for it does not mean that the rest of the nation will.

  121. 10/1 Rasmussen Hil-44 OB-22 JE-15

    10/15 “””””””””””””Hil-45 OB-22 JE-11

    11/1 Hil-43 OB-20 JE-12

    11/15 Hil-41- OB-22 JE-14

    Personally, I think that the Rasmussen numbers are the most accurate when it comes to the national polling, and rather than showing volatility, have shown exactly how STABLE Hillary’s national polling numbers have been.

  122. All those poll numbers mean squat when the Repugs start ridiculing BO, as in The Conservative Voice article above and BO’s “man lover” Marc Ambinder here (marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/rncs_caustic_response_to_obama.php).

    BO, with the help of MO, has just entered the RNC Zone.

  123. MO is at it again. Those people who say BO doesn’t play the ‘race card’ is by itself ridiculous. But they for sure can’t claim he doesn’t use MO to do it for him, this has been going on for a while…. This will backfire Michelle so please….keep up the good work!

  124. While on the topic of ‘cards’ being played.

    When asked if using the gender card, why not say yes? It’s not like men in the past hundred years hadn’t used it. All you need to do is look at the perception which apparently still lingers on in Iowa, when even women don’t trust another woman to protect this country etc…

    Why not say openly that you will stand up for women causes etc….Women are an ‘interest’ group as well as African Americans are. The AA vote, the workers vote, the jewish vote, the senior citizens vote. AND yes the WOMENS VOTE, of course she should use the gender card, it’s the ace in the deck!! It would be silly not to.

    The media should back off of this ‘story’, It’s called smart politics!

  125. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has protected her 20-point lead among likely Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada, while Republican Rudy Giuliani regained his frontrunner status among the GOP, according to a new Reno Gazette-Journal poll.

    The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error for the likely caucus-goer oversamples is 5 percent.

    Here are the result. In parenthesis are the results from August and March.

    Clinton: 45 percent (33, 32)
    Obama: 20 percent (19, 20)
    Edwards: 12 percent (15, 11)
    Richardson: 8 percent (11, 2)
    Biden: 3 percent (3, 2)
    Kucinich: 3 percent (1, 1)
    Dodd: 1 percent (1, 1)
    Gravel: 1 percent (1, 1)
    Undecided: 7 percent (9, 18)

    Giuliani: 29 percent (18, 38)
    Romney: 22 percent (28, 4)
    Thompson: 15 percent (18, -)
    McCain: 8 percent (8, 18)
    Paul: 7 percent (1, -)
    Huckabee: 6 percent (2, 1)
    Tancredo: 1 percent (1, 1)
    Hunter: 1 percent (1, 1)
    Undecided: 11 percent (18, 20)

  126. Oh, this is rich … MO is hosting a full hour of The View on Dec 5, as we all know. However, a commenter on the ChiTrib’s The Watcher wrote:

    Hmmm. I find it interesting that while her husband has publicly supported the WGA, she is going on a show that is currently struck by WGA. Why the disconnect between his support and her appearance?

  127. so does HIllary get a free hostess gig? What about Bill? I know she was on once but is that a full hour of hosting.

  128. “GOP Strategists Worry About Clinton Strength” (US News & World Report):

    Carefully keeping track of Hillary Clinton’s campaign from day to day, senior Republican strategists and White House officials are increasingly concerned that she will be a very formidable candidate in next year’s presidential election.

    Not only do President Bush and his top aides believe that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; they express grudging admiration for her ability to rebound from setbacks and parry her opponents’ attacks. The latest examples, in the GOP officials’ view, came in last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, when Clinton got the better of Barack Obama and John Edwards and showed her resilience. This came after Clinton seemed off-balance amid criticism of her dissembling over a proposal to issue driver’s licenses to illegal workers in New York–which the governor has now withdrawn and which Clinton now says she opposes.

    All in all, the battle for the Democratic nomination is toughening up the Clinton campaign, improving its rapid-response operation, and making clear that it can take nothing for granted–all valuable lessons, GOP advisers tell U.S. News. As for Bush, he remarks to friends that he sees strategic parallels between his 2000 race and Clinton’s today. Notably, Bush says the 2000 primary process helped strengthen his campaign and ready him for the general election, especially after he lost the New Hampshire primary to John McCain and was forced to make a comeback.

    “The primary process helps Senator Clinton right now,” says a senior GOP strategist. “She’s got to show she can take a punch”–and so far, that’s what she’s doing.


  129. This is from Hillary’s website under NewsRoom

    Statement from Hillary Clinton

    “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that.”

    Below is an excerpt from Hillary Clinton’s speech today where she addressed her experience to be President.

    “I have traveled the world on behalf of our country – first in the White House with my husband and now as a Senator. I’ve met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women’s rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.”

    “I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next President. With a war and a tough economy, we need a President ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges.”

    “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don’t think this is the time for on the job training on our economy or on foreign policy.”

    “I offer my credentials, my experience, and qualifications which I think uniquely equip me to be prepared to hit the ground running on Day One. And I offer the experience of being battle tested in the political wars here at home. For 15 years, I have been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here.”

  130. Re: New Hampshire polls

    Remember New Hampshire has cross over voting. The polls
    are starting to show that. Unhappy Republicans and
    Independents plan to mix it up in the Democratic primary.
    If Hillary maintains a +10 point lead going in the election,
    she should be in good shape.

  131. Kegs:

    That is why a good showing in NH by John McCain and Ron Paul is crucial. It keeps republican leaning independents focussed on the republican primary.

  132. I don’t believe Obama’s message resonates well in NH. He has this typical liberal view on tax-and-spending. There’s nothing except his looks is particularly fresh in his entire candidacy.

  133. Hill, Bill’s ‘face’ of foreign affairs?
    Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:50 PM by Domenico Montanaro
    Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

    From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
    First Read did a double-take this morning when we thought we heard Clinton supporter and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack say on MSNBC of Hillary Clinton, “there’s no question that she was the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”

    So we went back and checked. Sure enough, he did say that. Vilsack had been asked how and if Hillary Clinton’s time as first lady qualified as “experience.”

    “There’s a tremendous responsibility [as first lady], and she assumed a tremendous amount of responsibility in the Clinton administration,” Vilsack said. “And there’s no question that she was the face of the administration in foreign affairs.

    “And the first four years of the Clinton administration, she was an advisor to president Clinton. She was intimately involved in the discussions and details of that administration I’m sure. There’s no question having been inside an administration, she has the knowledge and experience to get started on Day One being president of the United States.

    “She doesn’t have to be worried about, do you get the Secretary of Defense first selected or the Secretary of State. What do you do first? She knows how to put a government together….

    “We have to have a president who is prepared from the very first day to govern effectively, and there’s no question who that is on the Democratic side.”

    First Read has reached out to the Clinton campaign for a response and will update when we get one.


  134. Some observations:

    1) That NH poll is in line with the other recent ones, which have her up 10 to 15 percent. It’s only natural that Iowa, NH and SC have the race closer than it is nationally; Obama and Edwards are focusing all their attention there. Nevada is a notable exception.

    2) Of course, more Repubs would rather see Obama or Edwards as the nominee; they don’t dislike them as much as they do HRC, but they also think they’re beatable in the GE.

    3) That U.S. News piece is great reading, and reminds me of what Bill Clinton has said numerous times: Hillary will have an easier time winning the GE than capturing the nomination.

  135. chris matthews tonight

    “obama rising”..they ( msnbc ) still re-playing debate ( msnbc ) of 10/30. as if last weeks cnn debate never happened. sickening to see the BM we’re up against.

  136. As someone here once said those wise words – the easiest way to get a heart attack is to eat fatty food and sit on your ass all day – or just watch Chris Matthews.

  137. Obama sunk to Karl Rove tactics.

    You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
    Obama mimicked Karl Rove tactics with Bob ‘The Sleaze’ Novak story. As I think about this more and more; I am begining to wonder the origin and source of the story. I see Karl Rove all over again.

    This is my theory. Its entirely plausible with the the speed & tactics Obama campaign used to slam Clinton

    URL: http://
    Label: Image

    Texas Ram’s diary :: ::
    Once Obama flopped in Nevada debate; his campaign needed some thing to change the headlines from ‘Obama’s poor debate performance’ to ‘Clinton the evil campaign machine’. They decided that any story on Clinton’s honesty and campaign machine; the press would be more than happy to run with it as it matches with Clinton stereotype.

    Democrats close to Obama campaign started spreading the word that Clinton campaign has some thing dirty about Obama and they are threatening to put it out. They made sure it reached the ultimate ‘Sleaze Bag’ Bob Novak knowing that he will run any story on Clinton. They even sourced it to some one close to Clinton campaign.

    Now the story is out and here comes Obama’s onslaught on Clinton.

    – accused the Democratic front-runner of using “Swift Boat” tactics of “innuendo and insinuation” similar to those deployed in the 2004 race when John Kerry’s Vietnam war record as a Swift Boat captain was smeared.

    -I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it’s deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party,” he said. “The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.

    -“She of all people, having complained so often about the politics of personal destruction, should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.”

    Read the following stories echoing the same thoughts:

    Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove? Here is the link:

    Obama camp breathes new life into a rumor that might have died on its own. Here is the link:

Comments are closed.