Poll: Hillary, Huckabee Leading In Iowa
A new poll from the American Research Group reminds us yet again that Iowa is a big question mark, finding that Hillary is leading in Iowa:
Hillary 34% (last week 29%)Edwards 20% (last week 18%)
Obama 19% (last week 25%)
Biden 8% (last week 8%)
The poll says that Hillary holds a 17-point lead against Obama among women and that Obama has lost ground among men to both Hillary and Edwards. Of course, the obvious caveat is that Iowa polls have been all over the place, and a number of recent ones have found the top three Dems in a dead heat, with a few finding Obama ahead.
Meanwhile, on the GOP side Mike Huckabee leads with 23%, Romney has 21%, John McCain has 17%, and Rudy has 14%. Thompson, meanwhile, is completely in the toilet, with all of three percent.
Comments (115)
DTM wrote on December 24, 2007 11:56 AM:This comment is not specific to this poll, but I think people need to be aware the polls may start being even more volatile than usual thanks to the holiday effect.
Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 12:00 PM:Merry Christmas Clinton II people. Dc, where are you? Time to start crowing again.
Bill Clinton wrote on December 24, 2007 12:04 PM:What the heck is up with this? I know things are going to be volatile, but I'd feel a lot better if they were volatile in Obama's favor.
Am wrote on December 24, 2007 12:24 PM:These polls are just ridiculous! They are all over the place.
As for the GOP side, how is McCain in double digits? Therefore, some credibility issues rise up?
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 12:27 PM:Worthy of note: 22 percent of those polled are undecided. Obama leads the canidates in percentage of supporters that say they are firmly committed: 89 percent.
The timing of the new January 3 Iowa caucus [except for Hillary supporters who will caucus on January 15 hahahhahaha] is that it follows so closely the Christma-New Years holidays, when people will be gathering, traveling and inevitably sharing opinions. A new twist. For good or for bad, these numbers will likely change substantially.
dcshungu wrote on December 24, 2007 12:43 PM:Poll: Hillary, Huckabee Leading In IowaGreg,
You can justifiably call Hillary's numbers v. JRE's on the Dem side in this poll a "lead" because the difference is clearly outside of the MOE, despite the usual caveat about IA polls. However, Huckabee is NOT leading in IA. Also, earlier today you had a big headline on the main TPM site touting Obama's "lead" in NH, but when I looked at the actual numbers, Obama had 30% and Hillary 28% with a HUGE MOE. With such casual and "cavalier" headlines, I must wonder if this is done purposefully or if TPM-EC just has trouble interpreting simple stats...
Inquiring minds wanna know.
Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Gee, dc, you can't even crow about good news for you? Man these last few weeks must have really got to you.
I guess it comes down to what the definition of lead is? Kinda like the definition of what is, is? Consistently, they have said clinton II was in the lead when it was within the margin of error, so presumably they would do it with all candidates.
dcshungu wrote on December 24, 2007 1:14 PM:Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Gee, dc, you can't even crow about good news for you? Man these last few weeks must have really got to you.
I guess it comes down to what the definition of lead is? Kinda like the definition of what is, is? Consistently, they have said clinton II was in the lead when it was within the margin of error, so presumably they would do it with all candidates.
Michael,
It must be nice to be so free of the "ravages" of intelligence, but it is becoming rather irritating to read your comments. Is it probably time you stopped spewing this nonsense? I am interested in an educated sense of the dynamics of the race, especially now that we are so close. Decreasing your noise level just a bit could sufficiently improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to allow us a better reading of these polls. Thank you.
Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 1:25 PM:No holiday spirit huh dc. I started reading your dig and I thought you were referring to yourself at first. I think that you may be off your meds.
Your welcome.
Pandora wrote on December 24, 2007 1:39 PM:Worthy of note: 22 percent of those polled are undecided. Obama leads the canidates in percentage of supporters that say they are firmly committed: 89 percent.
I see only 10% undecided in this poll.
Looking at only ARG poll numbers from Nov 10-14 through this latest poll it looks major change is in Richardson and Hillary's numbers. Richardson has lost 7 points and Hillary has gained 7 points. Obama has dropped 2 points. It is likely that Biden soft supporters may end up going with HRC.
Obama may have peaked too soon or his soft support may be fading. DMR endorsment may have helped HRC. Obama needs to keep up the momentum if he wants to win because Jan 3rd date is not in his favor (many factors such as college students, young voters, first time voters, Orange bowl, weather etc.)
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 1:44 PM:ARG is consistently strange. I don't really trust what they say, and I am and Edwards supporter. Pollster.com lists all the polls, and consistently ARG is an outlier. Real strong house-effects. Something odd, but we will see soon enough if they are right.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 1:48 PM:pandora:
"22% of likely caucus participants are undecided (10%) or say that they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (12%)."
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-715.html
Pandora spins: "Obama may have peaked too soon or his soft support may be fading."
Trust me on this, there is nothing softer than Hillary's "support" in Iowa. Most of it is actually support for Bill, and he's making a big mess of things.
Random wrote on December 24, 2007 1:55 PM:When it comes to casting a ballot, very few Americans like or are comfortable with the idea of Mrs. Bill Clinton as president. And many more just don't want the Clintons back in the White House and the tabloid headlines. Too much of a distraction in these difficult times.
Reality will hit when its time to vote and it want be pretty for Mrs. Bill.
BluePuppy wrote on December 24, 2007 1:56 PM:Good morning, friends. It looks like Christmas has come early. Goddess bless, BluePuppy.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 2:01 PM:ARG has the worst record among primary pollsters. Let's remember that this was the firm that predicted Bush would win New Hampshire over McCain. They were off by 20 POINTS.
This poll is pretty easy to puzzle out:
Polled during the busy holiday shopping weekend, when an estimated 40% of the nation is in transit. The least likely demographic to travel in the holiday season is 65+, who make up less than 8% of travelers while composing 13% of the population. ARG never reveals their internals (a suspect practice in and of itself) but we likely have a major oversampling of a demographic that favors Clinton.
Last week ARG's results were already the most favorable to Clinton relative to other polls, and their results are composed of "COMPLETED" surveys, usually an indication that many results have been discarded, either as a result of a pre-screen, or as a result of impatience of callers with the polling methodology.
So, basically, the sample skews old. They're polling under conditions that even Rasmussen refuses to poll under (they stopped their tracking poll this weekend). And ARG is notorious for ghastly primary season polls.
Pandora wrote on December 24, 2007 2:01 PM:Concerned...
I am not trying to spin and if I was trying to spin no voter in their right mind would listen to me and vote by my spin. I am just trying to pose possibilities. It is likely that someone will breakout this week because in Iowa all candidates had soft supports from the beginning and may be the voters are finally making up their minds. However, Iowa is a tricky place and 2nd choice, organization will play a major role this time.
Maxwell wrote on December 24, 2007 2:01 PM:ARG has the worst record among primary pollsters. Let's remember that this was the firm that predicted Bush would win New Hampshire over McCain. They were off by 20 POINTS.
This poll is pretty easy to puzzle out:
Polled during the busy holiday shopping weekend, when an estimated 40% of the nation is in transit. The least likely demographic to travel in the holiday season is 65+, who make up less than 8% of travelers while composing 13% of the population. ARG never reveals their internals (a suspect practice in and of itself) but we likely have a major oversampling of a demographic that favors Clinton.
Last week ARG's results were already the most favorable to Clinton relative to other polls, and their results are composed of "COMPLETED" surveys, usually an indication that many results have been discarded, either as a result of a pre-screen, or as a result of impatience of callers with the polling methodology.
So, basically, the sample skews old. They're polling under conditions that even Rasmussen refuses to poll under (they stopped their tracking poll this weekend). And ARG is notorious for ghastly primary season polls.
john mccutchen wrote on December 24, 2007 2:04 PM:Yeah ARG's probably out to lunch, but what if they aren't????
Clinton urges Iowa voters to caucus on wrong dayMaxwell wrote on December 24, 2007 2:08 PM:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton may have shot herself in the foot trying to get Iowa voters to pledge support to her -- she is encouraging them to go caucus on January 14, 11 days too late.
At a rally featuring her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton on Saturday, campaign workers asked supporters to sign and mail cards that said "Yes! I'm an Iowan for Hillary" with their contact information as well as other supportive friends.
One small problem. In the upper right-hand corner of the card, it says "I, _____, pledge to support Hillary Clinton at my precinct caucus on January 14, 2008."
Unfortunately, that's 11 days too late. The Iowa caucuses are January 3 and organization is key to getting voters to go to the events and support their preferred candidate.
The Politico.com, an Internet site that specializes in politics and first reported the mistake, said at Bill Clinton's second event on Saturday the cards had the wrong date crossed out and replaced with the correct date.
ARG has the worst record among primary pollsters. Let's remember that this was the firm that predicted Bush would win New Hampshire over McCain. They were off by 20 POINTS.
From a Washington Post assessment of their record in New Hampshire primaries:
The New Hampshire-based American Research Group's tracking poll ended up buried deepest in the snow bank: They had Bush winning by two the day before the primary, merely 20 points off the mark. On the Democratic side, the losing pollster at least got the winner right: The Quinnipiac poll predicted Gore would win by 17 percentage points, but he actually won by four.It was the second debacle for ARG in as many New Hampshire Republican primaries. The day before the 1996 contest, ARG's Dick Bennett told the Union Leader, "It looks like Dole's going to win," based on the Kansan's seven point advantage in their tracking poll. He didn't, losing to Pat Buchanan by a single percentage point.
Meanwhile, this poll is pretty easy to puzzle out:
Polled during the busy holiday shopping weekend, when an estimated 40% of the nation is in transit. The least likely demographic to travel in the holiday season is 65+, who make up less than 8% of travelers while composing 13% of the population. ARG never reveals their internals (a suspect practice in and of itself) but we likely have a major oversampling of a demographic that favors Clinton.
Last week ARG's results were already the most favorable to Clinton relative to other polls, and their results are composed of "COMPLETED" surveys, usually an indication that many results have been discarded, either as a result of a pre-screen, or as a result of impatience of callers with the polling methodology.
So, basically, the sample skews old. They're polling under conditions that even Rasmussen refuses to poll under (they stopped their tracking poll this weekend). And ARG is notorious for ghastly primary season polls.
Pandora wrote on December 24, 2007 2:13 PM:With so many missteps HRC campaign has made in last few weeks, both Obama or Edwards has not been able to gain much ground on her. At least most polls show the IA race is with margin of error.
framecop wrote on December 24, 2007 2:17 PM:Anyone who believes ARG's polls is an idiot.
ARG has had Clinton leading in EVERY FREAKING POLL THEY HAVE DONE THIS YEAR, but one (November 10-14).
When EVERY OTHER POLL IN THE COUNTRY was showing Edwards leading in Iowa, ARG still had Clinton ahead their...COMFORTABLE.
For you all to even be posting this crap on TPM is hilarious.
If you are going to post these poll numbers, post links to EVERY OTHER ARG POLL so that your readers can get some perspetive on just how CRAPPY ARG is.
Ni Daye wrote on December 24, 2007 2:28 PM:haha, obama lovers, try not to think too much about ARG poll while having christmas dinner. If it helps, just think the poll is totally out of whack, as long as it helps you with your limited mind power!
Have you heard head=clinton, heart=obama, and gut=edwards. Cool heads already prevail! Obama is a whimsical phonomenon. His hope to win nomination relies on he wins both IA and NH convincingly such that Hillary's national poll leading position is meaningless. this is clearly not happening!
Good luck with your emotional roll-coast ride, obama lovers! Your heart may be broken soon enough. Enjoy your hallow happiness while it lasts!
BluePuppy wrote on December 24, 2007 2:34 PM:WaPo has Edwards, Obama, and Hillary debating on Christmas day. Does anyone know what this is about?
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/
Pandora wrote on December 24, 2007 3:05 PM:Edwards going after Obama now. This is getting interesting...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/24/in_shifting_race_edwards_aims_for_the_gut/
bablan wrote on December 24, 2007 3:20 PM:Obama's bashing of the union 527s should probably have an impact negatively on him in the polls.
Maxwell wrote on December 24, 2007 3:30 PM:Can I get a quote where Obama "bashes" union 527s?
As far as I've read, Obama isn't against 527s.
Obama is bashing Edwards for saying 527s are bad and then taking money from them.
David wrote on December 24, 2007 4:03 PM:You know this poll is full of it. Obama is catching fire everywhere as people realize just how much they don't want to listen to that cackle over the next 4 years.
MC wrote on December 24, 2007 4:04 PM:She is so toast, particularly the more that Bill opens his mouth. The country is so ready for the Clintons to leave.
roo_P wrote on December 24, 2007 4:11 PM:Ni Daye,
You never answered my requests to provide examples of how Clinton's experience has allowed to her make better decisions than her rivals.
Would you have the time to do so now?
Carolyn Grace wrote on December 24, 2007 4:12 PM:This poll is so out of whack. No way Hillary is leading by this much in Iowa of all places, no way. Is American Research Group the one that has ties to the Clintons? If anything, she should be down in 3rd place. She will not win Iowa.
When I Rock it's Like a High Five wrote on December 24, 2007 4:20 PM:You guys know full well that this poll captures the mood of Iowa. The DMR endorsement, Hillary's renewed focus & bio spots, Bacrack Hussein's lack of experience...all of this is being taken into account by Iowa voters. Merry Christmas, Hillary Haters...your days are numbered.
kjoe wrote on December 24, 2007 4:28 PM:I guess the best response to this poll should be a Bill Clinton type of comment, except for obama, instead of hillary. "Barack's numbers don't look bad. It is a miracle he is polling above 15 percent. If he gets any votes at all, it will be a sign he has run a great campaign and is really connecting with people. No one expected very much from him in a state like Iowa. Hillary will be in real trouble if she gets less than 40 percent."
Ok Hillary---we expect you to live up to expectations of these experts at arg.
dcshungu wrote on December 24, 2007 4:42 PM:roo_P wrote on December 24, 2007 4:11 PM:Ni Daye,
You never answered my requests to provide examples of how Clinton's experience has allowed to her make better decisions than her rivals.
Would you have the time to do so now?
Start here. It is all factual but if you disagree, feel free to liberally use something called "Google" to fact-check...
(whispering: He'll just come back and dismiss the whole piece...)
TomGrinker wrote on December 24, 2007 5:20 PM:Someone convince me why I should vote for Edwards? I am ready to disqualify anyone who voted for the war but can re-consider.
Tara wrote on December 24, 2007 5:20 PM:Good job dcshungu !
Of course it will be dismissed. Then the same requests will be asked over and over again.
Tara wrote on December 24, 2007 5:38 PM:The poll is right on.
The rest of you can't handle the truth.
I believe it is still a toss up though. It all depends on who shows up Jan 3rd and the weather.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 6:11 PM:Tara, is Hillary's new head cheerleader, like wow.
John wrote on December 24, 2007 6:14 PM:If this poll is accurate, God help us all!
Liam wrote on December 24, 2007 6:28 PM:Polls can not measure who will caucus, and who people will select as their second choices, in the Iowa caucus system. It is not like going into a polling booth and filling out a ballot.
People will be walking into meeting places, where they will be subjected to heavy crossfire from those who are supporting other candidates.
If their first choice does not meet the 15% threshold, at a given meeting site, they will then have to pick another candidate to support.
How the hell can any poll gauge who will be the most successful at persuading other caucus attendees, and which attendees will have weak sales resistance, and get steamrolled by some slick talkers from various camps.
Ignore the Iowa polls. They may be able to gauge voter opinions, but they can not in any way foresee what will happen to those voters after they have to declare in front of their neighbors, fellow church members, and even their bosses.
That is why Iowa is a farce, and anti-democratic. It is all about peer pressure, and conformity.
The Iowa caucus system should be eliminated, because it violates the sanctity of the individual private voting rights of all citizens.
vena wrote on December 24, 2007 6:48 PM:I think no matter what, Hillary is going to get the nomination. However, the polls are all biased and faulty. All that matters is what happens on the third.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 6:56 PM:Vena said: "I think no matter what, Hillary is going to get the nomination."
I have much more faith in Democratic voters, who have seen the abuses of the Bush administation and must recognize that Hillary will continue them.
If Hillary is nominated, however, I desperately hope that Bloomberg will use his billions to mount an alternative, third-party bid. Progressive voters need an alternative to Republican vs. Bush lite.
framecop wrote on December 24, 2007 6:58 PM:Maxwell wrote on December 24, 2007 3:30 PM: Can I get a quote where Obama "bashes" union 527s?As far as I've read, Obama isn't against 527s.
Obama is bashing Edwards for saying 527s are bad and then taking money from them.
YOU DON'T GET MONEY FROM 527s, you moron.
Yet another Obama supporter proves himself to be clueless.
Oh, and ARG has shown Clinton leading ALL YEAR LONG IN IOWA.
All of ARG's polls are outliers.
Jinchi wrote on December 24, 2007 7:33 PM:Obama may have peaked too soon or his soft support may be fading.
Those of you who believe that real support for Clinton vs Obama swung 11% in one week simply don't understand the sources of error in polling. Two polls taken on the same day can often differ by similar margins.
Polls are guides at best, but most people take them so literally that they're actually deceptive.
DemAC wrote on December 24, 2007 7:33 PM:vena wrote: I think no matter what, Hillary is going to get the nominationFrom your keypad to God’s screen. Merry Christmas y’all, and may the best woman prevail on January 3. hadenough wrote on December 24, 2007 8:30 PM:
kleefeld weeps:
Hillary 34% (last week 29%)
Obama 19% (last week 25%)
Ha!
It is so obvious that this poll is inaccurate. Team Clinton already knows they've lost Iowa (their internal polls have her losing big time). That is why she's been in NH...because she's starting to lose that as well. This poll is a fake one. The emporess (read: Be-otch) has no clothes!
GO OBAMA GO!
Brian Regan wrote on December 24, 2007 9:09 PM:I heard that too from a friend close to someone on the inside of the Clinton campaign. Their internals have her losing by more than the public polls do. That is exactly why she's in NH to stem the bleeding there. Even Edwards has been polling better than Hill according to the internal Clinton campaign polls. She is headed for 3rd in Iowa and everyone on the ground knows it. This poll was a mistake and that's all they have to point to right now.
Margaret McGowan wrote on December 24, 2007 9:10 PM:What I want to know is when will Hillary's lesbian lover show up on the trail?
Bajsa wrote on December 24, 2007 9:12 PM:Why exactly are you all arguing about this? The caucus is in ten days and you will know the answer from the only poll that matters. If you want to help whomever you support, go for it. I'm sure they would really appreciate it.
Ni Daye wrote on December 24, 2007 9:42 PM:Susan Miller wrote on December 24, 2007 9:06 PM:
It is so obvious that this poll is inaccurate. Team Clinton already knows they've lost Iowa (their internal polls have her losing big time). That is why she's been in NH...because she's starting to lose that as well. This poll is a fake one. The emporess (read: Be-otch) has no clothes!
--- by your screen name, you are supposed to be a female. Shame on you for postng such distasteful message. Have you no decency!
dcshungu wrote on December 24, 2007 10:20 PM:Susan Miller wrote on December 24, 2007 9:06 PM:It is so obvious that this poll is inaccurate. Team Clinton already knows they've lost Iowa (their internal polls have her losing big time). That is why she's been in NH...because she's starting to lose that as well
There is no evidence whatsoever to support your canard. "Hearsay" will never pass for credible evidence, even the court of public opinion. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is the Obama and Edwards camps that are now scrambling to position themselves as the alternative to Clinton. This suggests that their internal polls already show Clinton pulling away and they're trying to position themselves for the #2 spot in IA. Today's Boston Globe:
In shifting race, Edwards aims for the gut Takes on Obama in bid to project himself as alternative to Clinton
By Sasha Issenberg
Globe Staff / December 24, 2007
DES MOINES - John Edwards, who long has found common cause with Barack Obama in portraying Hillary Clinton as a defender of the Washington status quo, is now trying to distinguish himself from Obama by saying the Illino
is senator lacks the toughness to upend the Washington order.
And the whine and gloat cycle of the Obama zealots continues unabated.
heretic wrote on December 24, 2007 10:56 PM:Dc,
I read the link over at huffpo. Good stuff. But those comments. What a sad bunch of people the so-called netroots are. Maybe its unfair to equate those who label themselves this way as Obama zealots or Hillary-haters. But I spend hours each day reading news stories, blogs, and comments, and I would never call ally myself with this supposedly important source of grassroots power in the party. A bunch of shrill, irrational children who actually make Barack Obama look worthy in comparison. I wonder if he cringes when he reads the comments of his "supporters."
Bob Barker wrote on December 24, 2007 11:19 PM:The only person who is shrill is Hillary Clinton.
Someone in the Know wrote on December 24, 2007 11:20 PM:The posts above are correct about Hillary's internal numbers. They know they are going to lose there. It seems like Obama v Edwards in Iowa and possibly Obama over Hillary in NH.
"The posts above are correct about Hillary's internal numbers."
I love it. You Hillary Haters have a screw loose. Since Penn doesn't release internals, you have no way of knowing. You're desperate, and you know phony baloney Hussein is going down. Move to Cuba or N. Korea or Berkeley, your kind is not wanted in the Democratic party.
Susan Fischer wrote on December 25, 2007 2:15 AM:The only person not wanted in the Dem party is Hillary. Obviously. She has consistently the highest negatives, even after "people get to know her." She will not energize the Dems but will single-handedly galvanize the GOP. She is the one candidate who *doesn't* represent change. To the contrary. She voted for Iraq and Iran.
They must be realizing imminent loss in Hillaryland if they are now calling him Hussein. Can you say desperation?
Dianne Longstein wrote on December 25, 2007 2:17 AM:No question about that. Just wait until Gore endorses Obama or Edwards next week. What are they going to come back with? Sandy Berger?
Janice Schwartz wrote on December 25, 2007 2:44 AM:From Mickey Kaus at Slate today:
If Hillary's poll numbers in Iowa show her losing badly early next week, wouldn't she be smart to have her much-rumored staff shakeup the day before the Iowa caucuses? That way a) the story the next day becomes "Hillary relaunches campaign" instead of "Hillary crushed" and b) she might even convince some people that she lost because of the staff shakeup. ...Even if she doesn't think she needs a shakeup, it might be a good idea to have one. ... P.S.: Blame Bill: Implicitly blaming her staff seems more promising than blaming her husband. She' stuck with her husband.** And do we really think Hillary's main problem is subconscious sabotage from her husband? Isn't Hillary's problem Hillary? ...
**--Unless ... you don't think ... Now that would be a staff shakeup. ... 10:51 A.M. link
From Mickey Kaus at Slate today:
No self-respecting Dem or progressive should ever quote Mickey Kaus. The guy is a delusional lunatic who thinks that he is on a divine mission to "clean up" the Dem party and that the best way to accomplish this mission is to disparage every Dem candidate, at every level, who looks he or she has a very good shot at winning it all. If Edwards and/or Obama look strong coming out the early states, watch for uncle Mickey to train his firing line on them. And no matter who the Dems' eventual nominee turns out to be, Kaus will make that he won't be outdone by the Repub Smear Machine in beating upon and disparaging that candidate... Just ask Gore or Kerry.
Who needs a Repub smear machine when there is Mickey Kaus?
Kefa wrote on December 25, 2007 7:35 AM:Happy Holidays to all
My wish is for a united Dem party in 08.
Barbara Miller wrote on December 25, 2007 9:50 AM:There will be no Dem unity if Hillary gets the nom. Ther are so many people who absolutely hate her. I don't hate her but could never bring myself to vote for her. Count me as a Bloomberg supporter if Obama or Edwards doesn't get it. He has much better leadership skills, experience, is not polarizing, and did not support Iraq. Hillary is just downright awful.
Janice Schwartz wrote on December 25, 2007 9:55 AM:Hey Dschungu-
I could have quoted David Broder or Fareek Zakaria as well. The best candidate for Democratic (and world unity) is Barack Obama and even you nasty little Clinton people know it. Stop hating yourselves (and everyone else) and come aboard. The train is leaving the station.
Merry Christmas.
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 9:55 AM:~CACKLE~
Gorman wrote on December 25, 2007 10:04 AM:When I heard her cackle and say " I can't wait to hear that" at the last Dem debate I lost it. Right before my eyes she turned into the characterization that all of her syncophants (like many on this board including Greg Sargent) try so hard to say isn't true. She is so fake and disgusting. It is no wonder Marc Penn is the leading strategist for this campaign. Have you ever seen a less likeable guy?
High priestess wrote on December 25, 2007 12:21 PM:Negative spin, people.
If Obama can finish in the top three in Iowa, it'll be huge victory. He's up against the "Michael Whouley machine" for Hillary, and the Edwards union-machine. With the very early (Jan 3?!) primary, turnout will be lower than hoped. There's no way Obama will get either first or second place in IA. But if he can keep a strong third-place showing, and get in the top two in New Hampshire, it'll keep him going long enough to pick up support from others.
It's still going to be a very touch race for Obama (who I support 100%). Getting endorsements from the other candidates will be hard. Biden will endorse Hillary. Richardson had a falling-out with Hillary last week, so is possible. I'm hoping Dodd endorses Obama.
Jan wrote on December 25, 2007 1:08 PM:Random wrote on December 24, 2007 1:55 PM: "When it comes to casting a ballot, very few Americans like or are comfortable with the idea of Mrs. Bill Clinton as president."
LOL!
Guess what?
I'm VERY comfortable casting a ballot for Mrs. Bill Clinton for President.
psst! You're in the minority.
Oh, unless you're a Loyal Bushie!
Yeah, they don't like Mr. OR Mrs. Bill Clinton very much.
We call 'em Clinton Haters.
They are all idiots.
There is a huge difference between us Hillary supporters and obama lovers. We don't like the "adaucity" of Obama who thinks he is the best man for the job with virtually no experience and the hypercracy that he can bring people together but has offered little evidence of doing that other than smooth talk. However, we don't hate him. If god forbidden he is somehow nominated, we will be very happy to support him.
You Obama lovers, on the other hand, are Hillary haters. Somehow you still think the government can solve all your little problem and refuses to recoginize teh world has moved on. You hate Hillary so much that you refuse to acknowledge Hillary has a better Healthcare plan, refuse to acknowledge her experience, and her tremendous work on behalf the children, healthcare, and American diplomacy. Most of you have professed your hatred against Hillary so much so that you would not vote for her even this means the election of Bush III.
Your lack of rational thinking ability is beyond belief!
Ni Daye wrote on December 25, 2007 1:34 PM:Honestly, what worries me most is the resurgence of McCain. If he emerges, all of us are screwed. His immigration stand will make him very attractive to Hispanics. Who would not love his personal heroics? How can anyone challenge his experience? Yea, you may think his pro-war stand makes him unacceptable. Maybe to you but not the a majority of Americans. He's taking full credit of the unquestioned millitary success of the "surge" and people will definitely respect his millitary leadership. The Gopers may be much smarter than you self-fighting ultra-liberals. I would have no problem voting for him myself except for two words: Supreme court!
What do you think about putting Obama alongside McCain? McCain would eat this little man for lunch, period! Hillary, on the other hand, may have a fighting chance. Policy vs. policy, experience vs. experience, change (real heathcare reform) vs. status quo.
dcshungu wrote on December 25, 2007 1:53 PM:Janice Schwartz wrote on December 25, 2007 9:55 AM:Hey Dschungu-
I could have quoted David Broder or Fareek Zakaria as well. The best candidate for Democratic (and world unity) is Barack Obama and even you nasty little Clinton people know it. Stop hating yourselves (and everyone else) and come aboard. The train is leaving the station.
Merry Christmas.
Dear Janice: Lets' tone things down a bit. The election is just around the corner so that we'd find out very soon. But, our candidates agree so much amongst themselves on issues in comparison to the folks we'd like to ultimately run out of power (already done that in Congress; the WH is next), that I pledge here today to support Obama whole-heartedly in the GE if he is our nominee. I hope you'd make the same pledge to support Hillary is she is our pick.
Cheers and Merry Xmas!
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 25, 2007 2:04 PM:I certainly agree that, of all the GOP candidates, McCain worries me the most. That said, I am far from convinced that Clinton would stand a better chance against him than Obama (or, come to that, that Obama would stand a better chance against him than Clinton).
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 2:37 PM:there was a poll that showed voters hold more wariness for candidates who are old than they have for candidates of color or a woman.
roo_P wrote on December 25, 2007 3:57 PM:Ni Daye:
There is a huge difference between us Hillary supporters and obama lovers.
I do not think it is prudent of any objective observer or non-fanatical supporter to claim that their side is purely rational and only the other is purely fanatical. It is, to me, rather obvious that both sides have their share of blind ideologues.
We don't like the "adaucity" of Obama who thinks he is the best man for the job with virtually no experience and the hypercracy that he can bring people together but has offered little evidence of doing that other than smooth talk.
He can count healthcare bills, proliferation bills and much more among his bipartisan bills. Among the others, a lot of ethics and transparency work (I think Obama and Kuchinich are the only two Democrats to have agreed to the "Google Government" concept of fully available records.)
For strict legislative record of bills sponsored by Obama, please see:
Illinois General Assembly
U.S. Senate
(Normal caveats apply, there are many useless bills there, too, just like every other legislator.)
http://www.govtrack.us is another good site.
However, we don't hate him. If god forbidden he is somehow nominated, we will be very happy to support him.Glad to hear that.
Somehow you still think the government can solve all your little problem and refuses to recoginize teh world has moved on.
I am somewhat troubled by this statement. You are saying that A) more privatisation etc. is good and B) Clinton is in favour of more privatisation etc. because she has "moved on" with the world?
You hate Hillary so much that you refuse to acknowledge Hillary has a better Healthcare plan, ...
Please provide specific details why her plan is better and why you believe it is in a better position to be made into law?
... refuse to acknowledge her experience, ...
I can acknowledge her experience if you cite at least one or two specific examples of Clinton's experience and where she has used that experience to make better decisions than her Democratic rivals.
... and her tremendous work on behalf the children, ...
OK
... healthcare, ...
Can you provide examples other than the disaster of her task force in the 90's which, in my opinion, set the health care debate back by a decade in this country?
... and American diplomacy.
Can you provide any specific examples of her achievements here?
Most of you have professed your hatred against Hillary so much so that you would not vote for her even this means the election of Bush III.Your lack of rational thinking ability is beyond belief!
The above questions are given for you to answer in the interest of upholding a rational discussion and I am sure that you will be able to provide myself and others with rational answers so that we can judge her merits in factual terms.
Jim H wrote on December 25, 2007 4:34 PM:"Worthy of note: 22 percent of those polled are undecided. Obama leads the canidates in percentage of supporters that say they are firmly committed: 89 percent."
Which could also mean that he's peaked, no? Maybe having fanatics in your corner doesn't help you? Dunno. The thing is, you can spin anything any way you want to. I think it's time to take a deep breath, enjoy the season, and forget about the smoky back rooms of politics.
I'm not at all sure what Iowa will mean, for starters. If Hillary loses, Chris Matthews' big fat head will explode, but that's no big loss. Four percent of Iowa voters, approximately, will meet and go through a baffling ritual that's more like Mr. Chips' Passing Out Ceremony than any town hall meeting, and elect a favorite with a tiny number of delegates at the convention. This will be shouted up as "the big Mo," or not. Different fans of different candidates will cheer and scream foul. Very little will have taken place except the first of a large number of primary votes in the election of our lives.
I'm still for Hill. I think she's the levelest head to get us through the next bumpy years. Others apparently think otherwise. The "market" bet is still 60% for Hillary. Bonne chance a tous!
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 5:07 PM:You hate Hillary so much that you refuse to acknowledge Hillary has a better Healthcare plan, refuse to acknowledge her experience, ...
i'd be more than happy to reassess hillary's candidacy and acknowledge her experience if she releases all of her policy papers and white house related memos.
Kefa wrote on December 25, 2007 5:52 PM:And down the stretch they come.
Janice wrote on December 25, 2007 7:30 PM:Amazing to see the Clinton spinmeisters out in force. Face it folks: the more people get to know her the less they like her. She is shrill, calculating and incapable of bringing the country together. She also does not possess all of the "experience" she purports to.
Time to face the facts like most of the rest of country. Nobody with negatives that high will ever be elected.
Barbara Miller wrote on December 25, 2007 7:33 PM:Hey Ni Daye-
Problem is the Hillary haters aren't just the Obama lovers. Hillary haters run across the board. She does not energize more than 50% of her base (I for one will be voting for Bloomberg if she is the nominee) and will definitely energize the GOP. In fact, a Clinton candidacy will do more to energize the listless GOP than anything they can do for themselves. Bottom line: She is DOA. Hopefully we won't have to deal with her as she will be yet another losing Mondale/Kerry-like candidacy.
Barb
Barb wrote on December 25, 2007 7:36 PM:Obama also has the best shot at McCain. He will be a stark contrast any way you look at it. Old vs. young. Past vs. future. Pro-Iraq vs. anti-Iraq. Hillary on the other hand would get CRUSHED by McCain. They have the same views on the major positions, he has infinitely more experience than she does and is more likable by several orders of magnitude. Kiss t goodbye if it is McCain v. Hillary. Obama is the only one who would decisively beat him and you know it.
Matt Baxter wrote on December 25, 2007 7:38 PM:Bloomberg is definitely my candidate if Hillary gets it. I have never not voted Dem but I will this time if she is the nominee. I could even see myself voting for McCain over Hillary. He is much more authentic, has great experience and leadership qualities, and can bring the country together. Voting for HIllary is like voting for 4 more years of Bush. Enough already!
Tiffany Stewart wrote on December 25, 2007 7:43 PM:NYT today:
Hillary Clinton puts her experience first
By Patrick Healy
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jawboned the president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her "eight years with a front-row seat on history."
Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency, and on the campaign trail have increasingly been challenging her assertions of unique experience. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned "what experiences she's claiming" as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president. And last Friday, he suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers. (Hillary Clinton quickly released a list of 80 who were supporting her.)
Clinton's role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.
An interview with Hillary Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the Cold War over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging. As a result, while in the White House she was never fully a part of either the old school that had been focused on the Soviet Union and the possibility of nuclear war nor part of the more recent strain of national security thinking defined by issues like nonstate threats and the proliferation of nuclear technology.
Associates from that time said that she was aware of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and what her husband has in recent years characterized as his intense focus on them, but that she made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism.
She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment - or withdrawal - of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House, through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
When it came to the regional conflicts in the Balkans, she, along with many officials, was cautious at first about supporting U.S. military intervention, though she later backed airstrikes against the Serbs and the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.
Her role mostly involved what diplomats call "soft power" - converting Cold War foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women's rights, human trafficking, and the expanded use of microcredit, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.
Asked to name three major foreign policy decisions where she played a decisive role as first lady, Clinton responded in generalities more than specifics, describing her strategic roles on trips to Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, India, Africa, and Latin America.
Asked to cite a significant foreign policy object lesson during the 1990s, Clinton also replied with broad observations.
"There are a lot of them," she said. "The whole unfortunate experience we've had with the Bush administration, where they haven't done what we've needed to do to reach out to the rest of the world, reinforces my experience in the 1990s that public diplomacy, showing respect and understanding of people's different perspectives - it's more likely to at least create the conditions where we can exercise our values and pursue our interests."
There were times, though, when Hillary Clinton did not appear deeply involved in some of her husband's hardest moments on national security. He faced a major one in 1998 - the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and subsequently whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan. Just days after he acknowledged to his wife, the public and a grand jury that he had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on a suspected terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan.
"It was the height of Monica, and they were barely talking to each other, if at all," said one senior national security official who spoke with both Clintons during that time.
Asked whether she talked to the president about the military choices or advised him, regardless of their personal problems, Hillary Clinton was elliptical.
"I was very proud of him," she said "He did what he thought he was he supposed to do as president based on the best intelligence he had. And he was well aware that there would be those that would certainly criticize him for it."
Friends of Hillary Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil's advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Bill Clinton often consulted her, and that Hillary Clinton gained experience that Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack - indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have.
"In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision," said Mickey Kantor, a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. "I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn't weigh in on." (Bill Clinton declined an interview request.)
But other administration officials, as well as opponents of Clinton, are skeptical that the couple's conversations and her 79 trips add up to unique experience that voters should reward. She was not independently judging intelligence, for the most part, or mediating the data, egos and agendas of a national security team. And, in the end, she did not feel or process the weight of responsibility.
Susan Rice, a National Security Council aide and State Department official under Bill Clinton who now advises Obama, said that Hillary Clinton was not involved in "the heavy lifting of foreign policy." She also took issue with a recent comment, by a Clinton campaign official, that Hillary Clinton was "the face of the administration in foreign affairs."
"Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement - that's the hard part of foreign policy," Rice said. "That's not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady."
Hillary Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access.
During the pre-inaugural transition, for instance, she sat in on some meetings about presidential appointments at the invitation of Warren Christopher, who directed the transition and became secretary of state during the first Clinton term. Participants recalled that she would mostly speak when Christopher called on her, and tended to make points about placing more women, minorities, and allies in key jobs.
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance - though she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some sensitive diplomatic trips.
"I don't recall attending anything formal like the National Security Council," she said, "because I had direct access to all of the principals. I spent a lot of time with the national security adviser, the secretary of state, other officials on the security team for the president. I thought that was both more appropriate, but also more efficient."
She declined to say whether she ever read the President's Daily Brief, a rundown of the latest intelligence and threats to national security provided to the president each day.
"I would put that in the category of I-never-talk-about-what-I-talk-to-my-husband-about," she said. But she indicated, and other administration officials confirmed, that Bill Clinton would sometimes talk to her about the contents of the briefing.
"Let me say generally, I'm very aware of and familiar with what the PDBs actually are, how they work, what they include," she said.
"And it wasn't always through the Clinton administration - when I went to Bosnia, for example, I had a full briefing from the military commanders there about what the situation was like."
Hillary Clinton said she was "only tangentially involved" in Bill Clinton's first major overseas test, whether to send U.S. soldiers after Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his forces - a raid that ended in 18 American deaths. Asked whether she pressed for invasion, she said she acted "more as a sounding board" for Bill Clinton.
The same was true during the military confrontation in Haiti in 1994, over restoring the exiled president Jean-Bertand Aristide, which she favored and drew lessons from about joint command of American armed forces.
Asked about her role in Somalia and Haiti, Christopher said in an interview, "She wasn't at any of the meetings in the Oval Office or cabinet room, and didn't take any formal role that I saw." Christopher is supporting Clinton for president.
Nor was Clinton a memorable player on Rwanda. Former White House officials say that no one - not the national security team, not the president, not the first lady - was seriously pushing for American military intervention to stop or slow the unfolding genocide there; the administration's focus was on confronting the ethnic bloodshed in the Balkans. Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on Rwanda.
The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.
In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokesperson for American interests rather than as a negotiator. Mrs. Clinton had become a champion of the bombing campaign, and many officials - from Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration, to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain - turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton's resolve to take on Serbia.
"Bill, you're the president," was a refrain that several administration officials said she used when Mr. Clinton was torn between his advisers.
Mrs. Clinton has disagreed with Obama's support for presidential-level talks with leaders of nations such as Iran and North Korea, but she said that the Balkans taught her another lesson: Know your enemy. She praised General Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, and Holbrooke, the administration's envoy on the Balkans, for socializing and drinking with the leader of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, as a means of gauging his strengths.
"He's there - you don't learn something about him by pointing at him across the ocean," she said. "If you do have to engage in a bombing campaign, you're going to have a much better idea of how much pressure it's going to take to finally break him."
Her personal interests also drew her to Northern Ireland, where she believed she could help foster peace as a female leader bringing together women split by the sectarian divide. She hosted a memorable meeting, one of the first of its kind, of Catholic and Protestant women in Belfast.
"It gave everybody a safe place to come together and start talking about what they had in common," Mrs. Clinton said.
As she prepared to run for the Senate, Clinton took increasing interest in Israel and Middle East peace, touchstones for Jewish voters, among others, in New York. She was not at the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000, but she did pepper the Middle East peace envoy, Dennis Ross, with questions, like whether the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was too much the revolutionary to ever make peace, Ross recalled.
The Middle East situation led to Mrs. Clinton's first big foreign policy-related problem as a political candidate. In 1999, she sat silently, but with apparent discomfort, through an event on the West Bank as Suha Arafat, the wife of Arafat, accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, who at that point seemed likely to be her Republican opponent in the 2000 Senate race, assailed Clinton for failing to confront Mrs. Arafat over her remarks and for kissing her goodbye afterward; the incident also led some Jewish groups to be critical of Mrs. Clinton.The New York Times
Barb,
Be prepared to vote for Ron Paul! Bloomberg is not running. You are a spoiled child like Bush, it is your way or high way. Are you seriously think this country is ready for a smooth-talking no-experience black man? As Novak said before, the Republicans are rooting for Obama to win because he is the only one they can surely defeat! Clintons, on the other hand, have beaten them repeatedly. They may hate him and her but they surely do not relish facing her.
Barb wrote on December 25, 2007 7:51 PM:Hey Ni-
If Hillary gets the nod, you can bet your house that Bloomberg will run probably with Hagel. This has been long known in New York and you can expect Arnold and several other hitters to support him.
And by the way, racism is not becoming. The only candidate the GOP is salivating over is Hilary who will single handedly raise more money for their side than any of their candidates can.
David wrote on December 25, 2007 8:00 PM:Didn't Obama and Bloomberg have a very public breakfast in NYC a few weeks ago? It would not surprise me, particularly if Romney is the GOP candidate, to see Bloomberg, Arnold and Gore all rally around Obama. Now that would be something. There is no chance in hell than any of those guys, arguably the most qualified and/or most well liked pols in the country right now would ever support Hillary.
BluePuppy wrote on December 25, 2007 8:56 PM:"Voting for HIllary is like voting for 4 more years of Bush."
This is silly. Hillary is one of the most progressive & compassionate leaders this country has ever produced. Now I admit that she's not Nader or Kucinich, but unlike those worms, she actually plans on winning and governing. Barack Hussein is a mirage, a Rorschach test of what you want in a nominee, not a real person. Those of you on the extreme fringe America-hating Left think that if a politician is successful then that politician must be tainted. The problem with operating from this framework is that you can only be pure by losing, which you've managed to do on many occasions. As Krugman points out, Obama has appropriated the corporate meme regarding health care (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/obama-goes-harry-and-louise/)
Hillary is the progressive choice, the winning choice. She will destroy the Republican nominee, Obama would be destroyed. And he's not the progressive you imagine him to be. Hillary is going to usher in a great progressive era.
Hillary is neither progressive or compassionate. Talk about silly.
She will vote whichever way her pollsters inform her to vote. Iraq and Iran are perfect examples. She is a deeply flawed candidate. The fact that she can't even decisevly beat Obama or Edwards and that both poll better than all of the GOP candidates is evidence of this.
BluePuppy wrote on December 25, 2007 8:56 PM:
"Voting for HIllary is like voting for 4 more years of Bush."
This is silly. Hillary is one of the most progressive & compassionate leaders this country has ever produced.
--- bluepuppy, you are absolutely right! the obama lovers hate Hillary because she is not progressive enough. Ok, let's assume Obamaer is more progressive or shall we see more liberal. So how he is in a better position to bring the country together if his position is more extreme to the left than Hillary. He is a uniter just because he's black, he's young, he's a smooth talker, or he's the most inexperienced? Oh, he's such a smooth talker like Reagan that he can cajole the right to ignore his liberal positions?
You cannot have cake and eat it!
Margaret M wrote on December 25, 2007 9:34 PM:Hey BluePuppy,
What have you been smoking over the holidays? Obama is the most gifted politician to come along in decades and is now smoking Clinton in Iowa, NH and shortly South Carolina. Hillary's campaign has been as flawed as her candidacy. She is a calculating, fake, inauthentic, and weak.
As for Krugman, he has already been proven wrong by several careful analyses and obviously has sour grapes. Dowd, Rich and Patrick Healy have been much more on the mark these last few weeks and everyone knows it. He is as pathetic as she is.
Susan wrote on December 25, 2007 9:36 PM:Progressives don't vote for Iraq and Iran. Enough said. She is a fake, lesbo be-otch. When will she finally come out and state what she truly is: a Margaret Thatcher Eleanor Roosevelt wannabee.
Tiffany Stewart wrote on December 25, 2007 9:37 PM:And so much for her so-called experience:
NYT today:
Hillary Clinton puts her experience first
By Patrick Healy
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jawboned the president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her "eight years with a front-row seat on history."
Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency, and on the campaign trail have increasingly been challenging her assertions of unique experience. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned "what experiences she's claiming" as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president. And last Friday, he suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers. (Hillary Clinton quickly released a list of 80 who were supporting her.)
Clinton's role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.
An interview with Hillary Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the Cold War over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging. As a result, while in the White House she was never fully a part of either the old school that had been focused on the Soviet Union and the possibility of nuclear war nor part of the more recent strain of national security thinking defined by issues like nonstate threats and the proliferation of nuclear technology.
Associates from that time said that she was aware of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and what her husband has in recent years characterized as his intense focus on them, but that she made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism.
She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment - or withdrawal - of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House, through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
When it came to the regional conflicts in the Balkans, she, along with many officials, was cautious at first about supporting U.S. military intervention, though she later backed airstrikes against the Serbs and the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.
Her role mostly involved what diplomats call "soft power" - converting Cold War foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women's rights, human trafficking, and the expanded use of microcredit, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.
Asked to name three major foreign policy decisions where she played a decisive role as first lady, Clinton responded in generalities more than specifics, describing her strategic roles on trips to Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, India, Africa, and Latin America.
Asked to cite a significant foreign policy object lesson during the 1990s, Clinton also replied with broad observations.
"There are a lot of them," she said. "The whole unfortunate experience we've had with the Bush administration, where they haven't done what we've needed to do to reach out to the rest of the world, reinforces my experience in the 1990s that public diplomacy, showing respect and understanding of people's different perspectives - it's more likely to at least create the conditions where we can exercise our values and pursue our interests."
There were times, though, when Hillary Clinton did not appear deeply involved in some of her husband's hardest moments on national security. He faced a major one in 1998 - the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and subsequently whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan. Just days after he acknowledged to his wife, the public and a grand jury that he had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on a suspected terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan.
"It was the height of Monica, and they were barely talking to each other, if at all," said one senior national security official who spoke with both Clintons during that time.
Asked whether she talked to the president about the military choices or advised him, regardless of their personal problems, Hillary Clinton was elliptical.
"I was very proud of him," she said "He did what he thought he was he supposed to do as president based on the best intelligence he had. And he was well aware that there would be those that would certainly criticize him for it."
Friends of Hillary Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil's advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Bill Clinton often consulted her, and that Hillary Clinton gained experience that Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack - indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have.
"In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision," said Mickey Kantor, a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. "I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn't weigh in on." (Bill Clinton declined an interview request.)
But other administration officials, as well as opponents of Clinton, are skeptical that the couple's conversations and her 79 trips add up to unique experience that voters should reward. She was not independently judging intelligence, for the most part, or mediating the data, egos and agendas of a national security team. And, in the end, she did not feel or process the weight of responsibility.
Susan Rice, a National Security Council aide and State Department official under Bill Clinton who now advises Obama, said that Hillary Clinton was not involved in "the heavy lifting of foreign policy." She also took issue with a recent comment, by a Clinton campaign official, that Hillary Clinton was "the face of the administration in foreign affairs."
"Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement - that's the hard part of foreign policy," Rice said. "That's not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady."
Hillary Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access.
During the pre-inaugural transition, for instance, she sat in on some meetings about presidential appointments at the invitation of Warren Christopher, who directed the transition and became secretary of state during the first Clinton term. Participants recalled that she would mostly speak when Christopher called on her, and tended to make points about placing more women, minorities, and allies in key jobs.
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance - though she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some sensitive diplomatic trips.
"I don't recall attending anything formal like the National Security Council," she said, "because I had direct access to all of the principals. I spent a lot of time with the national security adviser, the secretary of state, other officials on the security team for the president. I thought that was both more appropriate, but also more efficient."
She declined to say whether she ever read the President's Daily Brief, a rundown of the latest intelligence and threats to national security provided to the president each day.
"I would put that in the category of I-never-talk-about-what-I-talk-to-my-husband-about," she said. But she indicated, and other administration officials confirmed, that Bill Clinton would sometimes talk to her about the contents of the briefing.
"Let me say generally, I'm very aware of and familiar with what the PDBs actually are, how they work, what they include," she said.
"And it wasn't always through the Clinton administration - when I went to Bosnia, for example, I had a full briefing from the military commanders there about what the situation was like."
Hillary Clinton said she was "only tangentially involved" in Bill Clinton's first major overseas test, whether to send U.S. soldiers after Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his forces - a raid that ended in 18 American deaths. Asked whether she pressed for invasion, she said she acted "more as a sounding board" for Bill Clinton.
The same was true during the military confrontation in Haiti in 1994, over restoring the exiled president Jean-Bertand Aristide, which she favored and drew lessons from about joint command of American armed forces.
Asked about her role in Somalia and Haiti, Christopher said in an interview, "She wasn't at any of the meetings in the Oval Office or cabinet room, and didn't take any formal role that I saw." Christopher is supporting Clinton for president.
Nor was Clinton a memorable player on Rwanda. Former White House officials say that no one - not the national security team, not the president, not the first lady - was seriously pushing for American military intervention to stop or slow the unfolding genocide there; the administration's focus was on confronting the ethnic bloodshed in the Balkans. Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on Rwanda.
The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.
In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokesperson for American interests rather than as a negotiator. Mrs. Clinton had become a champion of the bombing campaign, and many officials - from Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration, to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain - turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton's resolve to take on Serbia.
"Bill, you're the president," was a refrain that several administration officials said she used when Mr. Clinton was torn between his advisers.
Mrs. Clinton has disagreed with Obama's support for presidential-level talks with leaders of nations such as Iran and North Korea, but she said that the Balkans taught her another lesson: Know your enemy. She praised General Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, and Holbrooke, the administration's envoy on the Balkans, for socializing and drinking with the leader of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, as a means of gauging his strengths.
"He's there - you don't learn something about him by pointing at him across the ocean," she said. "If you do have to engage in a bombing campaign, you're going to have a much better idea of how much pressure it's going to take to finally break him."
Her personal interests also drew her to Northern Ireland, where she believed she could help foster peace as a female leader bringing together women split by the sectarian divide. She hosted a memorable meeting, one of the first of its kind, of Catholic and Protestant women in Belfast.
"It gave everybody a safe place to come together and start talking about what they had in common," Mrs. Clinton said.
As she prepared to run for the Senate, Clinton took increasing interest in Israel and Middle East peace, touchstones for Jewish voters, among others, in New York. She was not at the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000, but she did pepper the Middle East peace envoy, Dennis Ross, with questions, like whether the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was too much the revolutionary to ever make peace, Ross recalled.
The Middle East situation led to Mrs. Clinton's first big foreign policy-related problem as a political candidate. In 1999, she sat silently, but with apparent discomfort, through an event on the West Bank as Suha Arafat, the wife of Arafat, accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, who at that point seemed likely to be her Republican opponent in the 2000 Senate race, assailed Clinton for failing to confront Mrs. Arafat over her remarks and for kissing her goodbye afterward; the incident also led some Jewish groups to be critical of Mrs. Clinton.The New York Times
Susan wrote on December 25, 2007 9:36 PM:
Progressives don't vote for Iraq and Iran. Enough said. She is a fake, lesbo be-otch. When will she finally come out and state what she truly is: a Margaret Thatcher Eleanor Roosevelt wannabee.
--- I don't know the democratic partyn has hideous character like you! Shame on you! even Obama would be embrassed to feature a follower like you even he did not mind keeping a gay-haing person on his campaign trip. You should be ashamed of yourself, Susan Miller or whatever your name is. Crawal back to your cave!
Susan wrote on December 25, 2007 9:42 PM:I have absolutely nothing against gay people. But I can't stand lying, inauthentic calculating fake people. She should just come out already.
Margaret wrote on December 25, 2007 9:44 PM:What's so funny about this interchange is that Hillary has the nastiest people in her campaign, only one step up from the Rove/Atwater folks. This has been evidenced time and time again. Her people are seemingly as nasty as she is.
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 9:48 PM:Doesn't this clip say enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk_O-nhlA4
Janice wrote on December 25, 2007 9:54 PM:dcshungu wrote on December 25, 2007 5:24 AM:
From Mickey Kaus at Slate today:
No self-respecting Dem or progressive should ever quote Mickey Kaus. The guy is a delusional lunatic who thinks that he is on a divine mission to "clean up" the Dem party and that the best way to accomplish this mission is to disparage every Dem candidate, at every level, who looks he or she has a very good shot at winning it all.
****
Yeah that's right dcshungu. That's exactly why Josh and TPM include Mickey Kaus' site as one of the 15 TPM approved sites on their front page. It is a very interesting theory and quite plausible.
From The New Republic Blog:
Obama Moving Up in New Hampshire
The Democratic half of that Globe poll I just mentioned shows Obama pulling ahead in New Hampshire--he edges Hillary 30 to 28. (He's up nine points and she's down seven since early November.) Two things jump out at me in the Globe's write-up. First, I suggested in my recent Obama piece that he could hold his own with blue-collar voters. The Globe finds evidence of this, too:
One of the major shifts in the Democratic race came in New Hampshire's biggest city, Manchester, which is home to many blue-collar voters. Last month, Clinton led Obama in the Manchester area by a wide margin, 50 percent to 18 percent. But in the new poll, Obama was narrowly ahead among Manchester voters, leading Clinton 33 percent to 31 percent.
The second thing that's interesting is the way the mandate/no mandate debate is playing out in New Hampshire. Reports the Globe:
One aspect of the healthcare debate that has divided Democratic candidates is whether individuals should be required to purchase coverage - Clinton and Edwards favor a mandate, while Obama does not. A slight majority of Democratic voters who were polled - including pluralities of Clinton and Edwards supporters - opposed such a requirement.
I wondered a few weeks ago why the Clinton campaign was going negative on Obama's character instead of hitting the healthcare issue, which seemed less fraught and likely to pay dividends on both a policy level and a preparedness level. This poll hints at an explanation: Maybe it just wasn't very effective.
P.S. I don't have much to add to what others have said, but you really should read this excellent Mark Schmitt piece about Obama and his "theory of change."
Update: Mark Blumenthal examined the crosstabs and made this fascinating discovery:
Opposition to the notion of an individual health insurance mandate -- "should individuals be required to buy health insurance" -- is greatest among the less well-educated and downscale voters that are the core of Clinton's base in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Whenever he gets asked about the mandate, Obama says the reason people don't buy health insurance isn't because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. Whatever the policy merits of this claim--and I'm sympathetic to some of the criticism--it does look like it resonates with working-class people, who may worry about being forced to buy something they can't afford (or being fined if they don't buy it).
I think it's hard to overstate the importance of this. Healthcare is, if not the most important issue of the campaign, then arguably most important issue on which the candidates have real differences. And, as Mark says, working class people are supposed to be Hillary's base. If Hillary's base prefers Obama's solution to what they see as their biggest problem... well, you get the idea.
Second Update: John Judis points out another interesting finding in the crosstabs: Obama went from down 43-21 in the $60,000-$74,000 per year income category to up 38-21. This seems a little too dramatic to be believed--I suspect the smallish sample size had something to do with it--but, even if there's only a kernel of truth to it, it's still pretty amazing.
Also, Obama went from down 43-21 among voters with "some college" (people most pollsters consider working class) to down only 28-26. That's a pretty interesting development if true, too.
--Noam Scheiber
Barb,
You, like most Obama supporters, aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. He has zero chance of beating Hillary. He never did. If you believe he does go right on believing, no harm in that. Every child has to learn there's no such thing as Santa Claus at some point...right?
I think Hillary is going to make a great President, but what I think is neither here nor there. What is is. How does one define IS? Hillay Clinton IS going to be President. Please, vote for whoever you like, blog your nonsense about Bloomberg, it's all golly gee swell. Hillary IS going to be President just the same. Feel free to not like it.
I hope Santa was kind to you today. You seem like such a delightful child.
BluePuppy wrote on December 25, 2007 10:45 PM:"[Obama]is now smoking Clinton in Iowa"
What are you smoking? Hussein in the brain. Did you read this poll? Hillary is beating Hussein by 15 points. Inside scoop says that the DMR poll in Iowa will confirm these numbers.
Oh, and thanks for repasting the P. Healy article, reading it once on this thread wasn't enough.
Krugman's point is that Hussein has consistently attacked Hillary from the Right. So much for your knight in a shiny Prius ridding into down. Hussein is a phony, blathering vague generalities and I told you so's to an elite group who demand idealogical purity. Hillary is a winner and a doer, an unbelievably audacious woman who will change America for the better. She's been in the arena. If you think she's polarizing, imagine what the Rethugs would do to Hussein. They'd turn him into Willie Horton with a Harvard law degree. You want to talk about unelectable. The Rethugs are licking their lips for Hussein to get the nomination. Do you really think Andrew Sullivan is so magnanimous that he wants to elect a Democrat? Of course not. He doesn't want his party to face Hillary. She is going to lead our party and nation into a glorious new era. I can't wait until Denver, you Hillary haters will reluctantly sign up for her cause and then by September, when the thought of a President Romney or Huckabee chills your bones and the Rethugs are attacking Hillary much as you do now, you will embrace her, give her money, work for her, and vote for her. Mark my words.
Marc Penn wrote on December 25, 2007 11:27 PM:Has anyone noticed how the Clintonites (like the Rove machine) attack or insult the messengers or the press whenever they get in trouble?
They can't fathom the fact that they are actually about to lose Iowa and NH. Remember when Hillary was the "inevitable" candidate this summer before folks really took a look at her? She is now plunging in Iowa, NH and SC.
This poll is a complete outlier. Look at Pollster.com, realclearpolitics, the New Republic, and anything else you want to look at. You are about to go down Team Hillary and couldn't happen to a nastier, more vindictive bunch of people and a candidate who polls when to go the bathroom. No heart, no authenticity, and about to lose. Can you say desperation?
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 11:31 PM:Bloomberg, Arnold and Gore for Obama? Now that would be something.
One thing is for sure: none of them will support that phony, calculating political animal from Arkansas? New York? Wait...where is she from again?
roo_P wrote on December 25, 2007 11:33 PM:I must admit that I find it somewhat humorous that BluePuppy supports Clinton because she is MORE progressive than Obama or Edwards and Ni Daye supports Clinton because she is LESS progressive than the two.
Stephanie Sharp wrote on December 25, 2007 11:33 PM:It's so funny that no matter how inevitable they think their candidate is, no matter how nasty they get, no matter what insults they throw out at the press, the Edwards campaign or the Obama campaign, they can't change the fatal flaws of their candidate. And everyone in the press knows it. Methinks the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire know it as well.
roo_P wrote on December 25, 2007 11:35 PM:Since I am meta-commenting,
Susan, name-calling is completely unnecessary.
Tiffany, please do not post full articles. It is rather annoying to scroll past and it is not covered under Fair Use. Please give an excerpt and/or provide a link.
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 11:39 PM:Boy it seems like yesterday that they were going after Tim Russert. Then Chris Matthews, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd. Whose next? Tom Brokaw? Fareed Zakaria? What a bunch of crybabies.
BostonUncommon wrote on December 25, 2007 11:42 PM:The only way I'll vote for Hillary is if it's confirmed that she is dating Huma Abedin, simply because America needs something hot enough to counteract the Sarkozy-Bruni relationship.
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 11:44 PM:BluePuppyLoveBoy,
If Hilary gets it, count me and hundreds of thousands of others to defect to Bloomberg. You can count on that.
Barb
Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 11:59 PM:WaPo yesterday:
Racial Undercurrent Is Seen in Clinton Campaign
By Chris Cillizza And Shailagh Murray
Sunday, December 23, 2007; A02
It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama's race.
These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama's position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama's "electability." But the Illinois senator's campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton's strong base of black support.
Here's a sample of how the issue is playing out:
From the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," Dec. 14:
Tom Joyner: "Yeah, man, they are coming after you now. So the story about the Clinton campaign putting out this statement not to vote for Barack Obama because he used drugs, and then yesterday I understand that she apologized and the campaign worker quit."
Obama: "Well, I think everybody knows, because I wrote about it in a book 10 years ago. . . . and part of the reason I wrote about it and I talk about it in schools is because I want young people out there to know that if they make the same kinds of mistakes that I made that they can get over it and that they can move on. . . ."
From columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe, Dec. 15:
"That leaves open as to how far the Clinton campaign, whose poll leads have evaporated in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will go to stereotype Obama as not only naive, but cast him in a sinister light in a nation where black drug use and criminality is exaggerated in the media . . . ."
" 'I don't think these strategies are very subtle,' Obama said. 'I won't speak to the racial element of it because I think, you know, if I were a white candidate, obviously, somebody suggesting falsely they were a drug dealer, it's never good.' But in sum, Obama, who has written about his teenage drug use in his memoirs, said, 'There's been a series of these kinds of tactics that at some point we've just got to send a clear signal this is not what we're about.' "
From Black Star News of New York, Dec. 19:
"So the Clinton campaign decided to use the race card. A senior campaign official, Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, warned voters that Obama might not be the suitable candidate because were he to win the Democratic nomination, those nasty Republicans could bring up the fact that Obama has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Might the Republicans not even ask whether Obama had also been a drug dealer? This was clearly playing to the deep seated stereotype that some white people harbor -- of Blacks as natural born criminals and drug dealers."
Huckabee's Message Simple for Christmas
Practically every candidate running for president is up with some sort of Christmas commercial ranging from the serious (Sen. John McCain's retelling of Christmas in a POW camp) to the humorous (Rudy Giuliani's appearance with Santa.)
The Fix chose three of the ads -- Giuliani's, as well as the commercial by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in which she is wrapping a variety of presents corresponding to the issues of her campaign and former governor Mike Huckabee's "reason for the season" spot -- and asked a variety of unaffiliated political operatives for their takes.
Here's what they had to say:
The favorite, by far, of our informal panel was Huckabee's ad. "Huckabee's ad is the most effective because it was first, it is simple, and, in case there was any doubt, it reminds viewers of his singular strength -- that he's a Christian," said Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter. "He is just so genuine that it really does give you a good feeling," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, a sentiment echoed by Republican pollster Glen Bolger: "Huckabee's is the best, because it is not political and shows a sense of genuineness about the guy."
Reviews were more mixed for the ads by Giuliani and Clinton.
Of Giuliani's "Santa" commercial, Democratic pollster Dave Beattie said: "It attempts to use humor to makes promises and criticize the process, but unlike Huckabee's and even Hillary's ad, it is more about the process of politics rather than political belief and motivation." Jennifer Burton, a Democratic media consultant, was more complimentary -- arguing that Giuliani's ad "succeeds in hitting his message points and using humor to make Rudy two-dimensional."
Not surprisingly the Clinton ad, like everything in her campaign, provoked strong feelings on both sides. "Hillary's ad is a clever treatment," said Republican media consultant Erik Potholm. "The spot does a good job of bringing the viewer in -- as if they are watching the latest ads for Macy's last-minute, holiday sale -- while reminding voters of her agenda." Beattie was far less sanguine about the ad's impact. "It treats the holidays as a prop, which probably does little to move voters and does little to keep expanding her image as a person rather than a politician."
P LAYERS
Remember this name: Jay W. Ragley. The new executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, Ragley has long been the boy wonder -- he's 27 -- of Palmetto State GOP politics. He first came on The Fix's radar as political director for the party in the 2006 cycle before jumping over to serve as the South Carolina director for the National Federation of Independent Business.
In Ragley's new post, he will get plenty of national attention early next year when Republican presidential candidates descend on the Palmetto State for its Jan. 19 primary.
11 days: It's almost here. The Iowa caucuses loom as large as ever on the political landscape despite the compression of the nominating calendar.
37 days: Florida hosts its presidential primary. Will it be the last meaningful contest of the primary season?
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 26, 2007 12:36 AM:Wow so much bitterness today from the obama and hill supporters. After reading so much of this nonsense i could only laugh. Who's more progressive, was one argument, they both are on social issues, abortion, gays, gun control, but being an ultra liberal on them issues also will lose the entire south in a GE matchup. Both are also born of the same corporate cloth in economic issues. They both continue to support failed free trade model that cost people their jobs and livelyhood. These issues will lose you most of the rust belt in the midwest that has continued to lose more and more good paying manufactoring jobs in the GE, mich, penn, ohio, wisc. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that hill or obama can win the general election in this country. No dem has ever won a GE and not come from a southern state since 1964. The winning combo in the GE is being somewhat moderate on guns, gays and god and populist in economics. If Mccain is the nominee from the right, Edwards is the only one that could beat him period.
Michele wrote on December 26, 2007 12:40 AM:Huckabee will never take Iowa. The voters aren't that stupid.
stray-republican wrote on December 26, 2007 12:43 AM:Y'all Democrats sure don't know how to win Presidential elections anymore, do you?
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 26, 2007 12:44 AM:Sorry above I meant to say we haven't won a dem GE since 1960, when the canidate was not from the south.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 3:04 AM:Anonymous 11:39,
Maureen Dowd was a major creator and enabler of lots of the lies about Gore in 2000, as well as earlier ones about Bill Clinton earlier. This is nothing new. Tom Brokaw, on the other hand, is a professional. Perhaps he'll make a mistake, but unlike people like Matthews and Dowd, he doesn't make a career of it and revel in it.
In a desperation move, the Clinton's are using stealth tactics to stop the Obama. Instead of using her campaign website to launch attacks, the Hillary camp has purchased websites like the one you see below. I got this info from Godaddy.com (cut and pasted). Can somebody say- Failed Swift Boat Tactic Exposed?
Looks like the Hillary Campaign was trying to pull a hit and run on Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, they left behind the bumper with the license plate still attached. Stay tuned for more foiled attacks from the Clinton’s.
-----------------------------------------
Registrant:
Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
US
Domain Name: VOTINGPRESENT.COM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
Learn more at http://www.NetworkSolutions.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Contact:
Hillary Clinton for President info@hillaryclinton.com
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
US
703-469-2008 fax: 703-962-8600
Jim H wrote on December 25, 2007 4:34 PM:
"If Hillary loses, Chris Matthews' big fat head will explode, but that's no big loss."
Tweety's head will explode when she WINS. He should have to disclose who's paying him to take her down.
