Poll: Obama, Romney Ahead In Iowa

Comments (73)

dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 5:42 PM:

Since IA is the "whole shebang", this must be good news for CampObama... with the caveat that the margin of error is +/-7 percentage point (is Newsweek too cheap to poll a larger sample size>).

dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 6:02 PM:

The poll's internals paint a rather murky picture! No wonder the MOE is so large although ~1,200 people were polled. One could interpret this poll a number of different ways, depending upon what one wishes to see in it...My reading of it is that it is a statistical tie.

anns wrote on September 29, 2007 6:06 PM:

A statistical tie is pretty amazing since whoever wants to meet ClinObaEdRichDo, etc in Iowa can. If familiarity breeds statistical dead heats, what does thus augur for the frontrunner(s)?

kjoe wrote on September 29, 2007 6:08 PM:

I spotted a puzzling, almost contradictory thing in this poll---those more sophisticated might explain:

Obama leads Hillary 28-24 among likely caucus voters. He trails her 31-25 among all voters?

But among those who express strong support---Hillary leads 55-41.

If they feel strongly, why aren't they going to attend the caucuses?

anns wrote on September 29, 2007 6:13 PM:

Work, hiring a babysitter, away on vacation.... That's life.

dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 6:17 PM:

kjoe wrote on September 29, 2007 6:08 PM:

I spotted a puzzling, almost contradictory thing in this poll---those more sophisticated might explain:

Obama leads Hillary 28-24 among likely caucus voters. He trails her 31-25 among all voters?

But among those who express strong support---Hillary leads 55-41.

If they feel strongly, why aren't they going to attend the caucuses?

Good reading of it... As I said, the internals present a rather murky picture that can be interpreted any number of ways... It is essentially a 3-way tie at the moment.

For some reason, HRC does not seem to be pushing very hard in IA, but she's got very smart folks advising her so I am sure there is a sound strategic reason for it...;-)

Daniel wrote on September 29, 2007 6:26 PM:

A VERY small percentage of voters attend caucuses. Caucuses mean you have to publicly declare support for someone, and defend your choice. Not that easy...

Also, there was a general election poll from Washington released today. Obama does the best there too!

Keith wrote on September 29, 2007 6:26 PM:

Sounds like Obama's supporters probably understand that they NEED to go to the caucuses for him to be successful, and HRC's supporters believe she has it locked up so it's not as important for them to participate. At least that's my guess....

gqmartinez wrote on September 29, 2007 7:43 PM:

The big news isn't whether Obama or Clinton are winning, it's that Edwards isn't the clear winner. He's been in Iowa about three times as much as Clinton and much more than Obama the last time I saw the numbers. He should also benefit from his '04 run. These numbers are disasterous for Edwards.

EricD wrote on September 29, 2007 7:51 PM:

I don't know much about polling, nor do I terribly care, but a MOE of 7% makes this one useless.

I am surprised that TPM would even front page something so untrustworthy that it really amounts to a sensational headline.

mopper8 wrote on September 29, 2007 7:54 PM:

Being a "strong supporter" doesn't necessarily mean a dedicated supporter.

If, for example, you haven't followed the race much, only read a couple articles, and are under the impression from those that Clinton is the clear front-runner, Obama is too inxperienced, and Edwards is a breck girl, you might consider your support of Clinton "strong". Meanwhile, the fact that you're not at all interested in, say, actually watching the debates, seeing the candidates speak in person, etc, would suggest that you're not all likely to be the type of political junkie who will definitely be attending a caucus.

Not only is this very possible, the recent poll from NH suggests just this type of dynamic is going on there.

party-of-one wrote on September 29, 2007 8:01 PM:

Hmmm. Sounds like Hillary isn't Inevitable in Iowa. And with fundraising reports due soon, no wonder Bill is attacking Obama's experience. Sounds like Billary, Inc. is more worried than their bravado would suggest.

grumble wrote on September 29, 2007 8:42 PM:

...TPM-EC rediscovers MOEs when polls have Obama in the lead, but seems to routinely overlooks them if the outcome suggests Hillary is "electable" -- whatever that means. I used to think that people who saw bias here were mainly whining, but it is starting to really bother me.

dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 8:56 PM:

Hmmm. Sounds like Hillary isn't Inevitable in Iowa. And with fundraising reports due soon, no wonder Bill is attacking Obama's experience. Sounds like Billary, Inc. is more worried than their bravado would suggest.

Hillary has never seemed "inevitable" in IA. In fact, she has not aggressively campaigned there at all (at least compared to Edwards and Obama), as posted earlier during the week on TPM-EC (see: Report: Hillary L:agging in Iowa Visits)

HRC has been to IA 60 times, compared to 120 times for Edwards and 100 times for Obama. The post said that she has visited just 29 of IA's 99 counties, compared to 50 for Obama and even more for Edwards. So, I agree with the observation that this poll is really devastating for the Edwards team, since they've put so much effort there.

As for "Billary Inc sounding more worried than their bravado would suggest", I think what I just posted above speaks for itself. They do not seem to be that worried about IA, which is NOT the "whole shebang" for them like it is for the others. My reading of the unleashing of the Top Dawg is more like bringing out the hammer to put the final nail in coffin and be done with it early.

Jeffrey Hunt wrote on September 29, 2007 8:56 PM:

September 29, 2007
Official NJ Straw Poll Results
Posted by Max Raskin at September 29, 2007 01:43 PM

0%-John McCain, Sam Brownback, Alan Keyes, John Cox
>1%-Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter
12%-Fred Thompson
73%-Ron Paul

Jeremy wrote on September 29, 2007 9:01 PM:

This is a modestly good sign for Obama, but it's an early poll with, as has been pointed out, a large MOE. The real news is that Edwards' big investment in Iowa for several years does not seem to be paying off.

pacc wrote on September 29, 2007 9:05 PM:

“The reality is, (Obama’s) support is what I would consider light,” said Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., the Des Moines opinion research company that conducts Iowa Polls for the [Des Moines] Register.

“It is heavy with younger people, and it is heavy with people who are registered independent. In the past, we have found them less likely to show up and be a part of the caucuses.”

dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 9:07 PM:

grumble wrote on September 29, 2007 8:42 PM:

...TPM-EC rediscovers MOEs when polls have Obama in the lead, but seems to routinely overlooks them if the outcome suggests Hillary is "electable" -- whatever that means. I used to think that people who saw bias here were mainly whining, but it is starting to really bother me.

LOL. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. In fact, the blaring headline, "Poll: Obama, Romney Ahead In Iowa", paints a considerably more positive picture for Obama than the poll's internals show! Please take what you can and spin it to your candidate's advantage. To "grumble" about everything takes quite a bit away from your guy in a competition where expectations and perceptions are more than half the battle!

grumble wrote on September 29, 2007 9:28 PM:

Nope ... it's damned because they only do it selectively. Much as you do in your poll-spinning, fwiw.

sarahbtw wrote on September 29, 2007 11:36 PM:

Reality check!
Edwards trailing Obama by 6 points in a poll that has a ±7% margin of error is not "disastrous" for Edwards, regardless of which candidate has been working the hardest in Iowa to earn votes.
Edwards trailing Clinton by just 2 points in such a poll is also not "disastrous."
I think we are all so wish we had a crystal ball that we grasp for conclusions where there are none. Some of us are anxious about our candidates' chances, others are seeking a bit of relief from the suspense of it all. I for one google daily to find new democratic primary polls for both of those reasons.
But when a poll has a MOE of ±7% and the spread between the first and third candidate is 6 points, we should take it with a grain of salt.

FreakyBeaky wrote on September 30, 2007 12:17 AM:

There's a misreading upthread of the "express strong support" part of the poll. 55 percent of HRC supporers express strong support, while 41 percent of Obama supporters express strong support. That's not the same as saying strong supporters support HRC over Obama by 51 to 41.

The Iowa polling thus far has all said Iowa is a dogfight. You'd rather poll ahead than poll behind, but I don't think there's much new here, especially not with such a fat MOE (although there does appear to be a bit more space between the top 3; we'll see if that bears out).

DonnaG wrote on September 30, 2007 12:36 AM:

The surprise in the poll was, that in Iowa at least, both Republicans and Democrats believe the country is more ready to elect an African-American than a woman.
Is American ready to elect a woman?
R's: 47% yes......D's 63% yes

Is American ready to elect an African-American"
R's: 67% yes.......D's: 66% yes

daniel155 wrote on September 30, 2007 1:46 AM:

Clinton really does not need to win Iowa because she can just wear Obama and Edwards down in the February 5 states. But by maintaining a strong presence there she forces Obama and particularly Edwards to spend a lot of time and resources in Iowa and neglect other upcoming states. If Clinton wins Iowa, it will just by icing on the cake.

The situation is somewhat similar to the 1988 race for the Republican nomination. Dole roughed up HW Bush in Iowa but Bush had the organization and money to wear Dole down in the Super Tuesday states.

Also similar to the 2000 race for the GOP nomination. McCain beat W Bush in New Hampshire but the better funded and better organized Bush campaign won by attrition.

seanh wrote on September 30, 2007 3:55 AM:

The Obama campaign is pouring a lot into the early primaries (obviously), but he's paying plenty of attention to the feb5 states as well. Just last week, he held a rally in NYC and attracted 24,000 to Washington Square Park, his largest rally yet. Within the coming weeks, he's opening a HQ office in NYC, with offices already operating in those early primary states.

If anything, Obama's grassroots campaign will be most effective in those February 5th states. The caucuses are the biggest test for Obama, where his supporters (as another poster mentions above), the young, independent-registered, cynical voters typically don't turn up. If he can make it out of Iowa first or a close second, I don't see how Hillary could hope to overcome his (softer?) groundswell of support.

daniel155 wrote on September 30, 2007 4:53 AM:

Clinton consistently leads in most states by a substantial margin. Sure Obama and Edwards would get some bounce if they won Iowa but they seem to be hoping for too much from an Iowa win.

After Iowa, Nevada could serve as a firewall for Clinton because she has a strong lead there and it should come before New Hampshire but who knows because of the silly "I have to be first" game that New Hampshire is playing.

If Obama wins Iowa, a big question is where will Edwards supporters go because an Iowa loss will cause his support to decline pretty rapidly.

I would not count Obama out because he can compete financially with Clinton, but she has the organization and she has run a smart campaign except for the recent $5000 baby bond program. She should distance herself from that, but that is an issue that Republicans could exploit against her more than Obama could.

stlounick wrote on September 30, 2007 8:38 AM:

Low-information voters have been treated for the entire summer to a "hillary is ahead" blurbs on radio and TV. What was a bit interesting was that a lot were Survey USA polls where Hillary was the only Dem in the survey.

It was all to reinforce the "Hillary is inevitable" tactic. IMO, it is not only not true but it simply will not work. Lack of money may force Edwards from serious contention, but Obama is still around.

Hillary has a sharp campaign--but I wonder how much difference the field organization will make. If I were running the Iowa campaign for Obama, I would be pushing absentee ballots for the caucus, particularly from the college folks.

slcathena wrote on September 30, 2007 8:52 AM:

One last thought.

That first/second choice number is incredibly important given the way caucuses work. Given that Obama and Edwards both have more people on the ground, and are more invested in Iowa, I forsee HRC coming in 3rd. That is disasterous for little miss inevitability.

slcathena wrote on September 30, 2007 8:55 AM:

*Cross posted from another thread, I accidentally replied in the wrong window before.

Eric, it's so nice to see that you've become a fan of the margin of error calculation. I hope these same caveats will be pointed out with Hillary's next numbers.

What I get out of this poll is that Obama has a slight edge amongst the most involved voters. More interesting, Richardson is in a very odd spot...80 some odd percent are would vote for a Hispanic president, but only 30ish percent think America is ready for one. That is mind blowing, and bodes poorly for a Richardson surge in Iowa. In my opinion, that means we're down to 3 viable candidates in Iowa.

DonnaG wrote on September 30, 2007 9:48 AM:

stlounick, I believe that the whole point of the caucus system is that 'absentee balloting' and/or absentee support is replaced by a method requiring very active citizenship.
The caucus is designed to require voters to physically show up on caucus night and, to stand in groupings which speak for their chosen candidate, then to remain in the caucus rooms while multiple votes are taken, each vote tallying the % of voters for each candidate. The voters representing less than, I believe, 15% of the total, must then choose another candidate from the list of those who've gained at least 15% of the last vote. It is often an hours long winnowing process, during which the 'losers' groupings are subject to exhortions and arm-twisting politicking to join into a grouping of one of the 'winning' teams.

I am not sure how the caucus evening is concluded at each caucus site, but I think the system will winnow the voting so that the only a couple of candidates can divide the votes from that caucus site and send their totals into the state's totals.

Maybe someone from Iowa can describe this more fully or accurately.

elrapierwit wrote on September 30, 2007 10:16 AM:

FreakyBeaky great job of delineating the differences as WITHIN the group of strong supporters of that specific candidate as opposed to being BETWEEN the group of supporters for either candidate.

Thanks DonnaG, that is roughly my understanding of how the IA caucus' work as well. Not sure that there is any such thing as 'absentee ballot' involved in the process at all.

One thing I am confident of is that TeamObama has thoroughly schooled the citizens of IA on how to exercise their rights and be actively engaged in the political process of electing candidates.

Obama's bkgrd as a constitutional scholar and grassroots organizer is most likely going to pay off bigtime.

America will have never before in history have seen the age group of 18-30 so fired up and ready to go exercise their citizenship voting rights.

The pundits and mainstream media are going to be caught flat footed on this one.

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 10:20 AM:

That first/second choice number is incredibly important given the way caucuses work. Given that Obama and Edwards both have more people on the ground, and are more invested in Iowa, I forsee HRC coming in 3rd. That is disasterous for little miss inevitability.

This is rosy but not supported by the latest IA poll data. However, even if HRC came in third it would not mean much for her, but a third place finish would mean the end for Edwards, and would make Obama wobbly, ready for the final knock-out punch and tumble on Super Duper Tuesday.

I had higher hopes for Edwards, but his decision to accept public funds strongly suggests that that he is in deeper trouble than I thought. He won't go the distance because he is clearly having trouble competing financially. His challenge to the other candidates to also accept public funds was just laughed off the front pages (if it ever made it there), a stunt that was quite naive actually. Until the system is reformed anyone who opts to accept public funds is signaling that he or she is broke, and won't go the distance...

DonnaG wrote on September 30, 2007 10:28 AM:

In my comment above about the caucus method in Iowa, I was in error naming only the 15% figure as viable from the first tallying [that memory came from watching an '04 caucus...] But, I just learned from googling: that percentage is different depending upon size of the precinct:

"In a typical caucus, registered democrats gather at the precinct meeting places (there are 1,993 precincts statewide), supporters for each candidate have a chance to make their case, and then the participants gather into groups supporting particular candidates (undecided voters also cluster into a group). In order for a particular group to be viable, they must have a certain percentage of the all the caucus participants. If they don't have enough people, the group disbands, and its members go to another group. The percentage cut-off is determined by the number of delegates assigned to the precinct. It breaks down like this:

If the precinct has only one delegate, the group with the most people wins the delegate vote, and that's it.
If the precinct has only two delegates, each group needs 25 percent to be viable.
If the precinct has only three delegates, each group needs one-sixth of the caucus participants.
If the precinct has four or more delegates, each group needs at least 15 percent of the caucus participants."

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 10:31 AM:

"Absentee balloting" is oxymoronic with caucusing...

anns wrote on September 30, 2007 10:36 AM:

Frank Rich has the usual brilliant essay in today's TIMES that might feed into this discussion. It crystalizes what worries so many of us about Senator Clinton's campaign. We can quibble with it, but it's worth the read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Anonymous wrote on September 30, 2007 10:40 AM:

Rich's hit piece on HRC is just a collection of the usual MSM talking points. Nothing that we have not yet heard. However, the NYT does provide it very loud megaphone...

mopper wrote on September 30, 2007 11:14 AM:

The most significant finding of this poll is that Clinton's support shrinks when you go from registered Dems to likely voters. This finding is in concert with Mark Blumenthal's analysis that most/all of Clinton's gains in NH over the past few months have been amongst voters who aren't paying any attention at all. Basically, what StLouNick said.

I noticed something interesting buried in the cross-tabs. Most of the shift on this measure in the UNH polls has occurred among the roughly 60% of likely Democratic primary voters that are less than "extremely interested" in the primary. That suggests a common pattern: Less attentive voters reacting mostly to the dominant campaign news story, "horserace" coverage relentlessly portraying Clinton as front runner consolidating her lead.

Meanwhile, Obama's favorables have been going up in NH, 11 points over the summer, which is a great sign for his campaign. Clinton's and Edwards' are stagnant there, a bad sign for both of them.

Now, what both these polls suggest is that maybe the dynamic playing out in the polls is not the dynamic that's playing out with more-likely voters, or is not the relevant dyanamic. Seeing as how between 50-80% of voters haven't made up their minds yet (depending on where you're looking now), transitory voter "leanings" seems like somewhat of a red herring. The questions we should be asking are the same ones Jay Cost is asking:

The campaign - the real one - could change everything. Barack Obama will have something on the order of $60 million to communicate to primary voters. Clinton, of course, will be equally well-funded. But the point is that, as far as the average voter is concerned, the media dialogue is about to be drowned out by the the actual campaign. Right now, the media and political elites are the ones largely influencing polling numbers. Starting next month, the candidates are going to be the ones influencing those numbers. And so, average voters are going to have an opportunity to hear Clinton and Obama. Both of them will have an opportunity to say their piece, and have their piece heard, prior to Election Day. Accordingly, the way in which the average person's vote choice is informed is quite different than the way in which the average person's selection in a July poll is informed.

And so, we are left with the following question about the Democratic primary. It is, not coincidentally, the one that we began asking back when Obama declared. Clinton offers experience and steady stewardship. Obama offers change. Which will Democratic voters prefer? Despite all of the chatter from the pundit classes - the fact remains that we do not yet have an answer to this question.

Now, this is not to say that we cannot yet evaluate which candidate - Clinton or Obama - is more likely to win the nomination. It is not to say that we cannot yet identify who the frontrunner is. The trick is that we have to approach the question differently than we have been. We cannot just sit and marvel at the results that WMUR found in the Granite State. That's just a roundabout way of looking into the mirror. Instead, we have to arbitrate between (a) the message that Clinton will offer, (b) the message that Obama will offer, (c) our estimate of which message Democratic primary voters will prefer. Unfortunately, the media has made very little progress in this arbitration because they have been so hung up by these poll numbers.

And if we did look at those, we might see that maybe Obama's campaign is in my stronger position than is the conventional wisdom among the beltway. After all, the CW says the bottom is falling out from under his campaign in NH, and yet his favorables are climbing at a steady rater there. His campaign is supposedly losing enthusiasm from its own supporters, and yet it's marching 3,000 people into the Harkin Steak Fry, getting 2,500 people to pony up $25 bucks for a rally in Atlanta, getting 20,000+ people at a free rally in NY, pulling in 75,000 new voters in the 3rd quarter (which is traditionally much slower for fundraising).

And maybe that would explain why his campaign is gearing up for a long, drawn out fight for delegates on Feb 5th and beyond.

Cost wrote another piece also worth quoting, about the dominant media narrative of Obama's candidacy in "idle"

Karen Tumulty: Why is Obama's candidacy still idling?

Jay Cost: Because the race has not really begun! Because he has wisely not been spending any money on advertising! Because he does not have the advantage (or disadvantage) of being a known quantity like Hillary Clinton! Because voters are not paying all that much attention! Because the polls reflect the media dialogue, and therefore the media's infatuation with the Clinton campaign! And on and on and on.

Bottom line: Obama's Q3 report is probably going to show at least $30 million in cash on hand. Maybe more. Let us pause for a moment and reflect on the significance of that money ( I can't believe we need to take a moment and do that, but apparently we do). Let us not get overwhelmed by a WMUR poll and lose our cool. Let us remember that $30 million can buy a lot of stuff. One of the things it can buy is a shift of frame in a political campaign. Let us remind ourselves, while we are paused here for a moment, that this freshman senator has something like two billion individual donors and has taken no money from political action committees. This guy is the real deal, ok? He's the real deal. And Clinton is going to have a race on her hands.

Look - I'm not saying that I am favoring Obama to win the Democratic nomination. Right now, I would spread my money around. This will be another instance of the Democratic party choosing between an establishment candidate and an insurgent candidate. The party has chosen either type of candidate at different times. Clinton and Obama are the most professional, polished, and highest quality of both types of candidates that have come down the pike in a long while. So, I am expecting a barn burner. And so should you.

So journalists, take a lesson from the Fonz and just be cool. Your storyline this week is the most egregious example of putting the cart before the horse I have seen all campaign season - and that is saying something. I know that your editors are on your backs to write about the campaign, and the chill in the air you felt last week reminded you that elections are coming. But it is SEPTEMBER. The season just got here. It isn't over. It's just started. So chill out.

DTM wrote on September 30, 2007 1:12 PM:

Just to address one point about what is possible from an unexpected win in Iowa in light of polls today: about a month before the New Hampshire primaries, Dean had something like a 25 point lead over Kerry in NH. Kerry ended up winning NH by something like 13 points.

In general, there is basically no such thing as an insurmountable lead at this point in any poll, including Iowa and certainly in any primary after Iowa.

pacc wrote on September 30, 2007 1:25 PM:

seanh wrote:

"[Obama] held a rally in NYC and attracted 24,000 to Washington Square Park, his largest rally yet."

This is O-Bomb-A spin.

In actuality, Washington Square Park has a 4,000 person capacity and the rally permit was issued for that. The crowd filled the area, for sure, with just a trickle over that. No way in hell there were 24,000 people there. No way.

pacc wrote on September 30, 2007 1:30 PM:

slcathena wrote:

"What I get out of this poll is that Obama has a slight edge amongst the most involved voters."

That doesn't jive with what is being acknowledged in Iowa. To wit (a repost from upthread):

“The reality is, (Obama’s) support is what I would consider light,” said Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., the Des Moines opinion research company that conducts Iowa Polls for the [Des Moines] Register.

“It is heavy with younger people, and it is heavy with people who are registered independent. In the past, we have found them less likely to show up and be a part of the caucuses.”

Hatch wrote on September 30, 2007 1:31 PM:

Washington Square Park has a 4,000 person capacity...

Simply not true.

"Washington Square Park's capacity [is] 18,000."

And the park was full, with people spilling out onto the surrounding sidewalks, so it was definitely more than 18,000.

Jeno wrote on September 30, 2007 1:49 PM:

Obama is the least electable top tier candidate of either party, period, no matter what we would want, Obama will not be elected if the candidate, no way, no how, he is the least likely winner of all Dems, I wish these urban elites would get out of their social city settings and realize what America is like, the America where people get elected, there Obama will not be elected. Dems will not win the White House if Obama is the candidate. Can't say for sure on the others, but this is certain. Naivete, ah.

pacc wrote on September 30, 2007 1:52 PM:

AP's report cites "thousands" at the O-Bomb-A rally.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--obamarally0927sep27,0,841897.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

From around the blogs...

... Obama has NOT been drawing huge crowds. He drummed up the NYC rally because he knew that his stump speech references to 20,000 in Atlanta (the GA Tech campus) and Austin (the UTexas campus) from last spring were getting a little long in the tooth. So, he promotes the rally on NYU’s campus for a month and gets himself a fresh photo op with about the same size crowd that a wet T-Shirt contest at NYU would draw in Washington Square. Meanwhile he’s getting killed in NH (a crowd of hundreds the day after the Hill ‘n Bill Show drew 4,500 in Concord and 5,000 an hour away in Portsmouth.

This is Obama’s crowds “secret”:

His staff had a scissors lift (a.k.a. a cherry-picker) and was taking photographers — and, by the end of the evening, print reporters as well — up in it to get crowd shots.

... You’re right, the size of his crowd is greatly exaggerated. It’s said the park is permitted to accommodate 5,000 people, and politico is reporting its only slightly extended beyond the circle. AP estimates to be around thousands. Definitely not 24,000 they were advertising. His crowd is getting smaller and smaller.

seanh wrote on September 30, 2007 1:52 PM:

I was there, pacc. I was volunteering, so I saw the entire crowd grow gradually and have a pretty good idea how many people were there. Besides, I find it hard to believe someone who repeatedly refers to the Senator as "O-Bomb-A", despite the fact that it's incredibly rude, not even remotely funny, and far, far from clever or witty.

seanh wrote on September 30, 2007 1:59 PM:

Jeno, based off what facts do you come to that conclusion? His highly successful grassroots campaign, attracting thousands and thousands of new donors across the country to the political process? That's hardly the "urban social elites." Maybe if you'd give us some reason why he's "unelectable," instead of just stating it as fact, people might be able to engage you in an intelligent debate. I'm guessing you think Hillary is electable, since she spent so much time physically in and around the White House? Her time defending the family from continued Republican scandal smear campaigns in the media and in court is being included as political experience? Why don't we nominated Laura Bush then? She's got TONS of experience. Lets encourage Chelsea Clinton to run for VP. What more could democrats ask for? Two "experienced" candidates running together!

pacc wrote on September 30, 2007 2:12 PM:

seanh wrote:

"I was there, pacc. I was volunteering, so I saw the entire crowd grow gradually and have a pretty good idea how many people were there. Besides, I find it hard to believe someone who repeatedly refers to the Senator as "O-Bomb-A", despite the fact that it's incredibly rude, not even remotely funny, and far, far from clever or witty."

The O-Bomb-A campaign is nothing more than focus groups, magazine covers and spin. The "crowd" gimmick is just
another hood wink, like counting bumper sticker sales was. Even with the latter, the fund raising prowess has never translated to equal ranking in the polls.

The truth is, the O-Bomb-A campaign was drummed up by the MSM and it peaked out at about 30%. The reason it did, is because O-Bomb-A has never lived up to the hype. He's a neophyte and it shows - not ready for the highest office in the land. His white is also a loose cannon.

America is taking note, and the Clinton machine has note even begun their efforts to take him out.

Come the beginning of next year, O-Bomb-A will be toast and all his little O-Bomb-Lette's, such as "seanh," quoted above, will be gone, too. Good riddance.

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 2:41 PM:

Obama is the least electable top tier candidate of either party, period, no matter what we would want, Obama will not be elected if the candidate, no way, no how, he is the least likely winner of all Dems, I wish these urban elites would get out of their social city settings and realize what America is like, the America where people get elected, there Obama will not be elected. Dems will not win the White House if Obama is the candidate. Can't say for sure on the others, but this is certain. Naivete, ah.

I live in NYC, a city of millions, and I do not see what the big deal is about 24,000 people showing up at an Obama rally. I am 100% sure that much of the crowd was there out of curiosity and not because they intend to support Obama for the nomination. HRC or Rudy would show up there and draw a much smaller crowd because, let's face it, everyone knows them from previous campaign appearances, political rallies, parades, etc...Why would they waste an afternoon of good baseball and cold beer to go out for HRC or Rudy? If this does not convince you, check out any poll of HRC v Obama in NY. It is a blow out! If Obama is going to win the nomination, he'll have to earn his delegates from elsewhere because he will get zilch from NY, the purported huge crowd that he drew in Wash Square notwithstanding.

This bring me to what I just quoted above. I agree that Obama is the least electable of all the Dems for the reasons cited in that comment. Moreover, the concern about his lack of experience is real and not just academic or political spin. He does sound and look rather green and lightweight-ish. I do not see a credible path that would take Obama from here to the White House in 2008 America. He is incredibly talented, smart, charismatic and attractive, but he is a black man and a novice. Once the Repub smear machine (the one that made a decorated Vietnam vet look unpatriotic and cowardly vis-à-vis a draft-dodger) is through with him, Obama won't win a single southern (red) state, bordering (purple) state, or even some blue states. It would be a landslide of blow out proportions. I will support him if he is the Dem nominee, but looking at it with a very calm head, I do not see how Obama can be elected POTUS in 2008 America. The racial cues might not even be that subtle when they attack him, but be sure that Repubs will push all the buttons that have invariably woken up the ante bellum mentality in white America. The so called "souther strategy" based largely on bigotry almost made the Repubs the dominant party, and it is still a powerful weapon.

Just ask Harold Ford...

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 2:45 PM:

Oops! I forgot to close the "blokquote" properly in the preceding post, but the narrower column after "Naivete, ah" are my observations..

anns wrote on September 30, 2007 2:49 PM:

Interesting and sad comments. I live and work Upstate and have been struck by similar comments about Senator Clinton by some of the women I work with (e.g. extremely competent farmers' wives who work to provide health insurance, can handle a shotgun when they have to and are incredible strong willed and independent). When I ask about policy diffrences with the Senator they say "I just don't like her." Does this mean we are resigned to white men?

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 2:59 PM:

pacc
I agree with the poster who said that to refer to Senator Obama as "O-Bomb-A" is rather rude. He is a good Democrat and its future, who deserves our respect despite the fact we are supporting someone else. Feel free to attack his views, his "inexperience", but do not denigrate him personally, which it would seem you are doing by using the rather childish "O-Bomb-A appellation...and that is from someone who agrees with you that HRC is the best qualified Dem candidate...

Thanks and cheers, mate!

Jeno wrote on September 30, 2007 3:27 PM:

"Jeno, based off what facts do you come to that conclusion? His highly successful grassroots campaign, attracting thousands and thousands of new donors across the country to the political process? That's hardly the "urban social elites." Maybe if you'd give us some reason why he's "unelectable," instead of just stating it as fact, people might be able to engage you in an intelligent debate. I'm guessing you think Hillary is electable, since she spent so much time physically in and around the White House? Her time defending the family from continued Republican scandal smear campaigns in the media and in court is being included as political experience? Why don't we nominated Laura Bush then? She's got TONS of experience. Lets encourage Chelsea Clinton to run for VP. What more could democrats ask for? Two "experienced" candidates running together!"

I won't comment on either Laura or Chelsea as a nominee, likening me to that is absurd.

Nothing will get voters out like a black candidate and they will not be in support, SAD but true. Obama cannot win.

On your guess of my thoughts on Hillary's time in the White House, I can't imagine what basis that was formed on, but an incorrect guess.

Obama is a fine man and a fine candidate, but he defines the term "unelectable" in the general election. I agree with the poster that says don't expect the racial cues to be that subtle, they do a fine job of not officially putting their name on things. I recall West Virginia voters being bombarded with "Kerry will ban the bible". Imagine what they'll do to Obama.

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 4:04 PM:

anns wrote on September 30, 2007 2:49 PM:

Interesting and sad comments. I live and work Upstate and have been struck by similar comments about Senator Clinton by some of the women I work with (e.g. extremely competent farmers' wives who work to provide health insurance, can handle a shotgun when they have to and are incredible strong willed and independent). When I ask about policy differences with the Senator they say "I just don't like her." Does this mean we are resigned to white men?

We'll see come November because it seems that the Dem will nominate either a black man or a white woman. But I think part of HRC's so-called hawkishness is to counter the perception that a woman would be weak to be POTUS. My thoughts on this:

I am not privy to the internal deliberations or strategies of the Clinton campaign so that we I am about to say below is pure conjecture.

Mindful that HRC's 'weaker' gender might be a net negative for her in this macho world, I suspect that her campaign decided early on that her chances to be elected POTUS in a male-dominated world would be for her to show that she can be tough as nail. The "hawkishness" about her that many here have commented about would seems to me to be an attempt to counter a perception that a female would not have the cojones big enough to deal with the likes of Mahmoud in Tehran, Kim in Pyongyang or Hugo in Caracas. This makes sense to me because HRC's top political strategist and adviser, Bill Clinton, was no hawk. He was a cerebral POTUS, whose response to rogue nations was always calm, measured and proportional to the perceived offense. Little mentioned fact is that the same folks at PNAC (led by Bill Kristol), who ultimately convinced the current village idiot, GWB, to invade Iraq in a war of choice that's proved to be disastrous for US foreign policy, had actually tried to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but he ignored them (see: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998). Please read the whole thing and look at who signed the letter and you will see that the Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion waiting for its village idiot to be implemented. Here's an excerpt:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

With a top political adviser, Bill, who successfully shunned the neo-cons, I believe that HRC's so-called hawkishness is a deliberate compensation for the fact that she might not get credibility as a POTUS because she is a woman. She needs to beef up her cojones! I am not concerned about HRC as POTUS invading Iran in a war of choice. She'll be too busy crafting a record of positive achievement as the first even female POTUS to get marred in endless wars. For the same reason, I believe that she will try to get us out of Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible. The world might be willing to help that happen if there is a change in top leadership in the US... I can see Bill Clinton being the US Ambassador to the UN and successfully undoing some or most of the damage that the current administration has made with our long time allies.

anns wrote on September 30, 2007 4:10 PM:

Interesting. I hope you are right. One woman with whom I did feel comfortable enough to press said, "If she couldn't handle her husband, how can she handle the bad guys." Ouch! I was speechless. It was an interesting window into a mindset.

dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 4:35 PM:

Interesting. I hope you are right. One woman with whom I did feel comfortable enough to press said, "If she couldn't handle her husband, how can she handle the bad guys." Ouch! I was speechless. It was an interesting window into a mindset.

A rather narrow mindset, at that...

HRC has kept him on a leash, and he is criss-crossing the country for her now. Their marriage survived(which is I could claim about most marriages in America where the divorce rate is 50%+) not just that but also Ken Starr and Whitewater. The country also did very well... Imagine that!

We are barely surviving the current administration that ran on a platform to restore dignity to the White House. Some dignity! Sheeesh!

seanh wrote on September 30, 2007 5:21 PM:

I should probably apologize, Jeno, for over interpreting your statements. I understand why people think he can't be elected, but I have no interest whatsoever in compromising my vote for the sake of an "electable" candidate. I do think his fund raising numbers, his central campaign issues (rejection of negative campaigning, government and ethics reforms, election reform, historical opposition to Iraq war) should be an indication that he is a viable candidate. I know plenty disagree, and that's fine, but I think you're dismissing him too quickly. The "inexperienced" line is getting a little old, when Hillary has spent only been in the Senate herself since 2001. Obama, in fact, has spent considerably more time in elected public office than Senator Clinton. Anyone looking for an experienced candidate should refer to Sens Dodd or Biden.

In regards to the slimy tactics Republicans will use to tear apart Obama, I think those same negatives apply to Hillary. If anything, she'll be more vulnerable to those sorts of attacks, thanks to her husband's administration. To quote DonnaG from above:

The surprise in the poll was, that in Iowa at least, both Republicans and Democrats believe the country is more ready to elect an African-American than a woman.
Is American ready to elect a woman?
R's: 47% yes......D's 63% yes

Is American ready to elect an African-American"
R's: 67% yes.......D's: 66% yes

Biden brought this up in the last debate, but that "high negatives" argument is hardly new. Clinton's administration is repugnant to Republican voters, and for better or worse, Bill's administration is a burden (and a blessing) Hillary must bear. Now, the general polling across the states is showing Hillary out pacing every Republican candidates (not surprising considering GOP unpopularity), which makes one doubt those arguments against her own electability.

just from these last weeks:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/poll_dems_looking_good_in_wisconsin.php

Clinton (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 47%, Thompson (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 50%, Romney (R) 41%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 43%
Obama (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 43%
Obama (D) 52%, Romney (R) 37%
Giuliani (R) 45%, Edwards (D) 44%
Edwards (D) 49%, Thompson (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 52%, Romney (R) 34%

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/poll_hillary_and_rudy_ahead_in_new_jersey.php

Giuliani (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 44%
Giuliani (R) 49%, Obama (D) 40%
Giuliani (R) 50%, Edwards (D) 39%
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 41%
Obama (D) 44%, McCain (R) 41%
Edwards (D) 44%, McCain (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 36%
Obama (D) 49%, Thompson (R) 34%
Edwards (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 34%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 33%
Obama (D) 51%, Romney (R) 31%
Edwards (D) 51%, Romney (R) 30%

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/poll_dems_running_ahead_invirginia.php

Clinton (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 50%, Thompson (R) 43%
Clinton (D) 53%, Romney (R) 38%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Thompson (R) 47%, Obama (D) 45%
Obama (D) 50%, Romney (R) 38%
Edwards (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 43%
Edwards (D) 49%, Thompson (R) 39%
Edwards (D) 52%, Romney (R) 33%

Look back at the numbers above, and reconsider Obama's electability. Hillary has little, if any, advantage over Obama in these polls. When you isolate the democratic candidates from each other, both perform admirably facing the GOP field of candidates. In other words, those arguments against the "electability" of Obama OR Hillary, given the current political/social climate, seem unfounded.

The country has changed drastically since 2004. The GOP is still mired in crippling controversies and scandals, Bush's approval ratings are at record lows (with all but 1 GOP candidate running on the GWBush platform) and the overwhelming majority of America wants our military out of Iraq. Obama should tear Clinton to pieces on Iraq, government ethics and reform, and campaign finance, once voters get past the theatrics and MSM sensationalism of the race itself and start considering the records of each candidate. Considering the favorable polling dating I've quoted above, and the recent couple encouraging polls showing an uncertain Clinton advantage that Obama is a very electable candidate. He's still a distant second in many polls, but I really do believe (and it's why I'm supporting him) that as the election creeps closer, when voters start really looking at each candidates record, Clinton's overwhelming lead will quickly dwindle. Her refusal to apologise for her Iraq vote, her vote for the Patriot Act, her recent vote to condemn MoveOn (Obama missed that vote, the fool), her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (again, Obama unfortunately absent) should make it clear she's hardly the progressive candidate of the bunch.

longtom wrote on September 30, 2007 5:54 PM:

Obama is clearly in a good position to challenge Hillary. The question is whether he will make the arguments necessary to do so, and whether he will have a "Kerry moment" (as when JFK's veteran buddies came to his rescue in Iowa and helped him win the caucuses).

For Obama, such a moment could be his first 'gloves off' performance in a debate, where he lets Bush have it, and finally goes after Hillary,too. Her absurd vote to support calling the Iranian military a "terrorist organization" could and should be enough to sink her nomination, if Obama goes after her.

Obama's "lack of experience" is a fiction created by Hillary. She is actually the LEAST experienced candidate: fewer campaigns run (and fewer won), far fewer years in elective office, and the vaunted 'experience' her first ladyship gave her was...what? Screwing up the first portfolio her husband gave her (health care0, then pruning roses for 6 years? Big deal!

Besides which, what experience did her husband have when he was elected? 12 years as governor of a hayseed state? He unseated a president with the longest resume in the history of Washington!

Obama has set himself up perfectly as the unity, nice guy, bring-us-together candidate. It's the perfect position from which to "reluctantly" launch a completely justifiable assault on Hillary's weaknesses and on the right wing nutjob Republican party.

As for who's more electable, is this a joke? Obama could win 60% of the vote, if things go well for him. If they don't, he should still win fairly easily. Hillary's best conceivable outcome (given that 45% of the people would never vote for her no matter what) is to win a squeaker.

As for the poster who is worried about losing the South, get real. The Dems won't win there no matter what. The only exception is Virginia, which has already elected black and Democratic governors.

Aside from all this, most people will vote for her either out of affection/nostalgia for Bill, or because she's a female. On her own, she's done squat to deserve the presidency, or the nomination.

kjoe wrote on September 30, 2007 8:17 PM:

Eric is going to get a spanking from Hillary. Lets hope Steve's corrective spin makes it just a gentle one.

Poll: Obama, Romney Ahead In Iowa
By Eric Kleefeld - September 29, 2007, 5:17PM

update---there is new information!!or maybe the same poll.

09.29.07 -- 6:40PM // link

Newsweek poll in Iowa shows close Democratic race

But what about Iowa, which has consistently been the closest contest? A just-released Newsweek poll is bound to get some attention.

Among all Iowa Democratic voters, Clinton draws 31 percent, followed by Obama (25 percent) and Edwards (21 percent). But among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent). Bill Richardson is the only other Democratic candidate to score in the double digits (10 percent).

stlounick wrote on September 30, 2007 8:21 PM:

DonnaG and others, I was wrong and there are NO absentee ballots in the party caucuses in Iowa. Interesting that the parties apparently don't allow military folks who may be overseas or whatever to influence this. Very interesting.

It's also interesting to speculate on the reasons so much pressure was on to change the caucus and primary dates, as well as the nonsense Michigan and Florida have managed to indulge in. This sort of thing would seem to favor the incumbent--or in this case the "establishment" candidate. What do you think?

Blue in IA wrote on September 30, 2007 8:58 PM:

While I disagree mightily with pacc's comments and attitude toward fellow posters, here are a few dates that folks who are counting on Obama's ability to turn out the youth vote might consider.

Jan 14 -- currently scheduled date for IA caucuses, but may very well go earlier
Jan 14 -- first day of classes for ISU
Jan 22 -- first day of classes for U/Iowa

In other words, caucuses will be definitely occur while Iowa is out of session, and are likely to occur either while ISU is just starting or also out of session. Iowan students *might* caucus at home, but I suspect that you'd see a dramatic decrease in participation. This also is a real problem for anyone looking at turn-out based on Johnson County/Iowa City -- a very significant portion (over 1/3) of U/Iowa students are from out-of-state -- if they are at home, Obama is quite likely to see much less youth support at the January caucuses.

FWIW...

DonnaG wrote on September 30, 2007 10:27 PM:

stlounick, it is impossible for the candidates to offer face time with citizens across the nation, so a system evolved in which two traditionally early states have played a role for the rest of the nation in doing the up-front and in-depth interviewing of the candidates, which the rest of us watch [and feel jealous about]

I do believe that the rogue states' political bosses are acting like spoilers on purpose. They intend to upend and thwart the grass roots workings of democracy for this upcoming primary season, hoping to counter it with superficial default voting for a media-created establishment 'in' candidate. Because of the spoiler timing, this is nothing but a bully power play from the rogue states, though they are careful to hide the power playing behind the quite valid notion that the right to be an early voting state should be rotated among all.

If it were not power manipulation for this very primary election, then those rogues would have pressed their case and stood their ground about fairness at the appropriate time when, many months ago, they were involved in collectively deciding upon and agreeing to the rules for this very primary season.

Blue in IA, I read recently that the Iowa caucuses might be held the first week in January, depending upon what date will be newly set by Hampshire. I cannot find the article now, but I remember the date of 1-04-08 for Iowa and a date just five-seven days or so later for NH. I think that, unless the Iowa caucuses are actually on the first day of class for the college students, that a date during their winter break would still be doable for the passionate young who are fired up to get involved.

James wrote on September 30, 2007 11:25 PM:

I don't understand Democrats. They want change and their answers were Kerry and seems to now be Hillary? That aint change, thats a continuation of what America has endured since birth.

Blue in IA wrote on September 30, 2007 11:28 PM:

Donna -- I don't think they will be unable to participate outside of the college towns (if they are Iowan, not out-of-staters), but that very few students will actually be around if the caucuses are held early than 14th. How many undergraduates are going to come back to campus early just to attend the caucus, particularly those who live in dorms that are closed over break. If they're out-of-state (as many of the U/Iowa students are), they won't be able to participate at all. If they are Iowan, the question will be whether their motivation to participate extends even when they are away from campus and all the social networks there that reinforce their political activism. My overall point is simply that if depending on the youth vote in general is a dicey proposition, it is particularly questionable given the timing of this upcoming caucus. (And moving it to early or mid-December is probably just as bad from a youth turn-out perspective, because students will either be studying for finals or home for vacation.)

Blue in IA wrote on September 30, 2007 11:42 PM:

Sorry -- not being particularly clear tonight. Two points: first, if I were an Obama student organizer, I'd do my damnedest to try to set up a network that would be prepared to nag (Iowan) students to vote even off campus, because almost all of them are likely to be at home (rather than at school) during the caucuses. Second, I can't help but cast a somewhat skeptical eye at assertions that Obama's polling numbers are understated because they miscount/undercount the youth vote. Even if there are many more students excited about an Obama candidacy than normally participate, there are also structural reasons why that good will is less likely to result in actual caucus participation. I don't say this with any glee or partisanship -- I just hope that the Obama camp will be smart enough to see the problem coming and try to make their networks flexible enough to deal with a very scattered group of voters....

DonnaG wrote on October 1, 2007 12:37 AM:

Thanks, Blue in IA for your response. I agree that there is an undeniable iffyness to counting on students for the actual caucus event, especially with the timing, but more so with their discomfort level at feeling perhaps too green for the caucus process, particularly if they would not be among a usual peer group.

What I was not clear on was whether legally the students had to join caucuses near campus, or alternatively could do so in their home town precincts.

DTM wrote on October 1, 2007 7:00 AM:

Obama actually has a remarkable amount of appeal among relatively conservative, white, and suburban and rural voters, particularly for a Democrat. See here for a side-by-side comparison of Obama's job approval and his fellow Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's job approval:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9acde2f2-da64-4175-bb54-121eaf30bb18

It is worth taking particular note of how they do among white voters, conservative and moderate voters, and voters outside Chicago (the suburbs, collar counties, and downstate).

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 7:04 AM:

James wrote on September 30, 2007 11:25 PM:

I don't understand Democrats. They want change and their answers were Kerry and seems to now be Hillary? That aint change, thats a continuation of what America has endured since birth.

I have turned that statement over in my head several times in an effort to understand just exactly what it means and I still have no clue. What is it exactly that America has endured since birth that the nomination of Kerry or HRC is a perpetuation of? I can't figure that one out but I will tell you a dirty little secret that you would already have discovered if you carefully watched the debates so far: There are very little ideological or policy differences between the top 5 Dem candidates! Except for an occasional "Hail Mary" proposal by a candidate trying to shake things up ("I will bring all the troops home by the end of my first year as president" -Gov. Richardson), the top Dem candidates sound almost the same on a whole host of issues. This should not be too surprising as the reason they consider themselves to be Democrats or Progressives is because they all believe in the same basic principles. So when we speak of "change", what exactly do we mean? Obama has claimed the mantle of "Agent of Change" during this election, but if you listen to his so-called "new ideas", most them sound suspiciously similar to Clinton's or Edwards'. And if you listen some more, you realize that the Good Senator from Illinois is not really proposing anything substantively "new" with respect to actual Democratic policies; rather, what he has really been proposing is "change" in how things are done in Washington: more civility, more transparency, more bipartisanship, less lobbyists, etc... So, get this, a true "Agent of Change" is actually one who would return either political party to the principles and ideals upon which it was founded!

If all of the preceding has confused you, I will sum it all up like this: Since deep down there are no substantive policy differences between the top-tier Dem candidates,what a Dem primary voter should be looking for is the candidate with the highest overall leadership qualities. A true "Agent of Change" is really an effective leader who can work with the Congress and the people to craft and pass legislations and implement policies that would reflect his or her party's ideals and principles. What to watch for in debates is not so much what a candidate would do, but how he or she would it. Obama's appeal to many is not that he proposed any new policies, but because he promised to "change" the way things are done in DC. However, he has not been able to capitalize on this because in debate after debate he has seemed tentative or unsure, well, inexperienced. An "Agent of Change" must be experienced, a leader. That is what Obama will be 8 years from now. In this election, HRC is the "agent of change", based on how I just defined it.

DonnaG wrote on October 1, 2007 9:11 AM:

dcshungu, I agree that it is important to put action into being a true "Agent of Change" in order to actually be an effective leader.
While you listen to the debates to try to discern substantive policy differences between the top-tier Dem candidates, I look at their records to see who has actually worked with Congress and the people to craft and pass legislations and implement policies that would reflect his or her party's ideals and principles.

When one looks at Obama's record, he has demonstrated his leadership on cleaning up the murk in Washington with the Coburn/Obama sunshine bill made into law more than a year ago, and with the ethics legislation he co-sponsored with Feingold.
By contrast, can you point to any Clinton leadership successes in passing legislation that even begins to hold a candle to what Obama has already achieved that reflects our party's ideals and principles? I will await your reply.

stlounick wrote on October 1, 2007 9:18 AM:

dcshungu, with all due respect you are just flat wrong. I consider Obama and Edwards stand on lobbyist money and cleaning up the cronyism and corruption and ethics in WDC as a major difference. Clinton and Edwards lack any legislative record in this area; Obama does have that record. I find this a key difference and I wonder about your reasons for skipping right over it.

I also think there is a very real difference in when one engages in war. Obama has had the position--one that the majority of Congressional Dems had--that "imminent danger" was the standard and war was not jusitifed when this standard was not met. Our candidates who supported the Iraq War, based on their current statements, did so based on their notion that the president would make the right decision--I find that constitutionally wrong and the tossing overboard the standard of "imminent danger" a very bad idea. That is a difference that is stark. Consider the recent Iran legislation--Clinton supported it; Obama did not. That is a real difference.

So your charge that there are no differences amongst our Dem candidates is simply baseless. Hillary is more conservative and more hawkish in military matters--at least from what one can tell since she makes everything a hypothethical and apparently wants us to simply "trust" her to make the right decision. (That, BTW, is very similar to Hillary's decision to trust Bush to make the right decision regarding going to war with Iraq.)

I agree on such things as univeral healthcare and getting us out of Iraq as quickly as possible--all of our top candidates are very alike. But there are also stark differences. I understand your wanting some blurring here since Hillary's stands on these is simply not popular ones.

Jeno wrote on October 1, 2007 10:25 AM:

I agree with you that based on polling to say that either (Hillary or Obama) have an electability problem is nonsense. But that would mean I was putting all my money on these polls, I won't. More than anything I would love to be proven wrong, but there is also no poll on the voter turnout surge against a black candidate, which I suspect would top any gay marriage initiative on the ballot by leaps and bounds.

Also, I think people would be less than honest on a "is American ready for a black president" question. They would be too timid to speak their mind. There's a show on TV, not sure the name, where they have to guess within a certain percentage of what Americans were polled at, I think Drew Carey hosts, when you look at those answers, it says one thing: the people being polled were dishonest.

I'm done here as I think I'm interpreted as an Obama basher, that couldn't be farther from the truth, but based on my small town upbringing and the subsequent communities I've lived in since and the talk I hear at least in those areas tell me the same thing, Obama could not be elected. And surprisingly, even my right wing religious boss is dismayed with his Repbulican choices (though still holding out hope for Newt) and says there is only one Democrat he could vote for: Hillary.

My dream scenario: there was actually a free press who did their job and my primary candidate: John Edwards, could get a fair shake, win the Democratic nomination, be treated fairly in the general election and I think that would take him to a landslide finish, but none of those things would happen, so he'd be toast.

Edwards will still get my primary vote but I suspect Hillary will be the one getting mine (and the majority of Americans) general election vote.

Yes, I would rather have Hillary than the Rebplican, not ashamed to say it.

Democrats thinking they can get their ideal candidate elected is a pipe dream.

PTL wrote on October 1, 2007 10:28 AM:

DTM wrote on October 1, 2007 7:00 AM:
Obama actually has a remarkable amount of appeal among relatively conservative, white, and suburban and rural voters, particularly for a Democrat. See here for a side-by-side comparison of Obama's job approval and his fellow Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's job approval:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9acde2f2-da64-4175-bb54-121eaf30bb18

It is worth taking particular note of how they do among white voters, conservative and moderate voters, and voters outside Chicago (the suburbs, collar counties, and downstate).

Is this strictly in Illinois? An Illinois conservative is a far cry from a Mississippi conservative.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 11:06 AM:

Consider the recent Iran legislation--Clinton supported it; Obama did not.

This flat wrong. Obama skipped the vote, and the only vote that counts is the one that is cast. Obama claims about opposing the AUMF are immaterial as he was in no position to vote for or against it. However, we know how he actually voted on the war once he got to DC.

Look, I have written ad nauseam about this so I really do not want to go back there. Obama's words and actions have been inconsistent to the point of making him seem unprincipled. He deplores lobbyists money but quadrupled (up to $2 million in conveniently skipped the recent vote on the resolution on Iran...to preserve his 'viability'?

Profile in Courage? Hardly.

You can quibble about a thing here and there, but overall there are no substantive policy differences between the top-tier Dem candidates. I could live with the policies of anyone of them. The question is who has the leadership to implement them? That is HRC, which is even apparent by how she has run her campaign to-date.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 11:26 AM:

Obama actually has a remarkable amount of appeal among relatively conservative, white, and suburban and rural voters, particularly for a Democrat.

An Illinois conservative is a far cry from a Mississippi conservative.

It is to those "conservatives" that the top-tier Republican candidates were recently sending a subliminal message when they decided to skip the black-sponsored Morgan State University debate in Baltimore. Right on cue. You think that America is now color-blind enough to vote for a black man as POTUS? Think again...

Dave wrote on October 1, 2007 2:06 PM:

I wish I could find my comment on some other article about Obama and electability: the skinny of it was, I have a twin who worked for Heritage, remains connected (mother-in-law former head of Florida Republican party), most of her friends are lobbyists or work for legislators. Her husband is retired military now working for another think tank. My entire family is right wing, we come from a long lineage of Southern white racists, I'm the anomoly, but the gist of what she said was this: Rebuplicans are hoping they can convince Democrats that they want Hillary as the nominee so we would in turn make it Obama, they feel more confidence in beating Obama than with any other candidate against any ot their candidates. She's a religious zealot and advocates as a profession against science but she's says Rudy is their only hope, so she ignores her values and votes for him, common Republican thought is Rudy can beat anyone but Hillary. She also told me Kerry would be the nominee when I was convinced Dean couldn't be beaten, she said Kerry will be the nominee, that's the one they wanted. This time, top pick is Obama, but they'll settle for anyone but Hillary, apparently common Republican behind the scenes talk is she cannot be beaten. But no matter who they nominate, they can crush Obama, Republican see Obama giving them an historic landslide, a red nation.

dcshungu wrote on October 1, 2007 2:33 PM:

She's a religious zealot and advocates as a profession against science but she's says Rudy is their only hope, so she ignores her values and votes for him, common Republican thought is Rudy can beat anyone but Hillary.

The latest Survey USA numbers out of New York and California, which show Clinton literally crushing Rudy and the rest of them, but become competitive when either Obama or Edwards are matched against Giuliani, definitely bear that out. NY and CA should not be competitive for the Dems. Those two Dem bastions should be a blow out every time. If they are competitive then it would be a Repub victory by a landslide. At the moment, in poll after poll, Clinton is the Dem's strongest candidate in GE. She would win FL, AR, and some purple states, in addition to easily winning virtually every blue state. Obama will win zilch in the red and purple states, and would even lose some blue states because bigotry will still be alive and well is 2008 USA. The Repubs, whose future standard-bearers
skipped the black-sponsored debate in Baltimore last week in a not so subtle subliminal message, will make sure that the ante bellum menatlity is fully awake in white America in time for the election, if Obama is the Dem nominee. It is sad but no rocket science: That will be their strategy and they are not even bothering to hide it...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)