Obama Hits Hillary Again, This Time On Iran
Perhaps signaling a new and more aggressive phase in his campaign, Barack Obama strongly criticizes Hillary by name again today in an opinion piece he wrote for the New Hampshire Union Leader:
I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our "military presence in Iraq." Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible."Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections. But all of us knew what the Senate was debating in 2002. John Edwards has renounced his own vote for the war, and he should be applauded for his candor. After all, we didn't need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating diplomacy. No newspaper headlines ran on Oct. 12, 2002, reading, "Congress authorizes diplomacy." This was a vote to authorize war, and without that vote, there would have been no war.
America needs a leader who will make the right judgments about matters as grave as war and peace, and America needs a leader who will be straight with them.
Obama's challenge is to take Hillary's war vote -- and his early opposition to the invasion -- and make voters see it as relevant to the future, as a sign of what sort of President each would be. That's why he is knitting her recent Iran vote to the Iraq vote, and why concludes his Op ed with this: "This is not a debate about 2002; it's about the future, and in that debate I can run on, and not from, my record." It's unclear whether voters are seeing things this way yet, but Obama has a few more months to make this case.
Comments (30)
Daniel wrote on October 11, 2007 10:07 AM:Is Obama out of his mind? He MISSED THE VOTE and he co-sponsored the same amendment back in April!!
JoeCHI wrote on October 11, 2007 10:19 AM:Bingo, Daniel! I
n addtion, Obama made no mention of his identical-to-Clinton's Iraq Senate voting record.
goethean wrote on October 11, 2007 10:24 AM:Cue Clinton saying "I thought Barack wanted a 'new kind of poitics!'"
AJ wrote on October 11, 2007 10:33 AM:Absolutely Daniel. Obama has absolutely no credibility on this issue. He saw that Edwards was getting traction and decided to follow along.
elrapierwit wrote on October 11, 2007 10:47 AM:Obama missed the vote because Reid told him there would be no vote.
somehow despite the senate record attesting to Obama not skipping the vote the vote did come to the floor.
I wonder if the fact that Rory Reid, Harry's son works for HRC's campaign had anything to do with the vote coming up after Harry said it would not.
Obama definitely has a leg to stand on here and he should hammer Clinton on this point.
Obama made a statement BEFORE the vote saying he would not vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
He has more than a leg to stand on and all he needs to do is make the case and point out the facts.
The bill Obama co-sponsored never accused Iran of being responsible for acts of terrorism in Iraq...the Kyl -Lieberman bill does.
As far as HRC's 'new kind of politics' retort...Obama needs to take that on and say yes it is...we are focused on the issues, we have no problem answering questions when it comes to the war, speaking to foreign dignitaries we disagree with and discussing what the future will be for America.
Hillary needs to explain why if she was such a leader with so much experience she never once took to the Senate to lead on healthcare nor on NAFTA...yet now she wants to campaign on issues she has shown no leadership on and continues nevertheless to demonstrate poor judgment.
Obama not only has a leg to stand on their is a huge rock for him to show how Hillary refuses to address issues.
Even ones which she hears over and over on the campaign trail. Instead of answering the questions she dodges the issue NEVER answers and attacks the messenger. The oldest trick in the book.
Keep talking Obama, take your case to the people and show them what leadership is and how HRC's track record is devoid of leadership.
seanh wrote on October 11, 2007 10:49 AM:Daniel, we all appreciate your enthusiasm, but repeating this same point in every Obama Iran/Iraq issue posting is a little tiresome. Obama supporters aren't especially pleased with his lack of clarity on those specific issues, but there's still two sides to the story. I've posted it again, but apparently it needs to be quoted again.
Sen. Obama takes a walk
IRAQ WAR | Won't vote on measure condemning attack on general
Obama has a history going back to his days as a state senator of not voting or voting "present" when it comes to measures he considers designed specifically to produce a vote record that can be attacked.
Then, there's the official Obama statement on the vote
Obama Statement On the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment
Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.There's no doubt he hasn't been terribly clear about his exact position on this particular issue. Still, you're trying to say there's only one side to the argument, claiming he's a coward, war monger, copycat, Clinton wananbe, or whatever, but that's misleading and at least a little dishonest. Part of the problem with Obama's campaign is his lack of clarity on these important issues. He's speaking up, but not in the right places. He should have stated his position clearly in the debate the night following the vote. If the scheduling the of the vote was the reason he missed the vote (along with McCain), he should have said so. If he chose to miss the vote, but still had a strong position on the issue, he should have said so. Statements are available on that issue, but they're not easy to find.
Now please, can you please stop citing that same tired argument, so we can have a substantive debate on these most recent claims?
blackClinton wrote on October 11, 2007 10:52 AM:The problem with his campagn is that he is just Clinton-lite or black-Clinton.
Who cares?
Daniel wrote on October 11, 2007 11:00 AM:Obama has said REPEATELY he agrees with calling's Iran's Guard a terrorist group. He objects to linking Iran with Iraq. Now, hitting Hillary over the amendment is very misleading, as what most people remember (and what many Dems object to) is the terrorist designation -- which is the core of the amendment at this point. So very disingenuous of Obama to pretend like he substantively disagrees with Clinton on the issue.
horizonr wrote on October 11, 2007 11:07 AM:Suggested script:
Howard Wolfson It's unfortunate that Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope.
Media With all due respect, Senator Clinton, you are stonewalling. Answer the question.
Clinton Cackle, cackle, cackle.
Media Answer the question.
Clinton Cackle, cackle.
Media Answer the question.
Clinton Well, as I've said repeatedly, if I knew then what I know now--
Media Answer the question.
Clinton Well, again, as I've said before, Bush told us he would use the authority to--
Media Answer the question.
And so forth.
oleeb wrote on October 11, 2007 11:09 AM:Obama's points are legitimate and Clinton has never adequately explained her ongoing support for the war. She has never even said it was a mistake to invade Iraq. She has only said it has been poorly handled which is what makes so many Democrats so wary of her. Anyone thinking clearly at the time understood what a collosal error the invasion and occupation would be, let alone that it was and is illegal and immoral.
To date, Clinton has been able to deflect the criticism and keep the media focused on the horse race instead of the issues. If that changes and public attention is focused on the issues she could have serious problems maintaining her frontrunner status.
It's also legit to discuss Obama's missing of the vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Though his excuse for missing the vote is entirely legit, his staff should have known enough to get him back to DC for the vote. Regardless, he did not support Kyl-Liberman and Clinton did. It is entirely fair for him to point out that Clinton is the only Pres. candidate to vote for that odious and quite dangerous resolution.
Obama has the money to make the war an issue and a serious problem for Clinton. Will he choose to expend his resources thusly? Only his top people know that. But, what we can all surmise is that given his vast resources and ability to dominate the airwaves if he so chooses, he needs to do something quickly to change the dynamic of the race and also to change the storyline the media is pursuing regarding inevitability.
If hedecides to go on and stay on the attack it may hurt him or it may help him. Who knows at this point? He really has nothing to lose in going on the attack.
Given the very soft level of support all the candidates have I would certainly think it worth a try to diminish her level of support by going after her record on support for war in the middle east. She has really never faced a difficult electoral contest as a candidate and has not had to try and weather any sustained, legitimate criticism from anyone else in the presidential race. There's only one way to find out how strong her support really is and that's to get aggressive in criticizing her. To allow the dynamics to remain unchanged would be tantamount to giving up.
This will be interesting to observe in terms of whether Obama has the stomach to be really tough on her. He too has never really faced a difficult electoral challenge at least on the federal level so it's an important test for both he and she.
elrapierwit wrote on October 11, 2007 11:18 AM:Daniel,
Obam has not said REPEATEDLY that he agrees with calling Iran's Guard a terrorist group. Point of fact, that is not the issue he had with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
Obama's point is that the amendment links Iran with terrorism in Iran! Obama has made no statements nor has he supported any bills which link Iran to terrorist acts in Iraq. That is the distinction and you need to pay attention to that critical detail.
Afterall, that is the type of critical detail that led us to war with Iraq. The constant litany by Cheney that Saddam had links to Al-Q....or have you forgotten the MISLEADING DETAILS of how we were led to war with Iraq?
Please focus and pay attention the issue is not labelling any group a terrorist group the critical point is linking Iran to acts in Iraq.
Obama is not being disingenuous or misleading. Obama is articulating the false and misleading statements that were used to take us to war with Iraq and are now being touted once again use to sabber rattle and take us to war with Iran. Misleading amendments and linkages which Hillary has voted for once again.
You Daniel need to stop being disingenuous and misleading as to Barack's position.
Heretic wrote on October 11, 2007 11:19 AM:Obama is really getting desperate to go negative like this. Politics of hope, my ass. Ambitious ladder climber is more like it. I know there are a lot of netroots folks who hate Hillary, but I hate to tell you that you are a vast minority of the Demonratic party. All polls say she is more popular with Dems than any other candidate. All Obama accomplishes by bashing the favored candidate is ensuring that he will NEVER be elected president in our lifetimes. No one is going to change their minds about Hillary because of such rhetoric when, besides the netroots, no one cares about the issues he is raising. He is really getting some bad advice. Its too bad. He would have made a good candidate someday (like 20 years from now). Now, he'll be in the Senate forever (or more likely, quit after a term to follow the money).
seanh wrote on October 11, 2007 11:20 AM:Daniel, I understand where you're coming from, but there's more to the issue than you're willing to concede. While Hillary and Obama agree on the Revolutionary Guard's new terrorist status, that hardly means they're on the same page (which would make Obama's criticisms a little hypocritical) regarding Iran policy, and Congress's responsibilities to the American people on Iraq. There are subtleties to his argument that you're glossing over for the sake of an argument.
Iraq and Iran: Obama stepping it up?
“There was language embodied in that legislation that indicated that our troop presences in Iraq, in part, should be dependent on dealing with Iran,” said Obama of the September 26th resolution. He added, “And I think, given the past experience with Iraq, given Senator Clinton’s authorization of the war in Iraq, she should know that when you give this Administration a blank check, you shouldn’t be surprised if they cash it.”
Obama said that he agrees that the Revolutionary Guard has been promoting terrorism within the Middle East, he explained that he still does not agree with the text of the legislation. “I think that we have to be very careful and very cautious when it comes to providing any excuse for this administration to act outside of its authority.”
You claim it's misleading to criticize Hillary for her support of Kyl-Lieberman, simply because he happens to agree with one aspect of the resolution. As you noted, Jim Webb's main objection, the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, isn't what Obama disagrees with. Instead, he opposes (and his statement states this quite clearly, which you admit) the possibility that the amendment could be interpreted as a greenlight, or at least sign of acquiescence and surrender by Democrats on the Iran. Obama seems to be saying that the vote shows a weakness, and confuses voters who overwhelmingly desire a drastic shift in policy in Iraq (and recently, Iran) from Congress. Admittedly, this point isn't crystal clear (and again, that's part of the problem with the Obama campaign), but to claim the criticism is hypocritical simply because he happens to agree with Clinton regarding the Iranian Quds Force new flattering classification. seanh wrote on October 11, 2007 11:23 AM:
(append to comment above)...is silly
Daniel wrote on October 11, 2007 11:29 AM:Sean and elrea,
Do you agree that the Iran Revolutionary Guard should be labeled a terrorist group? I agree I am VERY disappointed Clinton voted for this stupid bill, I awcknowledge it. But Obama does agree with that label, has co-sponsored a bill about it, and has said that is not the part of the bill he disagrees with.
Now, I don't see that huge a difference between linking Iran with terrorist activities in Iraq and labeling a part of its army a terrorist group. Do you?
Daniel wrote on October 11, 2007 11:33 AM:Plus, Obama says this in his op-ed: "We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders."
So Iran sponsors terrorism... just not in Iraq. Is that his position?
Keith wrote on October 11, 2007 11:36 AM:Excellent op-ed, but the substance of it doesn't matter because (i) he missed the vote (nevermind that it was because of Reid), (ii) he co-sponsored a similar (but not similar) bill, (iii) he's voted to fund the war in the past, (iv) that his campaign is flagging or (v)that he's abandoned the politics of hope. Take your pick. So what if none of those things has anything to do with HRC's judgment. You aren't allowed to point out the emperor has no clothes on if your outfit doesn't match!
Now, let's get back to the coronation!
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 11:42 AM:Daniel:
You keep trying but you aren't getting any traction with your vain attempts to suggest that Obama is being hypocritical. I suspect the reason he and a majority of the Senate have voted to designate the IRG a terrorist group is to be able to focus sanctions and other penalties specifically against that group. Without that ability, they would have to go the UN and seek sanctions against the nation of Iran (not likely to happen with Russia and China having veteo power). So it is either punish the IRG or punish all of the Iranian people (IF you can get past a China/Russia veteo).
At first blush I too was troubled by this unprecedented move, but to the extent it allows for a more surgical application of sanctions, then I guess it's worth trying.
So now that we have that out of the way, let's here your retort on why HRC's judgment isn't that bad....
seanh wrote on October 11, 2007 11:46 AM:I'm not sure I'm informed enough about the intricacies of the issue, but it does seem like a pretty stupid amendment at best. At worst, it's misleading, irresponsible and arrogant. I wish Obama wasn't supporting that issue, but I'm not sure it's a huge issue for me. I'm also not entirely sure this is the issue Obama should be singling out for an attack on Clinton's policies.
Opposition to the amendment makes sense for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. The amendment seems like a step backwards, a concession by the Democratic Congress so afraid of being called cowards, they refuse to take a definitive stand on important national security issues. At a time when the Democrats shouldn't be surrendering one single inch of territory on the Iraq issue, they keep falling back. Republicans aren't budging an inch on Iraq, despite signs that their support of the war will further erode their representation in congress. Obama, it seems to me, is simply criticizing Clinton's unwillingness to take a principled stand, to totally and completely oppose the GOP and Administration's prevailing policies in the Middle East.
Again, his support of the Quds Force terrorist classification is puzzling, since it seems to signify a desire to look rough and tough on terrorism. Still, I do believe his position is a better one, and he does have a legitimate difference with Clinton worth examining and questioning.
oleeb wrote on October 11, 2007 11:47 AM:Heretic writes:
"No one is going to change their minds about Hillary because of such rhetoric when, besides the netroots, no one cares about the issues he is raising."
Surely you jest friend. Nobody cares about the war? I think you are way off the mark on that. I also think it is not accurate to say that Obama (and I'm not a supporter of his) is showing desperation by discussing Clinton's clear shortcomings on the number one issue of the day. If criticism of Hillary will only hurt Obama, then you ought to be cheering him on.
It's perfectly legitimate for candidates to highlight the substantial differences in their positions during a campaign. It isn't as though he is criticizing her marriage or her clothing here.
Clinton's support for the war from day one is a matter of record. He opposed the war at the start. It's true that he has voted very similarly to Clinton in the Senate on funding the war, and while it is legit to point that out it still isn't the same as being fully supportive of the invasion and occupation as she has been from day one. She has never said the war was a bad idea. She has only criticized the management of the war, not the legitimacy or advisability of it and even that retired General who endorsed her said so.
Her support for Kyl-Lieberman does, in the view of many people, represent another instance of very poor judgement. I don't see a vast sea of Hillary supporters defending that vote or saying it was a wise choice. I only hear her and folks in her camp trying to deflect the criticism and get back to focusing on the horse race. That's fine, you all can do as you wish, but Obama's criticism of her position on the war and on giving Bush the green light on attacking Iran (which is what Kyl-Lieberman is about) remains valid. Meanwhile, since casting that vote, Clinton has offered no adequate explanation of her support of it.
seanh wrote on October 11, 2007 11:51 AM:For all those claiming this piece abandons Obama's promise to keep his campaign positive, and focused on the issues, can you point out where he abandons those promises? Attacking policy and criticizing a difference of opinion is necessary, and hardly something his campaign promised to avoid.
Obama promised there wouldn't be smear campaigns, mud slinging and personal attacks. As long as Obama focuses on policy and avoids criticisms of Clinton's laugh, cleavage or general likability, critics might want to reconsider their claims that he's "abandoned politics of hope."
elrapierwit@msn.com wrote on October 11, 2007 12:13 PM:Daniel,
Here's a direct quote for you:
There's nothing wrong with identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, but it is a problem when you start using Iran as a justification for troop structures in Iraq and providing language that could potentially lead to military action in Iran," Obama said Monday, according to the Associated Press.
And in an interview with ABC News, Obama said: "Her willingness to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt I think indicates that she hasn't fully learned some of the lessons that we saw back in 2002."
Daniel,
I have a question for you...shouldn't the Israeli army be called a terrorist organization as well given that they too kill innocent children and victims?.
OOOps, I forgot, America has no need to impose sanctions on Israel so we will not be declaring them a terrorist organization. Aw we have no need of a UN sanctioned resolution against Israel. Even if they did bomb Syria.
I still don't get this. Do we think Bush will only want to attack Iran if it is involved in terrorist actions IN IRAQ? Saying that the Iranian army is a terrorist group has nothing to do with the desire to step up war rhetoric?
I have no problem with calling an army a terrorist organization. I do have a problem with calling it that if it is a first step towards attacking them for fabricated rasons. Someone said this is great we can do targeted strikes against the Guard now. TARGETED STRIKES AGAINST AN ARMY? That doesn't make sense. That means war, and Iran would respond by attacking its neighbors, and chaos would reign.
Obama's claim that labeling the Guard a terrorist group would not "provide language that might lead to military action in Iran" is unfathomable.
Also, I am not defending Clinton here, I'm attacking Obama. So I have no desire to defend her judgement as someone asked me. AS far as I'm concerned, they're doing the same exact thing here.
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 12:45 PM:Daniel:
If you are attacking Obama, you are doing a piss poor job of it. If you aren't interesting in understanding why a vast majority of the Senate voted to designate the IRG as a terrorist group, I don't know what to tell you.
Designating IRG as a terrorist group, in and of itself, does not authorize the Bush Administration to attack Iran (for the record, the State Department designated the IRG a terrorist group awhile ago). What does create the opening is the language in the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment because it establishes that the Senate believes two things (1) the IRG, directly or indirectly, are attacking our troops in Iraq and (2) that our continued military presence in Iraq is, in part, to check their influence in the region. So it justifies our continued presence in Iraq and provides an opening for the Bush Administration to attack the IRG (we would be justified because we are DEFENDING our troops--no Congressional authority needed for that).
Hopefully this is a little clearer for you. This was a BAD amendment since it calcifies what the Senate thinks (doesn't matter that all of the Senate doesn't agree with it).
dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 12:58 PM:Obama's claim that labeling the Guard a terrorist group would not "provide language that might lead to military action in Iran" is unfathomable.Also, I am not defending Clinton here, I'm attacking Obama. So I have no desire to defend her judgement as someone asked me. AS far as I'm concerned, they're doing the same exact thing here.
I full agree with this. It is the double standards that is galling. If you are going to criticize HRC on this (and there is some justification for it), you should not let those who have waffled or held the same point of view as hers off the hook. Durbin and Levin voted for the K-L Iran bill but against the AUMF bill, why? Obama skipped the K-L Iran bill and was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill, so we really do not know what Obama stands for since he has never voted on anything other than repeatedly voting "yea" for Iraq war funding to perpetuate a war that he claims to have "opposed"... Here's an open letter to the Good Senator from Illinois, that I just posted in a related TPC-EC thread, to express my view that he's not a credible messenger on this:
Senator, what do you really believe in? You have repeatedly told us that you are the "Wise One" because you had the good sense to "oppose" the war in 2002 and, sure enough, there is videotape evidence substantiating this claim. However, remember that back then, when you had expressed your "opposition", you were still a State Senator and were not in position to vote for or against the AUMF resolution; therefore, how you might have voted is immaterial. Nevertheless, let's assume that you would have voted "nay", although you have said publicly that you are not sure how you might have voted. Fair enough. Here, however, is the rub: If you were genuinely "opposed" to the war, why did you then get to Washington as a US Senator and vote for virtually every Iraq war funding measure that got to the Senate floor? How credible is your purported "opposition" to the war when, given the opportunity to substantively register your view, you voted repeatedly to perpetuate the war? Did you think that the billions of dollars that you had vote for were for Bush to go shopping to K-Mart? Senator, those were "blank checks" to the architect of the worst foreign policy debacle in American history to do more of the same! Do you see how people might consider this type of inconsistency and your current grand-standing to be just vile willful deception and political opportunism? And, really, Senator, don't you think that it is the ultimate in arrogance to criticize anyone for their vote on a bill (the Kyl-Lieberman amendment) that you conveniently skipped for fear of losing some of your "shine" if you got caught voting "nay" on a bill that contained the same exact objectionable provision found in a bill that you had co-sponsored not too long ago? You did not vote for the bill but you have the gall to criticize those who took their responsibility seriously enough to show up for a vote?! Are familiar you with the Hebrew-derived word chutzpah, Senator? Well, that just about sums it up...
I thought you should know how things look from out here in the real world.
dcshungu wrote on October 11, 2007 1:08 PM:To repeat and correct:
Did you think that the billions of dollars that you had voted for were for Bush to go shopping at K-Mart? Senator, those were "blank checks" to the architect of the worst foreign policy debacle in American history to do more of the same!
Hard-hitting and on the "money" (no pun intended), ey?...
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 1:26 PM:Dcshungu:
If you can address the substance, muddy the waters and hope that it distracts people.
This isn't about Obama, though you continue to make it so. So let's try this, I agree with you. He missed the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. He didn't vote on the 2002 AUMF. He's voted for funding the war on mulitple occasions.
Now which of those facts makes any of the following statements untrue:
1. The 2002 AUMF was not a bill about diplomacy, but a bill to authorize the use of military force against Iraq (recall the title: Authorization For The Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002).
2. Senator Clinton claims that she arrived at the vote after considerable deliberation, research and consulatation. She latter admits that she didn't read the NIE.
3. Senator claims that she only voted for diplomacy and that the act did not authorize war pre-emptive war against Iraq. She subsequently votes Nay against the Levin Amendment which would have required the Bush Administration to return to Congress to obtain authority to strike Iraq. No articles in the papers on October 11, 2002 reported that Congress approves diplomacy with Iraq.
4. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment contains language linking our presence in Iraq to countering Iran's influence in Iraq. It also contains unverified allegations that Iran is attacking our troops in Iraq.
4. After recieving considerable flak in the press, Senator Clinton belatedly agrees to be a co-sponsor of the Webb Amendment requiring the Bush Administration to obtain congressional approval before attacking Iran (implying that the Kyl-Amendment provides that justification). Webb believes this is a corrective measure designed to counterbalance her Yea vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (See October 3 Hardball).
It's unclear whether voters are seeing things this way yet, but Obama has a few more months to make this case.
Greg, I'm not sure what polls you are looking at. It seems pretty clear that voters are not seeing things Obama's way.
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
keith wrote on October 11, 2007 1:30 PM:HWC:
Don't forget that over 45% of NH's registered voters are registered as unaffiliated or independents. So, yes, HRC is leading with Democrats, but no polling is picking up the majority of NH voters (independents can vote in the Republican or Democratic primaries).
www.votenic.com wrote on October 12, 2007 4:27 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
