Obama Won’t Be There When We Need Him

Paul Krugman wrote on November 30, 2007 that Obama was “giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform“. Krugman also made the argument in his very title that Obama was “mudslinging” in his attacks on Hillary Clinton over health care reform.

Today Paul Krugman amplifies on the charge that Obama is and will be the enemy of reform of the healthcare system in the United States.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

Krugman should not be surprised at Obama employing Ripublican talking points. Obama has long been taking George Bush’s low road on a high horse. Krugman is not taken by surprise by Obama’s “cheap shot” arguments however. Krugman first takes on Obama’s low-brow argument on mandates – the enforceability of the legal requirement that everyone get health insurance:

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama’s advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.

But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated — and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn’t perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.

Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work.

Krugman employs the polite phrase “false claim” while we use the shorter and more accurate term “lie” when describing Obama’s 15 Million Lies. Krugman’s counter on Obama’s false claim on the “affordability” question:

The second false claim is that people won’t be able to afford the insurance they’re required to have — a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they’ll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state’s uninsured — which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest — come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn’t yet allocated enough money for subsidies.

Here now is the crux of the current damage being done to Democrats and reformers by Obama:

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”

Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

Krugman underlines yet again the damage Obama is doing to Democrats and reformers:

My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Let’s repeat that final sentence which sums up Barack “Never There When You Need Him” Obama: “EVERY TIME THERE’S A HARD CHOICE TO BE MADE HE COMES DOWN ON THE SIDE OF DOING LESS.”

Obama is lying about the entire healthcare issue. What is particularly nefarious is that Obama compounds his lies by accusing Hillary of being the liar. This is not a new tactic. In fact it is a tried and true tactic that is difficult to counteract unless you have the gifts of a Keith Olberman, who said about Obama: He is willing to be divisive enough to attack another Democrat for being divisive. It‘s like an M.C. Escher drawing

Lowlife Bill Bradley, another Big Media darling, perfected the “lie then call the other guy a liar” technique in 2000. For those wanting more information on this “liars shouting liar” technique, Eriposte at The Left Coaster dissects the Bradley “mendacious” (big word for “lie”) campaign in a good series on presidential politics.

The second phase of the “liars shouting liar” technique which Obama has borrowed from Bush and Bradley and other lowlifes is to employ a surrogate to shout “liar” too and polish the accusation by bemoaning the accusation as “unfair” or “sad” or somesuch nonsense. In the present case Obama called on disgruntled Bob Reich to throw mud while ostentatiously lamenting that Hillary was to blame for all the present ills. The bottom line of course is that Hillary Clinton is telling the truth, Obama is lying and Bob Reich is an idiot liar himself.

Gene Sperling went under the bridge and took Reich to task on the mandate issue:

I encourage Bob or anyone else interested in this issue to review the overwhelming consensus of credible independent experts who have found that an individual requirement is a necessary component of any plan designed to cover all Americans. [E.g. Jonathan Gruber, MIT (12/05/07); Diane Rowland, Kaiser Family Foundation (New York Times, 11/25/07); United Hospital Fund (December 2006); California Medical Association (July 2005); Henry Aaron and Bruce and Virginia MacLaury, Brookings Institution (CQ Congressional Testimony, 9/11/07); John Holahan, Urban Institute (October 2005); Len Nichols, New America Foundation (US Fed News, 6/26/07); Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation (New York Times, 11/25/07)].

Sperling politely states Obama/Reich are lying 15 million times:

Reich’s assertion that Senator Clinton “has no grounds for alleging that [Senator Obama’s plan] would leave out 15 million people” is simply wrong.

For Bob to suggest that it is a cheap shot to make this highly supported point is puzzling. A recent study in the Journal of Inquiry found that in a voluntary system like the one Senator Obama advocates, “Even if the . . . subsidies were designed to be as effective as possible at covering the uninsured, at most half of the uninsured would gain coverage.” Assuming that Senator Obama’s child mandate would cover all children, his plan would still leave half of the adult uninsured population without healthcare. That’s well over 15 million. Indeed, a number of independent analysts have confirmed that Senator Obama’s plan would leave at least 15 million uninsured, including the Washington Post [6/9/07, “[T]he Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage.”], the Wall Street Journal [12/04/07, “Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama’s plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark.”], Jonathan Gruber of MIT [12/05/07, “The 15 million estimate that [Senator Clinton] used was validated by myself and other experts.”] Jonathan Holohan of the Urban Institute [New Republic, 12/03/07, “Obama would still leave about 22 million, 23 million, but he has a mandate for children, about 9 million uninsured kids, so assuming you get most of them, you get pretty close to 15 million.”], Len Nichols of the New America Foundation [New Republic, 12/03/07, “Every reasonable model out there . . . will show you that the kind of subsidies that we could do, 50 percent or so, are going to get you half [the uninsured] . . . The way you go from half to 15 [million] is the kid mandate.”], and George Miller and Charles Roehrig of the Altarum research institute [New Republic, 12/03/07, “We’ve done some very crude hand calculations that suggest that the estimate of 15 million uninsured under an Obama-like plan (no individual mandate, coverage of all children, incentives) is in the right ball park.”].

Bob is certainly free to disagree with these experts, but where is the validity in launching the steep charge that “HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people”? (emphasis added).

Like Krugman, Sperling emphasizes that Hillary Clinton’s UNIVERSAL health care plan has better affordability provisions than Obama’s 15 million lies program:

Reich’s statement that Obama’s plan “puts more money up front” than Senator Clinton’s plan is not accurate.

Senator Clinton’s plan includes the most detailed financing framework of any of the Democratic plans. She has committed an up-front investment of $110 billion per year and has made the affordability of healthcare a centerpiece of her proposal. Bob says he wants details from Senator Clinton, but then praises Senator Obama for “proposing a reinsurance mechanism for catastrophic illnesses” for which he has offered virtually no details at all. A robust reinsurance mechanism is very costly and could, depending on its design, swallow up the majority of the $65 billion that Senator Obama has committed to his plan. Bob attacks Senator Clinton for lacking specifics, and yet claims with confidence that the Obama plan “contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help,” when his plan contains fewer financing details to determine what it could or could not do. I understand that it is hard in a campaign season to adjust and calculate the moving parts of a comprehensive health care plan. Indeed, I admire all three of the leading Democratic candidates for putting out health care plans that far surpass what any Republican candidate has ever put forward in terms of coverage or detail. But I cannot understand or fathom for the life of me, how Bob could level such harsh critique on the detail in Senator Clinton’s plan when there is less detail in Senator Obama’s plan.

As much as Krugman and Sperling understand the dangers of a weak concilliating Obama, it is a conflicted Ellen Goodman that understands what this election is about. This should not be a consensus election. Democrats need to make strong arguments about how to organize this modern American society. Then Democrats need to WIN. The culture wars need to be WON, not just papered over. The fiscal responsibility argument needs to be WON not papered over. A House divided against itself cannot stand – one side must prevail.

To begin with, if Obama represents the “post-polarization” generation, what was the “pre-polarization” generation? The idea of some tranquil 1950s America is surely exaggerated. There were great struggles over McCarthyism and nuclear testing, to name just two issues.

As for the consensus that existed in the 1950s? Columbia’s Todd Gitlin says, “There was a consensus that nothing much ought to be done to yank the former Confederacy out of the age of Jim Crow. There was complacency about the position of women. Complacency about the belligerence with which the U.S. occasionally overthrew uncongenial foreign governments.” Are we nostalgic for that?

The ’60s opened up huge and important conflicts. It was not all about boxers or briefs, inhaling or not. Issues surfaced around black and white relationships, male and female relationships, gay and straight relationships, all kinds of authority and our place in the world. These still go on. Not because they are relics of old college dorm fights but because they are still important and unresolved. Now we come to the 2008 primary season. Barack Obama is an appealing icon of change. He has the capacity to turn a problem around, roaming across its many surfaces. He gets it. His philosophical frame of mind appeals to the educated elite of the Democratic Party. His largest group of supporters are college-educated. But I am forced to ask, against my own grain, whether Democrats need a philosopher or a combatant.

Ellen Goodman, appears conflicted, but like most of us she knows the fight for social justice is worth fighting. The fight for humane and economically necessary UNIVERSAL healthcare is not only necessary but requires, finally, a winner. All the battles Gitlin outlines need a winner. We need to fight these tough necessary fights and WIN, then and only then can we move forward:

In his stump speech, Obama says, “I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights. … I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.” Neither do I.

Sometimes, I approach politics like a parent watching her children: “I don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong; just stop fighting.” But of course I do care who’s right, who’s wrong, who’ll win. What if red America is pitted against blue America?

Obama is a notoriously uneven performer. Alone on a stage, he is often eloquent and inspirational, if I may use an Oprah word. But on the debate platform with his opponents, he is, well, less impressive. Temperamentally he prefers to be above the fray. But the campaign against any Republican will take place in the fray.

Gitlin, author of “The Bulldozer and the Big Tent,” says, “In a family situation, we need a healer.” But in an era of ugly politics? “We don’t need healing but resounding defeat. … The bulldozer can’t be kissed into submission.”

Maybe I am suffering from too little “audacity of hope.” Or an excess of experience. The Democratic nominee won’t have the luxury of a do-good campaign. Even a post-polarization candidate would face a polarized politics.

There’s still a difference between being an icon of change and an agent of change. And there is a difference as well between being a fine philosopher king and a strong presidential challenger.

“The bulldozer can’t be kissed into submission.”

Americans need a leader. Democrats need a fighter. Obama promises reforms without results.

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.
Obama Won’t Be There When We Need Him.

Hillary Will Get the Job Done On Day One.

Share

203 thoughts on “Obama Won’t Be There When We Need Him

  1. More excellent comments from yesterday’s town hall in Gilford with Hillary, which I can vouch for … better than some of the not-so-important sound bites I’ve seen elsewhere.

    hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/hrc_on_staying.html

  2. Obama’s lack of political courage should be a major concern to voters who are trying to decide whether he is capable of solving our most pressing problems.

    Whether it is half measures on health care, voting present on gun violence issues, or going awol on the Iran Revolutionary guard vote, the die is cast. The catch phrase “never there when you need him” says it all . . .

  3. According to Newsday, Obama’s new video
    notes that Time Magazine’s Joe Klein has called him “scrupulously honest”.

    Before we accept this statement for the truth of its contents, we need to know something about Joe Klein, so we can determine whether he is worthy of belief.

    Therefore, I went to Wikopedia, and discovered that he is an accomplished journalist and novelist, but on the issue of honesty, the following passage stood out:

    In January 1996, Klein anonymously published the novel Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics, based on the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. The book spent 9 weeks as number one on the New York Times bestseller list, with its author listed as “Anonymous”. When professor Donald Foster correctly identified Klein as the novel’s author, based on a literary analysis of the book and Klein’s previous writing, Klein lied and publicly attacked Foster for publishing untrue and irresponsible speculation — even going so far as to mislead readers of Newsweek with speculation that another writer wrote it. Washington Post Style editor David von Drehle, in an interview, asked Klein if he was willing to stake his journalistic credibility on his denial, to which Klein agreed.[2] He later admitted that the speculation was correct.

  4. Joe Klein is an idiot. He’s loathed by the blogosphere. He’s the one who always talks about the “radical middle”, and has gotten caught lying several times.

  5. Check out BartCop (www.bartcom.com) – he’s usually very fair to Hillary. I used to visit that site very often during the early Bush years. He has always been very supportive of the Clintons and knows all about the witchhunts of the 90’s. And of course he hates Bush and doesnt seem to be impressed at all with BO. And he calls it as it is. Can be quite funny too. So any traffic to a good guy is always helpful. Media whores online (remember them ? ) used to carry a link to his website.

  6. Clinton’s Triple Threat

    To get a sense of the sophistication and sheer muscle of the machinery lined up behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in Iowa consider this: three of the largest players in national politics have all launched efforts on her behalf enlisting the services of a single media firm, and each will be tackling a different critical task.

    The American Federation Of Teachers AFL-CIO Committee On Political Education reported today it has spent $281,114 on radio ads promoting Clinton in Iowa. Yesterday, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees unveiled a flight of television ads it began airing in Iowa promoting Clinton, the leading edge of what it said would be a seven-figure expenditure. And earlier this week, the national political group Emily’s List unveiled a massive get-out-the-vote effort that involved surveys and a new web site aimed at drawing likely Clinton supporters to participate in the Iowa caucus.

    For these efforts all three groups have enlisted the services of a boutique media consultant that specializes in political message development, Chicago-based Adelstein/Liston.”Our intent is to deliver a very strong message for a very strong candidate,” said Ann Liston, a principal in the firm.

    The three mammoth political action committees did not all just stumble into each other. “We talked it all through,” said Richard Feller, who is handling the Iowa effort for AFSCME. “I think it went in pieces. Emily’s List designed their program. I spoke with them about what they were doing and then tailored my program to assist their program.” The AFT effort followed after that.

    None of the groups is legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign to design this effort, and each said they had not. “We have not and would not take any direction from them at all,” said Eric Smith, of AFT. But coordinating with each other is a different matter.

    The FEC has typically allowed separate independent groups to coordinate their activities, said Scott Thomas, a former FEC chairman.

    The groups made an interesting choice of media firm to design the message. Eric Adelstein had history working for Bill Clinton in 1992. Liston worked previously for Emily’s List. Together, they worked on the 2000 congressional campaign of Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.). That was the year he defeated Barack Obama.

    –Matthew Mosk

    http://www.blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/06/clintons_triple_threat.html

  7. December 07, 2007
    Obama Can Unite, But Can He Fight?
    By Ellen Goodman

    BOSTON — I bow to no one in my distaste for food-fight politics. I don’t want to dine with absolutists and ideologues hurling red meat at each other.

    For that matter, I have long amused myself with visions of baby boomers carrying the same old conflicts into old age, dividing into pro- and anti-Vietnam nursing homes.

    So I am drawn to the brand known as Generation Obama. This presidential candidate has repeatedly offered himself as the post-boomer, the one person in the race who can take us past the great divides of the last 40 years.
    Click here to find out more!

    In announcing his candidacy, Obama used the word “generation” 13 times. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he described boomer politics with something close to disdain as a psychodrama “rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago.” On TV, he described Hillary Clinton and others as people who’ve “been fighting some of the same fights since the ’60s.”

    This post-boomer theme is spun out in Andrew Sullivan’s recent piece in The Atlantic, where he writes that “if you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.” It can be found as well in the label that Ross Baker, a Rutgers political scientist, put on Obama: “the post-polarization candidate.”

    But slowly, all this generation talk has forced me to revisit not just boomer politics, but the nature of polarization in a country that may be poles apart.

    To begin with, if Obama represents the “post-polarization” generation, what was the “pre-polarization” generation? The idea of some tranquil 1950s America is surely exaggerated. There were great struggles over McCarthyism and nuclear testing, to name just two issues.

    As for the consensus that existed in the 1950s? Columbia’s Todd Gitlin says, “There was a consensus that nothing much ought to be done to yank the former Confederacy out of the age of Jim Crow. There was complacency about the position of women. Complacency about the belligerence with which the U.S. occasionally overthrew uncongenial foreign governments.” Are we nostalgic for that?

    The ’60s opened up huge and important conflicts. It was not all about boxers or briefs, inhaling or not. Issues surfaced around black and white relationships, male and female relationships, gay and straight relationships, all kinds of authority and our place in the world.

    These still go on. Not because they are relics of old college dorm fights but because they are still important and unresolved. Did Democrats go down in the last two presidential elections because they were locked in a stale old fight, or because they lost that fight?

    Now we come to the 2008 primary season. Barack Obama is an appealing icon of change. In reading “Dreams From My Father,” I was engaged by a description of his half-sister’s dilemma — torn between the Western values of individual success and the African values of community. He has the capacity to turn a problem around, roaming across its many surfaces. He gets it.

    His philosophical frame of mind appeals to the educated elite of the Democratic Party. His largest group of supporters are college-educated. But I am forced to ask, against my own grain, whether Democrats need a philosopher or a combatant.

    In his stump speech, Obama says, “I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights. … I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.” Neither do I.

    Sometimes, I approach politics like a parent watching her children: “I don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong; just stop fighting.” But of course I do care who’s right, who’s wrong, who’ll win. What if red America is pitted against blue America?

    Obama is a notoriously uneven performer. Alone on a stage, he is often eloquent and inspirational, if I may use an Oprah word. But on the debate platform with his opponents, he is, well, less impressive. Temperamentally he prefers to be above the fray. But the campaign against any Republican will take place in the fray.

    Gitlin, author of “The Bulldozer and the Big Tent,” says, “In a family situation, we need a healer.” But in an era of ugly politics? “We don’t need healing but resounding defeat. … The bulldozer can’t be kissed into submission.”

    Maybe I am suffering from too little “audacity of hope.” Or an excess of experience. The Democratic nominee won’t have the luxury of a do-good campaign. Even a post-polarization candidate would face a polarized politics.

    There’s still a difference between being an icon of change and an agent of change. And there is a difference as well between being a fine philosopher king and a strong presidential challenger.
    ellengoodman(at)globe.com

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/obama_the_postpolarization_
    can.html

    and we have a FIGHTER…

  8. We had a group of great AFSCME Employees in the office yesterday. They were awesome. I have seen the Wes Clark ad on TV, but have not yet seen the AFSCME ad (on tv) and I have heard the AFT ad. All good news. WJC, Tammy Baldwin and Hillary this weekend and monday, wow this is going to be interesting. Got to go to Italian class 😉

  9. The point here is that the Obama campaign is using Klein, an admitted liar, to prove that Obama is scrupuolously honest.

    When voters discover this fact 3 reactions are possible: i) first, they may discount Klein’s statement that Obama is scupulously honest, ii) second, they may question the bona fides of the campaign that put him forward as someone worthy of belief, and iii) third, they may conclude that they are being deceived.

  10. Krugman again nails Obama on health care today and his supporters are up in arms…

    When Reich launched a dishonest attack on his “good friend” (oh sure, we know what a good “friend” he is of hers) , everyone was praising him as the great intellectual even though he introduced an element of personal dislike and bias in his so called argument.

    Money quote:
    “….every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less..”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin.

  11. An uptick on Ras;

    Friday, December 07, 2007

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Hillary Clinton with 34% support and a nine-point lead nationally in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Barack Obama earns the vote from 25% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Edwards attracts 16%, and Bill Richardson is at 6%. (see recent daily numbers). No other Democrat has more than 2% support nationwide.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  12. More positive news…

    Clinton Raises $1 Million at Fundraiser

    By ANN SANNER

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says her presidency would not be a one-way street, but rather one where citizens will help her achieve the goals of universal health care, energy conservation and education reform.

    “There will be work for every one of us to do,” the New York senator and presidential candidate said Thursday night at a fundraiser. “In the America that we will live in, there is a place at the table and there is a burden to bear in order to give back to this country that has given every one of us so much.”

    Clinton delivered crowd-pleasing lines for the partisans in attendance, including a vow to end the war in Iraq.

    “Because there is no military solution, we cannot leave our brave young men and women to be the referees of the Iraqi civil war,” she said.

    Author John Grisham served as master of ceremonies for the holiday-themed event at Union Station, which raised $1 million from some 1,200 people, organizers said. Donors paid between $250 and $2,300, while families could attend for $1,000.

    Supporters drank hot chocolate and munched on cookies while children did crafts and made holiday cards, played with dreidels or had their pictures taken with either a snowman or reindeer character.

    Clinton appeared at a fundraiser with Grisham, the best-selling author of legal thrillers, in September in Charlottesville, Va. Grisham was a former Democratic state legislator in Mississippi before his literary career blossomed in the early 1990s.
    http://www.ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h80NO0WYBYUR_CrYvDxaeiTbqOAQD8TCCCN00

  13. Both AFSCME (green shirts) and SEIU (purple shirts) have been following Hillary around NH at the town hall meetings, which I can vouch for as we stood shoulder-to-shoulder yesterday shivering in the 25+ weather. They are vocal supporters.

  14. I have got to learn to stop taking Ras seriously. he’ll probably show the lead down to 5 come monday and earn his spot on the evening news. And then when the other polls show a bigger lead, suddenly Hillary will be polling in 40’s again.

    I wonder who they poll for their daily samples. The last few days it appears that they have been concentrating around the Chicago area…

    and of course, AP/ISPOS shows Hillary at 45 with BO at 23.

  15. Merryfield, it’s unnessecary. Klein has a terrible reputation among the blogosphere. There was a front page post today about what a lying tool he is on daily kos. No one respects him in the blogosphere.

  16. no one respects Klein except when it comes to him pumping up Obama – then , of course, I can assure you, all is forgiven !!!

  17. http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

    December 7, 2007 – Presidential Preferences
    Democrats Nevada
    Biden 4%
    Clinton 45%
    Dodd 2%
    Edwards 14%
    Gravel –
    Kucinich 4%
    Obama 18%
    Richardson 2%
    Undecided 11%

    Hillary Clinton leads among men with 42%, followed by John Edwards at 17% and Barack Obama at 16%. Clinton leads among women with 48%, followed by Obama at 19% and Edwards at 11%.

    For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.

  18. BTW, that David Corn article in the previous thread does sound Novak-esque. I’d ignore it. Besides, he makes a big deal about Oprah. Yawn.

  19. Um, where is that Joe Klein quote exactly? Google only turns up:

    >>Congressman Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican, was a terrific public servant for 30 years. He was always independent, always scrupulously honest.>>

    (I have only started searching though, it may be out there, I just wanted to see the context.)

  20. I’m not finding it anywhere. Tried Lexis-Nexis but their new search interface is garbage and I’m not used to it, so a more through search is worth doing, but I don’t find that phrase from Joe Klein except as applied to Jim Leach. Radio/TV transcript or something?

  21. We’ve posted some videos as a test on the side columns. Wes Clark’s video is inside the Hillary poll leads (on the right hand column) and we added a fun Hillary video on the left hand side column.

    We’ve also started to post all the videos ever featured on the website (except the music videos) at the very bottom of the left hand side column. We’re having a grand time watching the videos. More videos will be posted today and during the weekend until all Hillary videos are posted.

    Enjoy.

  22. That would be pretty funny if the ad quoted Klein talking about someone else. I guess I could go on the time blog and ask him. But so far, I got nothing.

  23. Per Atlantic Online…

    DES MOINES — Oprah’s celebrity is HUGE in South Carolina and pretty big in New Hampshire, but the enthusiasm is simmered down in Iowa.

    Where Barack Obama’s campaign had to change venues in South Carolina to accommodate the interest and where they rented the largest stadium in New Hampshire for the joint campaign stop there, the two events scheduled for Iowa tomorrow afternoon haven’t sold out.

    That’s not to say that Oprah doesn’t command large audiences in Iowa — she does.

    Maybe it’s the winter. Maybe it’s the 10,000+ seats the campaign has to fill at each venue.

    Or maybe it’s the skepticism that Iowa Democrats have for celebrity endorsers.

  24. In case you missed it, great interview of Hillary on CNBC on subprime mortgage crisis, 12/5/07.
    Hillary fighting hard for the little guy.

  25. this is sick. a guy in my class today said “hillary needs to get shot if she thinks she can be president. Obama should shoot her.”

    I really need a soundbite of that. the world needs to see this despicable hatred for one woman.

  26. I’m very skeptical of the turnout for Oprah translating to votes for Obama in SC. People just want to see her, as a big celebrity. If a celebrity whom I really liked did a big show, I’d go see him/her, regardless of whether I planned to vote for that candidate or not.

  27. HillaryforTexas,

    I don’t care about SC. It’s on the backburner. SC will follow NH…

    I’m more interested in her impact on IA… I doubt it can be positive on those sophisticated ‘undecideds’…

  28. OK, I found the Klein quote – excuse me all – it’s “the scrupulous honesty of his answers.” I wondered. 🙂

  29. admin:

    I think you better post links to videos rather than embedding them. Your page is now taking an eternity to load.

  30. Yeah, it’s a little slow on my end, too.

    BTW, “scrupulous honesty of his answers” isn’t exactly the same as being “scrupulously honest.” Obama took a little editorial license.

  31. Per Politico:

    Social science for the day: ‘Oprahfication’

    I’m going to be on a flight to Des Moines for the next three hours, which you can occupy with a dense article by John Kares Smith on “the ‘Oprah-fication’ of American Presidential Candidates.”

    It focuses on Bush’s and Gore’s appearances in 2000, and includes this:

    In this time of political alienation, we may ask what are the expected presidential performative skills necessary for a successful, political life? For example, because of the dominance of television as the primary vehicle for political discourse, are we now left with the expectation that our president will be amiable, telegenic, a master of the sound bite, able to express a thought or a position in only a very few minutes, and able to interact on television with skill and ease? In short, are we confronting the idea of President-as-Talk-Show-Guest? Are we witnessing the“Oprah-fication” of American politics?

  32. MJS

    You should absolutely contact the Secret Service about your classmate. It’s true that it’s probably nothing. But you don’t want it to turn into something and not have taken action.

  33. Thanks admin.

    Embed videos require a jump to YouTube to download their player and metadata for each video. YouTube is pretty slow. It’s not bad for a couple of videos, but things really grind to halt when a page requires many jumps to YouTube before it can load.

    When I first accessed this page today, I thought my computer had frozen.

    The separate video page fixed it.

  34. Great job another reader. Paula, you are right.

    Klein’s actual statement was an endorsement of Obama’s answers, whereas the campaign video makes it appear that it was an endorsement of Obama’s character, assuming the Newsday account of the video is accurate.

    But either way, the Obama campaign has tied Obama’s credibility to Klein’s which is a mistake.

  35. I don’t understand how Obama’s answers are scrupulously honest.

    He says something (“my strongest foreign policy experience”). A reporter quotes him exactly in his question. Obama denies he said it. Surely one could say that he sometimes fudges his answers.

    I also don’t understand how he is “squeaky clean”.
    Not unless someone can explain Rezko and what Obama meant by it was a “mistake”.

    I don’t even understand the “inspirational” nature of his candidacy. Unless we are inspired by a generation in Iraq, unaffordable healthcare, and a planet warming into crisis. We’ve had 8 years of blocked progress — why are we “inspired” by 8 more?

    I am mostly highly offended by the belittling of the fights of the 60’s and 90’s. We fought hard to get out of Vietnam. It took bodies on the line. We fought hard for equality — and we aren’t there yet.
    These aren’t petty squabbles and I resent the rightwing echo. Are we going to hear “bleeding hearts” next?

  36. kostner, you are right. IA is the most important thing, and I agree that I don’t see most Iowans buying the big O hype. I merely wanted to point out that in any state, a big turnout of gawkers to see a celebrity does not an equal number of votes make.

  37. SurveyUSA just released new head-to-head matchup #s in Ohio. It’s just terrible for Obama. This guy got all sorts of positive press these days, but still loses to almost ALL GOP contenders. Just imagine GOP machine drives up his negativity by 10 points, he is in a dump… Huckabee is real deal, when he got rave reviews, his #s actually are moving up rapidly unlike Obama…

    Clinton Rudy
    48 44
    Clinton Romney
    51 41
    Clinton Huckabee
    47 45
    Clinton McCain
    43 51

    Obama Rudy
    43 46
    Obama Romney
    45 42
    Obama Huckabee
    41 44
    Obama McCain
    40 51

    When Clinton gets bad press, her head-to-head matchups rare move at all, it just shows her strength as a GE candidate.

  38. I wholeheartedly agree with your last line, kostner. BTW, what do you make of how well MCain does? Interesting.

  39. Politico did a good job discussing the “seductive” polls story today. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Poll_watch.html

    Back on April 20 they also took a reasonable look at the “code” and the polls. We wrote an article back then called “Damn Polls. Just When They Had a Narrative”. http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=5

    Today’s story has some charts demonstrating not much has changed – other than Hillary is doing better in Iowa than she was back in April.

    Here’s some of today’s Politico post:

    “Poll-driven storylines are so seductive, so I thought it was worth posting these charts from RealClearPolitics as a reality check (to the extent that “poll” and “reality” can be used in the same sentence).

    The Obama rise in Iowa is clear, though it’s all very small scale in a very right race. And the national picture isn’t changing much, as another AP-Ipsos poll with Hillary maintaining her lead suggests today.”

  40. We all know McCain is a good GE candidate, but he won’t get the nomination. President Clinton commented yesterday(?) McCain might be their most ‘electable’ candidate.

    These days, McCain does not get bad press, while Clinton gets bad press, so you see a previous neck-to-neck situation turning into a McCain win…

    Dems need to understand Obama is a disaster despite MSM’s constant hype.

  41. Here’s some more Klein BS from my Hot Topics post this morning at TaylorMarsh.com. You see where this Tweety-like man worship thing comes from … not women (other than Oprah), it’s the MEN.

    taylormarsh.com/hot_topics.php#833

  42. Greg Sargent: Thirty-Two Ambassadors Praise Hillary’s Foreign Policy Experience — As First Lady

    With only weeks to go before the voting begins, the Hillary camp is giving a big push to the argument that she’s the most experienced candidate, releasing a letter attesting to her foreign policy depth that’s signed by nearly three dozen former ambassadors that served when the Clintons were in the White House.

    What’s interesting about the letter is the fact that it’s highlighting her time as First Lady in making the case for her foreign policy experience. This is, of course, a notion that Barack Obama mocked. Key quote:

    “As diplomats and former Ambassadors who represented the
    United States to the rest of the world, we were personal witnesses to
    the important role Hillary Clinton played as First Lady in promoting
    American interests and values abroad,” the letter says.

    “Senator Clinton’s diplomatic accomplishments as First Lady and her achievements in the Senate, including her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, make her uniquely qualified to lead our nation at this time of great challenge.”

    Full letter and signatories [follow] after the jump. … plus comments, of course.

    tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ [remove spaces]
    thirtytwo_ambassadors_praise_hillarys_foreign_policy_experience_as_first_lady.php

  43. Oprah not selling out in IA — I have new respect for Iowans. Better things to do than listen to some new-agey lecture on “what you need” and “what you need to hear” from Oprah’s favorite “moral authority.”

    Why do people post entire articles in comments here? Links offer the user the option of reading.

  44. Is Oprah a Bigot?

    by Seymour Glass, Fri Dec 07, 2007

    In 2000, Oprah stayed out of partisan Presidential politics and did kiss-kiss type shows with both Gore and Bush. Even after the obvious disaster of Dubya’s first term, she did the same with Kerrey and Bush in 2004.

    Everyone knows that Oprah is going all out for Obama in these 2008 primaries. But, it has been reported from info obtained from publicly available Illinois voter lists, that Oprah hasn’t voted in a Presidential Primary since 88.

    Not in 92, 2000 or 2004. Why?

    Hmmm. What “traits” do certain a candidate running this year and none viable since 88 share?

    Is it too much to assume that in that year she voted for her “friend” Jesse Jackson – just like this time she is campaigning for her “friend” Obama.

    What do those two candidates have in common with Oprah, that none of the other choices – then or now – share?

    Is it divisive of her to use her vast fame to only support one kind of candidate with a certain heritage that the other candidates do not share?

    You know, it seems…that to Oprah, when it comes to getting her to actually care who become the President…

    ONLY Chicagoans need apply!

    Now is that the kind of America we ALL want?

    —-

    GO BEARS!

  45. WTF? I’ve just read at the daily howler that Robinson, Corn, Matthews and Ezra Klein are giving Hillary a hard time because she suggested that just like her Obama has thought about and hoped to run for President? Where have they been for the past month as Obama has trotted out the Gerth meme that Hillary had a pact to become president? This sloppy, lazy reporting is just too much.

  46. mj:

    Robinson is a hard core Obama supporter pretending to be a neutral observer. He basically accused Hillary of being a racist today because she suggested that even Obama is ambitious. Where was he when Obama initiated the attack calling Hillary ambitious and planning to run for president for 20 years?

    I think he was doing Obama’s bidding in SC by race baiting and accusing Hillary of being a racist. Calling someone like Hillary a racist is disgusting.

  47. I just don’t get it. I’m disappointed that Ezra didn’t atleast acknowledge that Obama has been trying to smear Hillary as too ambitious for months and that this was in direct retaliation to that. Frankly, she should have just said, Obama seems to think i’m more ambitious than him and the others running, well, we’re all ambitious. But, still, this is just wrong.

  48. mj:

    There is politics involved in Robinson’s opinion piece. He has connections to people in Obama campaign and the story must have been pushed from there. Remember, SC primary is on the way and this is basically to rile up AA against Hillary. His piece completely fails to mention the ambition attack Obama initiated.

    I don’t have to tell you anything about Matthews. As for Ezra and others, it is basically getting on TV. If they don’t agree with Matthews’s premise on Hillary then they won’t be invited back. That is the dirty little secret.

  49. ra1029: There is politics involved in Robinson’s opinion piece. He has connections to people in Obama campaign and the story must have been pushed from there. Remember, SC primary

    I agree, my conclusion as well. Its secondary purpose is to shield Obama from answering any questions on serious policy issues like health mandates, etc.

    TheRealist: As does scrolling…

    What are you trying to say ‘Realist?’

    It’s an accepted practice to link back for any number of reasons — many sites require it to avoid copyright infringement issues. It’s somebody else’s original material.

    It also disrupts conversation in comments. Sure, you can take the position of why should we provide links when you can just scroll, but I don’t have to agree with you.

  50. The reason I post the aricles is because when I just post links the comments never post. But, I will stop posting articles. It’s just pointless to post a link because the comment never gets through. I have always felt funny about it because of copyright infringement though.

  51. HillaryLandRocks,

    There’s a glitch in the system. When you put out a link, sometimes, it does not show up. That’s why we cut and paste from time to time.

  52. mj, It’s the whole kindergarten thing that got them riled up. They ignored all the other examples of Obama’s presidential ambition that her campaign cited. The Daily Howler’s Bob Somersby said her people should’ve left the kindergarten part out, even if it was meant mostly as a joke, because it was obvious the media would harp on that. Of course, nobody watches MSNBC, so it doesn’t matter.

  53. kostner, I agree with you about McCain. His negatives have dropped because he’s stopped gotten bad publicity; it’s all about Rudy, Romney and Huckabee now.

  54. WASHINGTON (AP) – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading U.S. Democratic presidential contender, met Friday with Northern Ireland’s once-bitter enemies now joined in peaceful power-sharing, reveling in the results of one of the biggest accomplishments of her husband’s administration.
    Protestant leader Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness met with Clinton at a hotel ahead of
    a White House visit later in the day with President George W. Bush. The two are visiting to drum up U.S. investment in Northern Ireland.
    Clinton said the Northern Ireland peace process should be a blueprint for U.S. diplomacy toward other conflicts around the world.
    «It is a very good model,» she said. «The United States can play a very important role in facilitating the kind of process that we did over the course of the Clinton administration and that certainly continues with our support today.
    Paisley, 81, and McGuinness, 57, formed an alliance in May after decades of bitter enmity in Northern Ireland.
    Paisley, head of the Democratic Unionist Party, which represents the British Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, is first minister of the Northern Ireland cabinet.
    McGuinness, deputy leader of Sinn Fein, the Irish Republican Army-linked party that represents most of the province’s Catholics, is deputy first minister.

    «These are wonderfully exciting times for all of us back home, not least because of the contributions made by President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton,» said McGuinness.
    For Clinton, the appearance will remind Irish American voters of her husband Bill Clinton’s effort pushing the two sides toward peace in the 1990s, but Paisley joked that Friday’s meeting had taken her away from the serious business of running for president.
    «We’re all old hands at electioneering, we know what it takes out of you,» Paisley said, adding: «You have fundraising to do piled on top of that and here you are, losing money today.

  55. Since the press stopped paying attention to him, McCain has continued to be old. My guess is that were he somehow to catch fire, an event I think is unlikely, the people would discover all over again that McCain is old. It worked the first time, and it would work the second time.

  56. Looks like Huckabee/Romney are sucking up MSM’s oxygen. I’m actually happy for that. They will only attack Clinton. Less air time for Hillary means less attack.

  57. Saw the Charles Gibson interview on ABC this morning at 4 AM. Mucho bueno. I guess he didn’t get the anti-Hillary memo over at ABC, huh?

    I still think Oprah is a sideshow. Besides, maybe all the folks showing up in NH (which may be in doubt due to non-union status of the venue) think they’lll get free Krispy Kremes, t-shirt sheets or free cars. 🙂

    Celiff, how is the weather affecting the effort in IA?

    Kostner, what do you think of the NH Marist poll?

    DCDem, been to the Townhouse Tavern recently?

    Admin, thanks for the new video page. It made it difficult to pull the site up on PDA’s. Changing the length of articles on the first page might also help. I noticed you started the ‘read more her” thing, but it doesn’t seem to be on all articles.

    Anyone have any serious ideas for changing the focus to Obama’s policy flaws (i.e his lack of policy)?

  58. TheRealist,

    As I said, I don’t trust SC. SC won’t become Hillary’s ‘firewall’ due to its democraphics. If Clinton wins NH, she will win SC, otherwise she’s in trouble there. So I don’t think SC is relevant at all.

    African Americans will rally to Obama in the end, that’s just the way how it played out in the past when an African American candidate was in the race. However, if it comes down to a two-way battle between Clinton and Obama, Clinton will probably win since those whites will not likely vote for Obama based on all current polling data…

  59. Newsweek has come out with a new Iowa poll.

    Obama 35 (28)
    Clinton 29 (24)
    Edwards 18(21)

    Remember this is the poll put Obama in the lead a few months ago. So it’s still tight. I however really doubt the methodology of this poll, since they come out with some eye-opening #s on the GOP side.

    Huckabee 39
    Romney 17

  60. BTW,

    Edwards campaing is obviously very worried that IA race will become a two-way race, and their supporters will evaporate in the end. They just put out an internal poll, which is extremely rare…

    Per WashingtonPost…

    Edwards’ Internal Poll Shows Three-Way Tie
    A new internal poll for the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) shows the race in Iowa a three-way dead heat with just 27 days left before that state’s crucial caucuses.

    The survey, which was completed by Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman on Wednesday night, shows Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leading among likely caucus participants with 27 percent, followed by Edwards at 24 percent and Sen. Barack Obama with 22 percent. The race is even tighter when only definite caucus participants are included — with Clinton at 26 percent, Edwards at 25 percent and Obama at 23 percent.

    “When sampling error is taken into account, support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence,” writes Hickman in the polling memo.

    The poll, which was included as part of an email sent by Edwards Iowa director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon to supporters in the state, is consistent with other recent results. The Post’s own Iowa poll showed Obama leading with 30 percent to Clinton’s 26 percent and Edwards’ 22 percent. The Des Moines Register survey, conducted by highly respected pollster J. Ann Selzer, had Obama at 28 percent to 25 percent for Clinton and 23 percent for Edwards.

    The conclusion to be drawn from this mass of data is that — in the words of Dan Rather — it is “tight as a tick” in Iowa. As we wrote this morning in the Line, the idea that Iowa is or will be a two-person fight between Clinton and Obama is simply not born out by the available data. While Edwards doesn’t enjoy the level of support he did prior to the entrance of Clinton and Obama, he has maintained a solid and loyal following in the state that seems unlikely to defect from him in the final days of the race.

    Remember that polling over the next 27 days will show Iowa results all over the map. We urge you — if you haven’t already — to go back and read our discussion of the difficulty of polling the Iowa caucuses.

  61. kostner, campaigns rarely put out their internal polls wich means edwards thinks he is in trouble. the good news is the rcp average is back up to 19.2 nationally. we still have time to win iowa then nh. fingers crossed. he better start attacking obama now.

  62. terrondt,

    I was wrong. Actually the email was not sent out in mass to his supporters. It’s sent to his IA director, but somehow was intercepted by some news media. Not sure if he did this on purpose though. TMP has the full text of this email…

    MEMORANDUM
    TO: Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Iowa State Director
    FROM: Harrison Hickman, Global Strategy Group, LLC
    RE: Recent Iowa Poll Results
    DATE: December 7, 2007

    ______________________________

    The poll we completed Wednesday night confirms that the Democratic Presidential race is a very close three way tie as the campaign enters the last month. In fact, when sampling error is taken into account, support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence.

    In our poll of 502 likely caucus participants, support for the candidates is Clinton 27%, Edwards 24%, and Obama 22%. Edwards and Obama each move up one point and Clinton moves down one among those who say they definitely will participate in the caucuses. Underlying attitudes about the candidates mirror the close results of the horse race. Overall, just under 40% of the voters likely to participate in the caucuses are undecided or say they are likely to switch and support another candidate before the first round of voting on January 3.

    But the main finding about the contest in this and other recent polls is simple: TOO CLOSE TO CALL…

    The sampling error associated with a sample of 500 is 4.4 percentage points, plus or minus at the commonly used 95% confidence level. Thus, the 28% result for Barack Obama in the Register poll can be more precisely described as saying there is a 95% probability that Obama’s level of support in the universe reported is between 23.6% and 32.4%. A similar exercise for the reported results for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the Register poll, the Zogby poll, and our poll demonstrates that once sampling error is taken into account, one cannot say with certainty that any one of the three is running ahead or behind the other two. As we said in our memo about the Register poll, “other polls with different rankings of the top three candidates would be expected.”

  63. Here’s what’s interesting about that Insider Advatage poll — Edwards has taken the lead with white voters. Up until this poll, Clinton has always had the lead w/ white voters.

    Edwards did run an ad recently. Edwards is playing the role of spoiler in SC as well — something that crossed my mind when I heard that he was running an ad.

  64. I think if Clinton takes Iowa and NH, then Obama will get SC. I think people will want to support him down there, if they can do so without risking Hillary losing. I know that’s kind of weird, but we have two unprecedented candidates running, and I think that is going to change dynamics slightly.

  65. basement angel – if Edwards is still breathing coming in to SC and Obama competitive (even after losing NH), it’d be very difficult for Hillary to win.

    Here’s a fascinating scenario. If Hillary wins pretty much everything thru Feb 5th but loses, say SC-GA-AL — imagine a Clinton nomination w/ little or no black support. Good grief.

  66. basement angel,

    As i said, there is NO secret to SC race. It’s along gender and race line. So if it comes down to two viable candidates Clinton/Obama, Clinton will probably eke out a win since she will win the majority of white voters and some black female voters. Obama is polling terribly among white voters. However, if Edwards is still in the mix in SC, Obama will probably win, since Edwards will split white voters…

    If it comes down to Edwards/Clinton, and Obama is no longer considered very viable, Clinton will win hands-down..

    SC is made up of 50% whites, 50% AA…

    I really don’t believe SC can be anybody’s ‘firewall’, it will take march order of NH…

  67. The weather sucks. We have Hillary in town in Williamsburg and Washington Iowa and both areas are small towns in rural areas. People were saying they can come as long as the weather permits. I hope it works out. WE have Bill monday too. We are so busy right now.

  68. Where is the MOE on the Insider Advantage poll? It isn’t included in their numbers.

    I’ll just calculate it.

    N=430, MOE = 4.8

    White subsample: N= 337, MOE = 5.4
    Black subsample: N=67, MOE= 12.2

    The poll has been weighted, I assume, for actual demographics. Yes, the black subsample is sketchy, at best. I assume that they’re having trouble getting participants, for obvious reasons.

    The Edwards lead w/ white voters is small, within MOE, blah-blah, but going into SC, Clinton can’t afford to lose even a small fraction of the white vote to Edwards.

  69. HillaryLandRocks,

    As I said, if Edwards remains a viable candidate going into SC, I doubt Clinton can win SC… This sample is terrible, btw…

  70. Insider Advantage and Rasmussen were polled on the same days (Dec. 3-5). IA had Obama up by 2; Rasmussen has Hillary up by 2.

    Rasmussen released yesterday, IA today.

    We’re all getting a little jumpy each time a poll comes out. Well, I speak for myself.

  71. Poor Edwards. He was just too much of a bumbling fool to have a strategy to go after Hillary instead of Obama.

    All along, his main rival was for Obama’s likely supporters, not Hillary’s. Had he attacked Obama, he would have benefiitted from O’s defectors. He’s paying a price for that grave mistake.

  72. The internals between IA and Rasmussen are vastly different.

    Rasmussen seems to suggest Clinton’s support among whites is solid, but she’s slipping away among AA voters.

    IA seems to suggest Clinton is slipping away among whites as Edwards/Biden are picking up the tab. Hard to believe Biden is polling 10% here… Obama is stagnant…

    Everything is in flux. I think we can throw SC out of window. It’s meaningless. It will wait for NH results. If Clinton wins NH, she will likely win SC since she will have three wins before SC…

    I really don’t care about SC actually, it’s not going to be Clinton’s ‘firewall’ in any way…

  73. A couple of details:

    The Insider Advantage poll had 48% of the white people in their sample said “don’t know”.

    The Newsweek poll actually had Clinton up among all registered voters, Obama up among self-described “likely” caucus goers. However…..

    They weighted their sample to mirror the census population statistics by country, by race, and by GENDER and AGE. This isn’t even remotely close to a caucus or primary electorate where women and old people vote at much higher rates than their percentage of the population.

  74. kostner, filbertsf —

    I agree that SC is not anyone’s firewall.

    Actually, SC is a strong (relatively speaking) state for Biden — early on I read that he had some solid institutional support in the state, don’t remember the details. I hope he’s out of the race by then …

    The internal Edwards poll is interesting in that it has Obama bringing up the rear. Harrison Hickman has been around for a while, and he’s pretty good. Of course, the turnout model he’s using is whatever story the campaign wants to tell — which appears to be:

    No, I’m the anti-Clinton!

  75. hwc: The Insider Advantage poll had 48% of the white people in their sample said “don’t know”.

    which probably means — waiting to see who the anti-Obama is.

  76. Right now, it’s all Iowa, Iowa, Iowa…

    hwc,

    I think among RV, Obama did gain 4 points, and Clinton slipped by one point, right now it’s 30:29:21…

    I really believe there will be huge movement in the final week… potential positive possibilities:
    1) contrary to many pundits’, there’s a real possiblity that Edwards supporters will move into Clinton’s direction, especially those rural working class families if they believe Edwards is no longer viable as a candidate…

    2) second choice of Biden and Richardson… Both are until 10% in most surveys. If Zogby’s trendline is for real, this will put Clinton on top and eke out an IA win…

    Remember, the entrance poll showing Edwards around 26%, but he ended up with 32% in 2004.

  77. Oh, look – once again “saving Obama from an uncomfortable choice” –>

    from the Manchester (NH) Union Leader (the link is really long and won’t fit here but it’s on their site) –

    Site of Barack-Oprah event isn’t unionized
    By JOHN DISTASO
    Senior Political Reporter

    Manchester – Barack Obama’s presidential campaign deeply concerned organized labor by booking its big rally Sunday with superstar Oprah Winfrey at the non-union Verizon Wireless Arena.

    But an agreement reached tonight ensures no picket line will be set up at the event, saving Obama from an uncomfortable choice and potential embarrassment.
    —-
    While Obama’s event will go on, UnionLeader.com also learned that the New Hampshire Democratic Party chose not to have its annual 100 Club fund-raiser, scheduled for Jan. 4, at the Verizon after MacKenzie voiced concerns about the same labor issues.

  78. Just to note –
    Obama’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton spoke as an invited guest to Manchester Central High School graduates at the Verizon Wireless Arena last June.

    None of the campaigns have held events there except Obama.

  79. ok, so what really happened is that Obama put the NH Dem party on the spot.

    That won’t win him any friends.

  80. kostner: potential positive possibilities

    Don’t forget the IAFF. What made them so important for Kerry is that they are one of the few unions where ‘top-down’ is still a force.

    There’s a fireman in every town, and ppl have respect for what the firefighters do.

    The interesting question is who will the IAFF recommend as a second choice to Dodd? Or, where will IAFF members draw votes from to get Dodd to viability in close precincts?

  81. BTW, that Newsweek poll doesn’t bother me because Hillary’s a strong second. And Edwards’ internal poll is pretty interesting …

  82. Another poll shows American voters are pretty hawkish, and Clinton’s view on Iran is in line with the majority of American voters… There’s ZERO chance American voters will back a peacenick such as Edwards and Obama…

    According to Rasmussen…

    Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women…

    The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure.

    Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe that the United States should continue sanctions against Iran. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and 21% are not sure.

    Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is Very Likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the future and another 34% believe Iran is Somewhat Likely to do so.

    Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree.

  83. kostner:

    If either Obama or Edwards is the nominee there is no way in hell majority of Americans are going to vote for them, especially given their stances on national security. America has never voted for an anti-war candidate for president during war time. Add their inexperience on top of it and you got perfect losers in waiting..

  84. kostner

    you hit the nail on the head. no way will the majority of americans vote for an anti-defense-homeland-security-candidate in the GE.

    stay centered, girl..

  85. This is exactly why it’s so infuriating that Iowan democrats are hijacking the party, according to Newsweek…

    The close duel between Obama and Clinton depends a great deal on the way their competing strengths are perceived, the survey shows. Obama is much more likely than Clinton to be viewed as the candidate best able to bring about change (42 percent vs. 28 percent for Clinton) and as more personally likable (41 percent vs. 18 percent). Clinton, however, is viewed far more as the candidate with the right experience for the job (48 percent vs. 15 percent for Obama) and as the person most likely to defeat the GOP nominee (36 percent vs. 27 percent). One potential trouble sign for Hillary, however, is that in contrast to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, when John Kerry leaped into the lead on the basis of his electability, only about one quarter (23 percent) of likely Democratic caucus-goers say they are inclined to support a candidate with the best chance of defeating the GOP nominee.

    So only 23% would nominate a candidate who has the best chance of defeating GOP candidate??? It’s just mind-boggling…

  86. secret

    forget-about-it…in a weeks time it will be history. it’s a joke that a national candidate needs mommy for support.

    certain candidates can stand on their own.

  87. alcina,
    Yes, I want to sleep for a week and wake up to see that event as insignificant and that it did not matter at the end of the day!! Thanks for the reassurance!!

  88. kostner, Hillary doesn’t have that much of a lead on electability anyway, so I don’t know how much that will hurt her.

  89. Frankly I am surprised at people who think Obama or even Edwards is more electable than Hillary? What have they been smoking? Two anti-war candidates with little to no experience, who want us to offer only carrots to Iran, don’t believe that there is a war on terror going on, and one of whom is getting a complete make over from 2004 are more electable than Hillary?

  90. So only 23% would nominate a candidate who has the best chance of defeating GOP candidate??? It’s just mind-boggling…

    Oh, come on. You know how unpopular it is to admit it. Cue up sanctimonious “I vote only on issues.”

  91. Clinton Makes Campaign a Family Business
    By MIKE GLOVER – 58 minutes ago

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — While rival Barack Obama is turning to celebrity, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton is bringing a distinctly family feel to her bid for the party’s nomination by opening her latest campaign swing with her 88-year-old mother in tow.

    Clinton, locked in a tight race with Obama and former Sen. John Edwards in the state’s leadoff caucuses, planned a two-day series of grass-roots events encouraging people to “bring a buddy” to the Jan. 3 caucuses.

    “I wanted to bring a buddy with me so I brought my mother, Dorothy Rodham,” said Clinton. “She lives with Bill and me and she’s been following the campaign very closely. She has a lot of questions that I try to answer.”

    Continuing the family focus, Clinton’s campaign announced that her former president husband Bill will return to the state on Monday to stump on her behalf. Hillary Clinton opened her latest presidential campaign swing at a Des Moines high school where she held her first campaign event in Iowa nearly a year ago.

    With the opening event of the nominating season less than four weeks away, all of the leading rivals are beginning to focus on generating turnout at those caucuses, likely to be decided by about 150,000 Democratic activists.

    Obama was grabbing the lion’s share of the attention over a hectic political weekend, opening a campaign swing on Saturday with talk-show maven Oprah Winphrey, making two stops in Iowa and then stops in New Hampshire and South Carolina, also early voting states.

    Clinton sought to counter that by bringing along her mother, a move aimed at underscoring the human side of a candidate viewed by many as cold and calculating. She regaled her audience about a family trip her siblings and parents made to Iowa 53 years ago, recalling that they stayed at a place called the Tall Corn Motel.

    “I want to thank you for being here, mom,” said Clinton. “Thanks for coming back to Iowa with me.”

    Iowa’s precinct caucuses are far different from a traditional primary, essentially neighborhood meetings in all of the state’s nearly 2,000 precincts where activists must publicly declare their allegiance and bargain with their neighbors over electing delegates to the next phase in the process. Many who haven’t taken part in caucuses are intimidated by that public process, and the thrust of Clinton’s campaign is to convince backers to actually take the plunge and go to a caucus.

    “Caucusing is more fun with a friend and you need to bring a buddy to caucus,” said Clinton. “The caucuses are easy and we will help you understand what to do.”

    The race for Iowa’s leadoff precinct caucuses has stayed tight, with very high consequences for the race. Clinton holds a solid lead in many of the other early voting states, and some strategists see little chance of denying her the nomination if she can win in Iowa, her toughest early state.

    In addition to offering a human side, Clinton was peppering her campaign rhetoric with more heat.

    “We need a president who wakes up every morning thinking about what’s really going on in America,” said Clinton. “We need to lead again with our values so we can be proud of our country.”

    Her core argument against Obama is that she has more experience than a first-term member of the Senate, but that was relegated to a brief reference in her opening campaign event.

    “They know that change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen,” said Clinton.

    Her husband was focusing heavily on college campuses in next week’s trip, targeting a group that Obama has worked hard. Obama has made a concerted effort to increase the number of young people showing up for caucuses while Clinton has sought to bolster the number of women supporters show up.

    She has prepared a slick video featuring her husband and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack seeking to “demystify” the Iowa caucus process, and that video is now an opening staple of her campaign as she begins focusing on crucial turnout efforts,

    In her speech, Clinton said her mother would accompany her throughout the weekend. Dorothy Rodham did not speak, and was assisted from the stage after being introduced

  92. DES MOINES, IOWA — Clinton called on Iowans to “Take A Buddy to Caucus” tonight at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa. But Clinton surprised the crowd when she revealed her “buddy” was her mother, Dorothy Rodham.

    Clinton took the stage with her mother for the first time during this campaign and was greeted with a standing ovation, despite being nearly an hour late to the event. Senator Clinton said her mother wanted to join her in Iowa becuase she had not visited this state in nearly 53 years. The former First Lady reminisced on a time when she was a child and her family came to Iowa for a “mini vacation.”

    Clinton recalled that her family stayed at the Tall Corn Motel. “Does anyone remember the Tall Corn Motel?” Clinton asked. Only a few audience members clapped as though they had heard of the place. Mrs. Clinton said her brother and she thought the motel was “the greatest experience ever” because there was a tiny swimming pool where she said they spent most of their time.

    Mrs. Clinton spoke for less than 30 minutes, spending the majority of the time encouraging her supporters to get friends and neighbors to come out and caucus on her behalf. Clinton said she wished she could caucus in Iowa but said, “of course this wouldn’t be right” since she is not a resident of the state.

  93. I’ll be honest with you all and say that I am concerned by the Oprah effect. Why? Well, it’s an obvious answer.

    I wait for the next post-Oprah poll to come out with baited breath.

  94. For an 88-year-old woman, Hillary’s mom is just beautiful. This is the first time I have ever seen her mom. I’m very jealous of Iowans who get to see the candidates so often and so up-close and personal.

    Here in California, we’re just leftovers. I’ve seen Hillary only twice, both at fundraisers. Nothing is really free here.

  95. kostner:

    I hope Obama goes around with Oprah for the next three weeks. I really do. Is he going with her next week also or just this weekend?

  96. ra1029, you are such an optimist and I wish I could be one. By nature, I’m just a worry-wart. So please excuse the party-pooper in the room.

  97. ra1029: I hope Obama goes around with Oprah for the next three weeks. I really do.

    So do I. Look at all of the hooplah generated by the Edwards conference call in SC w/ his supporters dissing Oprah. In the meantime, Hill campaigns with her mom.

    The Oprah-fest is going to be more of this “Obama is what you need, what America needs, and will tell you what you need to hear” stuff which will creep out the less emotionally needy (most of whom are already part of Obama’s numbers).

  98. Ms. Dogan said that as a black woman, Ms. Winfrey’s visit “doesn’t mean anything to me” if she is not going to deal with local issues. “It makes me a little ill,” she said, noting that Ms. Winfrey is extremely wealthy. “Oprah coming here means absolutely nothing to me unless she’s going to do something for South Carolina,” she said.

    thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/not-feeling-the-oprah-love/

  99. filbertsf:

    Oprah is going to overshadow Obama and it is going to be another hollywood event with all the hoopla. Hillary is getting personal with Iowa voters by taking her 88 year old mother with her and connecting with them family to family. A lot of older Iowans, who usually caucus respect that as opposed to bringing in some celebrity and saying “Caucus for Obama because he has a Oprah seal of approval”.

  100. read the article. She’s not the only endorser compaining. The timing of this conference call was intentional.

  101. ok guys, I told my story to a member of the Hillary campaign and will soon be speaking to a senior member!
    the truth must be told.

  102. What I’d love to see is a requirement that evidence be produced for legal voting status in IA, even if just a library card.

  103. I didn’t know about Edwards’ Oprah conference call in SC. Thanks for reporting that.

    Also, I love that Hillary’s campaigning with her mom while Obama’s with Oprah. Nice contrast: family vs. celebrity.

  104. MJS-
    what story? I cant ifnd it yet in the thread! and KOSTNER thanks for the info from zogby. my heartburn has abated much. your view makes sense. edwards doesnt appear viable, and biden, richardson folks tend toward hillary and choice 2. i read a poll not long ago i thougt that had clinton as choice 2 for edwards folks. hillary is polling well in the states for the general. its time to close the deal as they say. i feel oprah may do way more harm than good. way.

  105. One would hope that undecided voters will realize just how much Big Media is twisting the truth and pulling out all stops to induce Democrats to nominate Obama, even though he is far less electable than Clinton in the GE.

    If they do, then many of those undecided voters may show their independence by voting for Hillary. Perhaps that is the kind of movement Chris Cielezza should be thinking about.

  106. OMG Obama has done it again. Big gaffe tonight. Hit em hard Hillary.-breaking story on Obama. His camp has decided to personally attack beloved and renowned progressive NYT economist Paul Krugman. I read his stuff all the time and he has been very critical of Obama on Healthcare and Social Sec. Remember Krugman is probably the most widely read progressive here. Krugman boosted Dean in 2004. Now all hell is breaking loose that an oppo from camp Obama has been sent out on this prize winning columnist. The blogosphere rises with fury-and so do I! Another gaffe-

    ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/obama-v-krugman.html

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/18017/9309

  107. i think so. Im sending this one on obama and oppo on krugman far and wide. this is nasty. obama-ready to screw progressives whenever they get in his way. this needs to be a story-or krugman will

  108. you know how it is when you meet some one, and its just there, you just like them, done deal…

    people have forgotten how much they loved the clintons when they were in the white house… and they did, we were all pi—- when they were attacked for everything… cause they were our friends..

    DONT WORRY FRIENDS…

    when people go into the voting booth, they will remember that friendship, when it counts most, when they have to make this huge decision, they wont be able to vote for the great unknown, they will come home to the ones they know and trust.

    its just a ‘FLIRTATION’…

  109. If Obama launches a “personally attack” against Paul Krugman for having the “audacity” to criticize the merits Obama’s health care proposal, then what does that say about Obama’s ability to handle other policy areas where deep divisions exist? The question goes to the heart of his brand.

  110. more on the union story. what the heck is he doing – there is actually a labor dispute going on but he has to pick that venue because of oprah??

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

    archives/2007/12/for_obama_campaign_a_hobsons_c.php

    Overwhelming demand by Democrats wanting to see Oprah Winfrey campaign for Obama on Sunday convinced them to seek a larger venue in Manchester. The Verizon Arena on Elm Street was available.

    Unfortunately, the arena is in the middle of a labor dispute with the nation stagehands’ union, IATSE.

    The state Democratic Party recently decided not to host its 100 Club dinner there in 2008 in part because of the labor troubles.
    —–
    NH AFL-CIO statement –

    http://www.nhaflcio.org/index.cfm?zone=

    /unionactive/view_article.cfm&homeID=72969

    Over the past week the NH AFL-CIO has been working with the Obama for President Campaign around the issue of the Verizon Wireless Arena and the inability to overcome the barriers that would allow IATSE to practice their craft.

  111. cj — where did you get that number from?

    Also — that’s mostly staffers and precinct captains, etc, LOL.

  112. texan4hillary: obama doesnt hesitate to throw progressives over when his cult is threatened

    I still remember that TheHill article way back in April or so … he blew off the CBC, didn’t want to do fundraisers for them.

    How can he work w/ anyone in DC after blowing off all the people who are still going to be around? He’s the most divisive politician I’ve ever seen.

  113. Do you mean to tell me that this scrupulously honest man (correction: answers), this uniter, this healer, this messenger, this zeitgeist, this Obama– aint all he’s cracked up to be in his campaign video and the endless machinations of Big Media? Hard to believe.

  114. CJ — it’s poorly written, but the 1385 just refers to volunteers who have obtained tickets. Tickets are getting distributed to others, like undecided voters, etc.

  115. BTW- I’ve been meaning to mention it, but I got a mass e-mail from Howard Dean this week with a “hope” theme. Can that guy get any more transparent?

    And anyone know anything about the new campaign theme song? Seems Celine has been dumped (I always thought that poll result was fake).

  116. I haven’t seen Oprah in years. I’m wondering — is she jumping the shark w/ tangential inspirational endeavors?

  117. its staffers im telling ya half those people are shopping in mall of america….i 90 from rapid city to souix falls is busy than ever…it is cold here 4 degrees,becasue the winds are blowing that cold north wind down
    and snow…is on the way…tommorrow

    this is des moines weather..Tonight: Mostly cloudy. Low 13F. Winds NNE at 5 to 10 mph.
    Tomorrow: Some snow showers early will give way to a light mix of wintry precipitation in the afternoon. Cold. High 19F. Winds NE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of precip 60%. 1 to 2 inches of snow expected.
    Tomorrow night: Periods of light wintry precipitation. Low near 15F. Winds NE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of precip 60%.

  118. OkieAtty: BTW- I’ve been meaning to mention it, but I got a mass e-mail from Howard Dean this week with a “hope” theme. Can that guy get any more transparent?

    I remember him on the pre-show during the LV debate. He opined that voters are looking for ‘change.’

  119. Just cruised around net looking for more comments on the Obama/Krugman feedback and arrived on a gay male website. Obama is no hero there.

    FYI .. you don’t have to insert the http or www in the URL. The browser will insert it for you.

  120. About the NEW campaign song, yes, it seems there’s been a switch (poor Celine!). The new song is “Blue sky” by a Colorado rock band, Big Head Todd & the Monsters – they’ve perfomed at some campaign events.

    Great song, too.

    (Free download here: http://www.bigheadtodd.com/podcast/

    ——————————

    http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/11655/big_head_todd_and_monster_jump_clintons_bandwagon

    Big Head Todd jumps on Clinton’s bandwagon

    By: Susan Greene, The Denver Post
    10/23/2007

    DENVER – Never known as a political rock band, Big Head Todd and the Monsters have jumped on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon, hoping that their song, “Blue Sky” becomes an anthem for her presidential campaign.

    The group tries to keep political issues out of its music because, as guitarist and vocalist Todd Park Mohr tells it, “politics is very polarizing.”

    But because band members “are all Democratic folks leaning left of the dial” who are “excited about the prospect of Hillary being president,” they agreed when Clinton’s campaign asked them to perform at her whistle stop on Denver’s Auraria campus.

    As Mohr tells it, Tuesday’s rally marked the first big political gig for the Colorado-based group. He said he hopes for a “longer relationship” with the U.S. Senator from New York, envisioning the group’s song “Blue Sky” as a possible campaign theme.

    “It’s a very optimistic song about how you can change the world. We think it would work for her,” he said.

    Mohr, 42, told The Post that he long has followed politics and actively votes near his home in Steamboat Springs.

    Routt County’s recording supervisor Tina Fry said Tuesday that her records show “we don’t have him as an active registered voter.” Mohr later told The Post, “Actually, I haven’t voted in a while there. But I’m gonna change that now.”

  121. Anyone here besides me old enough to remember the tv show “You Were There”? .. well, through the magic of the internet, we can all be with the O-O Show in SC on Sunday:

    On Sunday, December 9, at the University of South Carolina and LIVE on the web at http://www.ustream.tv

  122. I am very nervous about Oprah’s stump for obama tomorrow, not so much because women will vote for who oprah says but, I am afraid the attention in MSM will be completelty sucked by Obama during this weekend. They will all discuss this so called oprah touch and it will drive me nuts. Obama’s campaign wants this to be a watershed, a turning point! I just hope it all get over and is insipid. That is the best I can hope for.

  123. Ok, it’s now totally official and we don’t have to wonder any longer. Last night on Hardball Tweety announced that if he were black he’d vote for BO.

    garlinggauge.com/2007/12/07/ [space] if-chris-matthews-was-black-hed-vote-for-obama/

  124. Secret, as folks keep pointing out, there are only three shopping weekends left before Christmas, this being the 1st of the 3. IMHO, the draw for those who will be attending is a free ticket to see Oprah and attend a big media event. Lots of folks just want to say that they were there. The NH event, where I am, will draw lots of folks from throughout New England and even from NY. BUT … those folks don’t translate into NH primary voters. Just the other day a mother and her two daughters who sat beside me were here from Mass. As enthusiastic as they were, they’re not going to be voting in the NH primary. The same thing will happen in SC. With such a large venue, there will be folks from neighboring states showing up to see Oprah but those are not going to all be SC voters.

    It will be what it will be, but showing up for a free event doesn’t necessarily translate into votes. In fact, most of those folks most likely won’t be voters at all.

  125. Okie, re: Hillary’s NEW campaign song, “Blue Sky” you can download it here: http://www.bigheadtodd.com/podcast/

    It’s great! Definite improvement, IMO!

    The band’s called Big Head Todd & the Monsters

    ——————————-

    Big Head Todd jumps on Clinton’s bandwagon

    By: Susan Greene, The Denver Post
    10/23/2007

    DENVER
    Never known as a political rock band, Big Head Todd and the Monsters have jumped on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon, hoping that their song, “Blue Sky” becomes an anthem for her presidential campaign.

    The group tries to keep political issues out of its music because, as guitarist and vocalist Todd Park Mohr tells it, “politics is very polarizing.”

    But because band members “are all Democratic folks leaning left of the dial” who are “excited about the prospect of Hillary being president,” they agreed when Clinton’s campaign asked them to perform at her whistle stop on Denver’s Auraria campus.

    As Mohr tells it, Tuesday’s rally marked the first big political gig for the Colorado-based group. He said he hopes for a “longer relationship” with the U.S. Senator from New York, envisioning the group’s song “Blue Sky” as a possible campaign theme.

    “It’s a very optimistic song about how you can change the world. We think it would work for her,” he said.
    Mohr, 42, told The Post that he long has followed politics and actively votes near his home in Steamboat Springs.

    Routt County’s recording supervisor Tina Fry said Tuesday that her records show “we don’t have him as an active registered voter.” Mohr later told The Post, “Actually, I haven’t voted in a while there. But I’m gonna change that now.”

  126. Andrew Young on BO:

    Young explains with candor why he believes now is not the time for Obama to serve as president.

    “There’s a certain level of maturity,” Young said. “You have to learn to take a certain amount of sh*t. … Leadership requires suffering.”

    Saying, “Barack Obama does not have the support network yet to get to be president,” Young added: “To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion. His time will come, and the world will be ready a visionary leadership. Now, somebody’s got to clean up the mess.”

    Then Young offered this story about Bill Clinton: “Bill [Clinton] has ever been as black as Barack [sic]. He’s probably gone out with more black women than Barack. [laughs] I’m clowning, but when they went to Nelson Mandela’s inauguration. There was a whole plane load of black folks who went down there. After the inauguration, there was a party. [Bill] Clinton was the one who said, “Let’s start a Soul Train line!” All these middle class, bourgeoisie folks looked around … and Bill did the moon walk down the Soul Train line. And Hillary pulled her skirt up above her knees and she got down and went on through, too.”

    npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/2007/12/ [space] andrew_young_obamas_time_will.html

  127. Oprah? If we allow Oprah to pick our next president, I fear we will get the government we deserve. A thought: Oprah helps Obama most where he is the strongest: upwardly mobile white women. Hill is still strong with working-class women and minorities. But here is the great irony: I have a hunch that Democratic men will save Hillary, seeing her as their most pragmatic and hard-headed option in a troubled world.

    With the aid of Oprah, Obama becomes the candidate of the tender-hearted. Edwards keeps the incorrigibly soft-headed. And Hillary remains the choice for the tough-minded. Of course, this leads to an obvious question: are there still enough clear-eyed men with calloused hands, stout hearts, and good old-fashioned horse sense in the Democratic Party to influence an election?

    bosqueboys.com/index.php?itemid=1368

  128. The Progressive Las Vegas Gleaner points out that not all of the “Heartland” is mesmerized by BO:

    re BO’s ad being shown in Nevada:

    The ad is the same as one that has run in both New Hampshire and Iowa months ago. It touts Obama’s record fighting for ethics reform and challenging special interests.

    Campaign media poohbah David Axelrod said that the campaign intends to stay on the air until the bitter end. OK, he didn’t say bitter end. But between now and the end of the caucus.

    On behalf of Lord High Chancellor Rogers (Channel 3) and his colleagues amongst the TV station-owning class — Wisconsin-based Journal Broadcast Group (Channel 13), Virginia-headquartered Landmark Communications (Channel 8), Iowa-based Meredith Corp. (Channel 5), and of course Atlanta-based Cox Communications (all the channels, at least here at Gleaner HQ), etc. — allow us to thank the Obama campaign for being the first to start enriching out-of-state companies in the effort to saturate the airwaves with the candidate’s smiling mug.

    But we still say those ads would have been even more effective if they were being launched in conjunction with an exciting appearance by … Oprama!

    lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/ [space] 2007/12/obama-on-teevee.html

  129. admin, if you’d like a growing plethora of links for a really good follow-up on BO’s burgeoning Krugman problem, hit my name and search for “Barack Obama: U.S. presidential election, 2008/health care”.

    It looks like BO’s attack on Krugman is going to gain traction, particularly since I read where Krugman will have to return the favor.

  130. For everyone who wants a good laugh, go read this spoof site (I almost got suckered into believing it was for real … for about 2 seconds), it’s worth a good laugh.

    newsgroper.com/barack-obama/2007/12/07/biodiesel-oprahstyle/

  131. Newsweek Poll (12/5-6/07) – Only 49% had attended a previous caucus.

    If you were a caucus goer today
    Total/Caucus goer – 9/26-27/07

    30 29 Hillary Clinton/Lean Clinton 31
    29 35 Barack Obama/Lean Obama 25
    21 18 John Edwards/Lean Edwards 21

    Is a strong leader
    Hillary – Obama
    39 25 (total polled)
    38 29 (likely caucus goers)

    Has the right experience for the job of president
    Hillary – Obama
    48 12 (total polled)
    48 15 (likely caucus goers)

    Most likely to defeat Republican candidate
    Hillary 37
    Obama 24
    Edwards 21

  132. Hello – I’m new too, but not because of Ben Smith’s post – learned about Hillaryis44 from the Guardian online, I believe. Anyway, go Hillary – I’m sure it’s been mentioned before multiple times. Every once in a while I’ll peruse Drudgereport and noticed that there was a piece on there about how the DNC is quiet about Huckabee because he’ll be an “easy kill”…well, conversely, it’s scary how quiet the Republicans have been about Obama (that moment when Rove called Hillary fatally flawed, he refused to criticize Obama)…eerily quiet.

  133. I just posted at http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/6474.html
    in reply to Ellen Goodman’s calling Obama “post-polarization” but “not a fighter.”

    But Obama ISN’T uniting! He’s creating a whole nother division — between generations. “Don’t trust anyone over … 45.”

    As for him not being a fighter…. I think as a candidate he would have the disadvantages of both extremes. To Wilentz and others he looks like a ‘beautiful loser’, of which we’ve had too many already, starting with McCArthy and McGovern.

    To the GOP and others who look deeper, he will be the guy who got his state senate seat by manipulating the process to get ALL the other candidates off the ballot, leaving him the ONLY candidate. (And this involved a backstab to the ‘elder stateswoman’ activist who had given him the boost — Alice Palmer.) See
    [www.chicagotribune.com]

Comments are closed.