Zogby Poll: Obama, Huckabee Lead In Iowa — Hillary Sinks To Third Place
Today's Zogby tracking poll in Iowa, the final daily Zogby poll for the caucus, makes for an astounding outcome if it turns out to be true. Here are the numbers, as compared to yesterday's tracking poll:
Democrats:
Obama 31% (+3)
Edwards 27% (+1)
Clinton 24% (-4)
Richardson 7% (+0)
Biden 5% (+1)Republicans:
Huckabee 31% (+3)
Romney 25% (+1)
Thompson 11% (-1)
McCain 10% (-2)
Paul 10% (+1)
Giuliani 6% (-1)
Comments (81)
carrenderb wrote on January 3, 2008 8:24 AM:Interesting. (Sorry for nothing substantial to say here. Just trying to be the first to post a comment!) :-)
carrenderb wrote on January 3, 2008 8:27 AM:WOOHOO! First!
(Forgive me. It's been so intense in here lately, I'm just trying to interject a little fun and light-heartedness.)
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:30 AM:This of course is consistent with the trends in all the other polls with tracking data (the DMR poll, the Strategic Vision polls, even the ARG polls which showed Clinton in the lead).
By the way, there are rumors flying around of Richardson and/or Biden suggesting to their supporters they make Obama their second choice in non-viable precincts. Those rumors are being denied by the campaigns, but it would make sense (a close finish between one of those candidates and Clinton could create an opportunity for that person to move up in NH).
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 8:32 AM:Wow, just wow!!! I am dying to see what happens tonight. Will history be made? Will there be this huge groundswell of support to change the direction of this country from 30 plus years of stagnation and absolutely nothing being accomplished? 7:00 tonight in iowa, be there!!!
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:36 AM:6:30!
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 8:43 AM:OOOOPs, my bad. I was too excited. 6:30 and please, please, please don't be late!!!!!!
ProfFrink wrote on January 3, 2008 8:44 AM:Well, I'm hoping Obama can pull off a victory tonight, but I'm cynical by nature and can't help feeling Hilary is the anointed candidate for my party.
McCain, if he wins the next few contests, will be a juggernaut. I think the media will fall in love with him all over again since he's been basically untouched, flying under the radar, for the last 6 months. I used to really like him, but I've got no doubt now he'll pull any trick he can to win the general election. I said it monthis ago, he's the only Republican candidate I fear in the general election. Here's hoping for a Romney ticket.
brm wrote on January 3, 2008 8:52 AM:Celebrate
The end of the Bush-Clinton era begins today.
The Goldwater Girl is finished
I'm pulling for Obama, but I still think Hillary will pull it out due to her strength with the old lady vote. Elderly female voters always seem to punch above their weight when the votes are counted. The younger voters must stop for a beer on the way to the polls or something.
Oscar wrote on January 3, 2008 8:54 AM:Edwards should win Iowa. He is in 2nd and is the white male.
Obama and Hillary are unelectable for the presidency . That is the fact.
elizm wrote on January 3, 2008 8:56 AM:Will tonight look like the 06 mid-term sweep? How hungry is this country for REAL change? I have no fingernails left...but SO much hope.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 8:59 AM:It definitely remains possible that Clinton or Edwards will win. We are actually just back to the position we were in before the holidays: it will all come down to who shows up, and how the dynamics play out.
colonpowwow wrote on January 3, 2008 9:07 AM:Oh, great!
Now we may have to suffer another couple of weeks of Hillary hate from the loony leftist-behind, so-called Democrats here instead of getting it over with by suffering their sour grapes postings tomorrow.
Go, Hillary.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 9:10 AM:colonpowwow,
A "couple of weeks"? You are banking on Michigan turning things around for Clinton?
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 9:11 AM:See colonpowwow, as evidenced by your post, the only sour grapes that we would be experiencing on this site will be from clinton II people. Even if she won it all, which of course is entirely possible, you wouldn't hear sour grapes from non-clinton II people, it would be onto new hampshire. You clinton II people are just soooo bitter. Get over it.
BfloBillW wrote on January 3, 2008 9:19 AM:Carrenderb - great comment! Way to get a thread going!!!!
Obama can't win the presidency? Ummmm - I think there is only one who cannot win - She Who Is Inevitable.
Now, help me out. Where is that woman who keeps asking "Is America ready for a Muslim president?"?
DRinOH wrote on January 3, 2008 9:22 AM:No denying it, there's been a two day surge. The last one in early November was due to the abysmal performance by Hillary in Philly (or at least the abysmal media narrative) and Oprah. Less clear for this one. The DMR poll was the first to indicate it, but if I were a betting man, I'd say it's the cause, not the effect, of this latest Obama surge.
DonnaG wrote on January 3, 2008 9:32 AM:DTM, I agree that it remains possible for any of the three to win.
But, what is curious to me is the drop in Hillary's numbers, roughly dropping at a rate of a point per day this past week in this tracking poll.
Being myself a woman in my sixties, I have personally been put off by the notion that because of my gender and my age, that I somehow owe my vote to Senator Clinton, i.e., that this should boil down to my demographic identity trumping my intellect and ability to evaluate candidates based upon other factors.
So, the fact that Clinton is wooing older women may mean that she is subtly dissing older women. Is she not giving us credit to be able to stay current with the more-important-than-gender national concerns and challenges of today?
Jan wrote on January 3, 2008 9:41 AM:Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 9:11 AM: "[...] the only sour grapes that we would be experiencing on this site will be from clinton II people. Even if she won it all, which of course is entirely possible, you wouldn't hear sour grapes from non-clinton II people, it would be onto new hampshire."
Michael A, is this a promise?
If Clinton wins in Iowa, there will be NO SOUR GRAPES from all you Clinton Haters???
OK, I accept your promise.
I promise no sour grapes from me if Clinton doesn't win, because I think it's going to be very close no matter what; and I also believe that the only candidate who HAS to win is John Edwards.
And then, yes, on to NH, my home state!
This is such FUN!
I don't think that America is ready for what the right wing nuts will label a Muslim President. Obama almost loses out of the gate simply because the great noise machine will shriek about his Muslim faith, while he will spend precious campaign time denying it. This isn't good, folks.
Tommy Ates, Austin, TX wrote on January 3, 2008 9:47 AM:Carol,
You can read the news. And you already know Obama has never been a Muslim or gone to any Muslim school. You are just lying..You ought to be ashamed! Or better yet, go to church! You definitely need some Holy Water!!
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 9:48 AM:This would explain why Hillary decided to lay the blame on Women for finding going to vote to be too hard. Her internal tracking polls were showing that she was fading, and she had based most of her Iowa efforts on getting the Women's support.
Better to lay the blame on the Women ahead of time, instead of faulting your own Campaign efforts; Right Hillary! And she calls herself a feminist!. First time she gets a hint of losing, she decides to scapegoat her own gender and dump her shortcoming on them.
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 9:48 AM:Uh, jan, I was a republican until clinton II ran for president, what have I ever posted that was sour grapes or evidenced that I would post sour grapes after iowa? That's silly. Why didn't you vote for clinton I again? I forgot. But now you want to relive the years that you thought were so bad because you didn't support clinton I? Very bizarre.
I'll say it for the thousandth time. I don't hate your candidate. I don't like her, but I don't hate her. Just because you don't like a candidate doesn't automatically mean that you hate that candidate. Give me a break.
Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 9:53 AM:I've heard of whispering campaigns, but whispering candidates? Turning up the heat, turning down the volume, one turn too many turning off voters?
danger wrote on January 3, 2008 9:54 AM:Two things make me giddy from this poll:
Giuliani polling at 6% - put a fork in him!
Huckabee polling at 30% - if he is nominated, the GOP's crash and burn will make the Hindenburg look like a walk in the park.
cms wrote on January 3, 2008 9:56 AM:Carol - have a little faith, in Obama and your country.
DRinOH - I agree with you about the media narrative about that Philly debate. I still don't get it, except that it fed so clearly into the all-sides-on-every-issue weakness she has. At the time, I just figured that the media hates a blow-out, so they were looking for anything to change the direction of the election. As an Obama supporter, I was glad, but it's so random you know that it could happen to your guy down the road as well. She got way too much credit for "great" debate performances early one, and way too much grief for a few slip-ups in a single one. I hate the media.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 9:57 AM:Wait...where's dschungu, Tara and Greg Sargent on this thread?
GO OBAMA GO!
Keith wrote on January 3, 2008 9:57 AM:Nice numbers (from Obama and Edwards perspective), but the real question is will the Iowans that have talked the talk, actually show up in sufficient numbers to walk the walk. I feel like this thing can be won by ANY of the top three and that it won't have much of an impact on their viability going into NH.
DonnaG wrote on January 3, 2008 9:59 AM:Carol, the 'great noise machine' that shrieked was the Clinton surrogates, who, er, only demonstrated the viciousness of her camp.....as in 'anything to win' the nomination. So, if the Republicans try to do the same, they will be laughed at for following Hillary's failed tactics.
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 10:04 AM:Very accurate assessment keith. It's anybody's game, but one can always hope. On the new hampshire issue, it will come down to numbers I believe. If its a dead heat, within a couple of points of each other, then I believe that you are correct, if there is a tidal wave one way or another, than it will have an impact.
DRinOH wrote on January 3, 2008 10:10 AM:If anyone cares what Bob Novak thinks (say what you will about republicans, they know elections) he's putting Obama first and Hillary third as well.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24241
brm: "The Goldwater Girl is finished"
Then so are the Democratic Party's hopes for victory in '08.
Congratulate yourselves.
BTW, I can't think of anything more vicious than the slimy Obamaites slander of Clinton as GOP-lite, etc.
For all their angst about politics as usual, it is in fact Obama and his supporters who are all about the same tactics (Swift-boating, name-calling, and having a two-faced candidate) that we all abhorred when it was Bush and his Bushiites.
But as usual, the radical side of the Democratic Party will have their way or not play, ensuring a Democratic defeat one way or the other - in the case of an Obama victory, it will simply be a defeat by a lot instead of by a little.
Like the Naderites, however, you can pat yourselves on the back and proclaim your self-righteousness for all the world to see.
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 10:29 AM:The sour grapes from clinton II people are already coming out. Wait for the voting will you!!!!! Who knows what is going to happen.
You bozos have been crowing for months about your candidate's inevitability and the minute it starts to look like she isn't inevitable you start whining.
By the way, the nastiest people on the web are the clinton II people. Just read your post. Leftists, loonies, uniformed, haters, naderites, etc. Man you people are soooooo bitter.
MNPundit wrote on January 3, 2008 10:29 AM:Oh God, please be true.
Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 10:32 AM:My favorite Obama tactic is the one called winning elections. The nerve of that guy.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 3, 2008 10:36 AM:HOORAY for Mr. Chimes in five to seven days later and to the right of Clinton!
HOORAY for Mr. Human rights don't matter cuz I'll never lead my voice to their support!
HOORAY for Mr. The market demands that we don't provide healthcare for everyone!
HOORAY for Mr. I'm gonna make sure Social Security is insecure.
HOORAY for Obama in '08!
Now Obama needs to go the way of Clinton and make room for a Democrat.
john o. wrote on January 3, 2008 10:36 AM:Any Dem but Hillary, please.
dajafi wrote on January 3, 2008 10:37 AM:Now we may have to suffer another couple of weeks of Hillary hate from the loony leftist-behind, so-called Democrats here instead of getting it over with by suffering their sour grapes postings tomorrow.
C'mon, colonpowwow. You've been the one Clinton supporter who seems both to actually have given this some thought and retained some perspective. I think you're wrong--her "high ratings" from this or that left-leaning group mean nothing in terms of priorities or capacity to lead on issues, certainly not in comparison to the corporate money she's Hoovered up or the proven terrible judgment on issues of war and piece--but I respect your sincerity and opinion. Please don't join the "Baghdad Bob" chorus of Hillbots at this late point.
john o. wrote on January 3, 2008 10:38 AM:Any Dem but Hillary.
roo_P wrote on January 3, 2008 10:42 AM:May the best candidate win!
It has been pretty heated the past few days and weeks. I promise not to have sour grapes!
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:42 AM:Michael A: "The sour grapes from clinton II people are already coming out."
For the millionth time, I'm not a "clinton II" person.
But of course you rarely pay attention to things like that.
"You bozos have been crowing for months about your candidate's inevitability . . ."
Will the lies never cease?
The only people promoting the "inevitability" card were Hillary Haters who needed a strawman slander to attack her for simply being who she was, a candidate with a high-profile name.
Gee, what did you want her to do, change her name back to Rodham and continually show a morbid lack of confidence on the campaign trail?
"By the way, the nastiest people on the web are the clinton II people."
Bullshit.
We don't lie about other commenters by calling them things "clinton II people" when they aren't and let's see what the Obama supporters have used about so-called Clinton supporters: torture promoters, war promoters, attack dogs, racists, bigots, GOP infiltrators, bozos (you just used that one, feh!), and so on.
Since I don't favor Clinton, I can't be bitter (at least not about a loss by her), but I also don't have to lie self-righteously about how I and my compatriots never been nasty to the supporters of particular candidates like you do, despite the abundance of hatred that has spewed forth from Obama supporters against Clinton, her supporters, her defenders, and anyone who would raise any criticism of the preening Obama or his fatuous acolytes.
And nobody whines like Obama supporters.
Nobody.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 10:45 AM:The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on findind reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:46 AM:dajafi: ". . . certainly not in comparison to the corporate money she's Hoovered up or the proven terrible judgment on issues of war and piece [sic] . . ."
Yes, how dare she engage in election tactics that have been proven time and again to win general elections!
How dare she try to ensure a Dem win in '08!
The GALL!
Mr. Man wrote on January 3, 2008 10:50 AM:What's ironic about this post: "anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:42 AM:" is that the very things he/she accuses the anti-clinton people of (ad hominem generalizations and attacks), he/she is doing by saying "And nobody whines like Obama supporters.
Nobody."
Um, yeah. Irony is funny that way. Hard to see it when you don't, um, "see" it...
Personally? I REFUSE to make sweeping generalizations. Ever. Flatly. Without exception. (i.e., I NEVER do this.) :D
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 10:51 AM:annon, the term inevitability was coined by penn over a year ago and that was the basis of her campaign. I sparred with clinton II people throughout the summer and fall promoting her inevitability. Sorry.
I stand by my comments. Just read some of the clinton II people's posts. Talk about whining and sour grapes. Oh brother. Can you people wait for the voting at least? You are not helping your candidate and its called bad karma.
roo_P wrote on January 3, 2008 10:59 AM:Michael A.,
You probably do not need or want my advice but not using "clinton II" will definitely help you make your case if you really do want to reach people.
I understand that you do not feel it is a slight or an insult but there are those who will -- even I, as a "strongly leaning towards Obama as first and Clinton as last choice" person, rightly or wrongly feel that it is a bit demeaning. Just call her Ms. Clinton if you want clarity.
Anyway, not claiming any high ground (or horses) here, just my opinion. Plus I would like to think we as fuzzy-headed lefties are better than simple name-calling.
NCSteve wrote on January 3, 2008 11:01 AM:For the millionth time, I'm not a "clinton II" person.
And how, exactly, is he supposed to distinguish you from all the other people who post anynomously (whether intentionally or by accident)? Use a dang nym, even a lame-ass wish-I'd-given-it-more-thought-and-come-up-with-something-clever-before-I-stuck-myself-with-it-forever nym like mine, if you want us to keep track of who you're for and not for.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 11:07 AM:NCSteve wrote on January 3, 2008 11:01 AM:
Good point.
I always figure that when someone wants to be treated as Anonymous, then I will respect their wishes, and ignore them, and not ever respond to anything they write. If they want to be treated as unknown, then why not treat them as unknown and ignored!
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 11:09 AM:Oh brother roo_p, I give. I respect your opinion. I truly don't see a problem with clinton II either, but I give, I give, I give, I give, I give, I give. I wouldn't call it name calling and I have had clinton people ratify its use in the past, but I give. Clinton it is.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:14 AM:Michael - you are absolutely right. The "Ms. Clinton" people are the nastiest folks on this thread. I guess they learn it from their own campaign. The muslim, coke and kindergarten bullshit from a few weeks ago has obviously impacted Obama's negatives based on the Rassmussen poll results.
The Clinton campaign is done and I'm fearful they will try to bring down everyone else with them. Hopefully the electorate will see through that BS just as they see through the Clintons. Not surprising that Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson etc. stayed above board and the Clintons went into the gutter.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:18 AM:Liam: "That is what Senator Obama offers."
Since Obama refuses to compromise on the things that most drive conservatives, the war in Iraq and the war on terror, he is hardly going to "heal the divide" as you think.
And comparing him to JFK is pretty funny, since JFK failed miserably (from a progressive perspective) in his major foreign policy initiatives, driving us deeper into Vietnam and giving us the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco.
JFK was a great orator and giver of promise, but he never accomplished anything of significance.
All this fawning and fantasy over an unproven individual who has never led men or a political entity is pretty amusing.
"Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other . . ."
Yes, the vomitous hate-filled verbal sewage Obama supporters are spewing against Hillary surely argues for how much mutual respect we can expect them to show "the other side."
Biggest laugh I've had all day.
You've called the GOP and Clinton (which you associate with the GOP) every filthy political name in the book and painted them as evil personified, but hey you'll just forget all that and they will too and we'll all sing Kumbayah!
And to think you people actually seem to believe your own contradictory and hypocritical drivel, where you spit on people and then seconds later say "let's just be friends and not spit anymore!"
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:20 AM:Michael A: "You are not helping your candidate and its called bad karma."
And you keep lying about Clinton being my candidate.
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:24 AM:NCSteve: "And how, exactly, is he supposed to distinguish you from all the other people who post anynomously (whether intentionally or by accident)? Use a dang nym, even a lame-ass wish-I'd-given-it-more-thought-and-come-up-with-something-clever-before-I-stuck-myself-with-it-forever nym like mine, if you want us to keep track of who you're for and not for."
No, you simply quit making assumptions.
I know of no "anonymous" poster of any kind that has posted "I am for Clinton" or "I support Clinton" or "Clinton is the best choice among Democrats" so your excuse for your presumption is lame, dishonest, and rationalization.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:28 AM:Mr. Man: "What's ironic about this post: "anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:42 AM:" is that the very things he/she accuses the anti-clinton people of (ad hominem generalizations and attacks), he/she is doing by saying "And nobody whines like Obama supporters."
The difference, of course, (which a half-wit like you ignores either on purpose or out of stupidity) is that I don't promote myself as not engaging in such attacks or proclaim that "Clinton supporters" or even Clinton herself are above such things, as Obama supporters have routinely done.
I never said that it was wrong, I said it was hypocritical.
If you can't or won't see the difference, that pretty much tells the tale about your intellectual credibility.
Shoshiru Honda wrote on January 3, 2008 11:32 AM:It will be like an earthquake in the Democratic party if Hillary finishes in Third place. Many people are hoping that She does. : )
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:36 AM:Michael A: "the term inevitability was coined by penn over a year ago"
Please cite a link to Mark Penn saying that Clinton's nomination is/was inevitable - prove your point, instead of just asserting it as a proven fact.
I can't find it, but I did find the following from Ben Smith:
UPDATE: "Inevitable" is my word, not Mark Penn's, which is why I wrote he had "strongly implied" inevitability. I've taken the quote marks off the words incumbent and inevitable above to make that clearer.
=========
So, did Penn really say what you claim he said or are you just spewing more anti-Clinton bullshit?
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 11:37 AM:anonymous
Main Entry:
anon·y·mous Listen to the pronunciation of anonymous
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈnä-nə-məs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
1631
1 : not named or identified 2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
Folks; Ignore the ranting skulking Arse Troll.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:42 AM:Shoskiru Honda: "It will be like an earthquake in the Democratic party if Hillary finishes in Third place."
Rasmussen seems to have a different take:
"The reason that Clinton will likely remain the frontrunner even with an Obama victory [in Iowa and/or New Hampshire] is because the former First Lady is expected to win among registered Democrats. For Obama, winning with the help of Independent voters is better than losing without them. But, it also means he is following the path of John Edwards in 2004 and John McCain in 2000. Both those men did well among Independents but could never win a majority of voters within their own party."
"Some states allow Independents to participate in their Primaries, others don’t. Edwards and McCain always did better in open Primaries but stumbled in the others. Sooner or later, to win the nomination of a Political Party, you have to win the votes of those in the party."
. . .
"In terms of winning the nomination, the latest numbers show Clinton at 61.5% and Obama at 29.9% [among Democrats nationally]."
Anonymous: "The "Ms. Clinton" people are the nastiest folks on this thread."
I can't think of anything nastier than calling someone a "Ms. Clinton" person when they are not - defamation is defamation, regardless whether it is falsely calling someone a Muslim or falsely calling them a Clinton supporter, or a torture promoter, or a war promoter, or a bigot, or a racist, or . . .
It's a real hoot, however, to pretend that the Obama folks on TPM's various blogs are sweet innocents who've been above name-calling and insulting, just a hoot.
With intellectual honesty like that, you'd fit right in with the Bush administration, Anonymous!
Matt wrote on January 3, 2008 11:46 AM:ANYONE but Hillary. I cannot wait for the Hillary people relinquish control of the Democratic Party. Maybe then we can get something done. Change is needed in whatever form it comes in.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:48 AM:Liam: "Ignore the ranting skulking Arse Troll."
Ahhhhh, the sweetness of Obama supporters.
Smells just like fecal matter, in fact.
Yeah, Anonymous, you were right about how much more "nasty" so-called Clinton supporters are here.
Not.
BTW, Liam couldn't even find a single instance of an anonymous pro-Clinton supporter so he totally (and disingenuously) ignored the point of my post and skipped to an irrelevant meaning of anonymous because he in fact has no defense of NCSteve's claim to not know where "anonymous" is coming from.
[Since the only other "Anonymous" has routinely indicated an anti-Clinton position, NCSteve's claim to be unable to distinguish "anonymous positions" has even less credibility.]
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:49 AM:Keep spinning you nasty little Clinton people. You've slandered Obama's religion, called him a drug dealer and a liar. The country deserves better than that and it will get it.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:50 AM:Matt: "Change is needed in whatever form it comes in."
I guess that means Rudy is back in the mix, since he is for change in a much more radically right direction, but change nevertheless and "that's all we need!."
And you people want to be taken seriously!
Guffaw.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:50 AM:What's going to be really interesting is to see Bill Clinton publicly rip Marc Penn another asshole once the Clinton ship goes down. Rumor has it that Penn and Wolfson have already either come to blows or come close.
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:57 AM:Anonymous: "Keep spinning you nasty little Clinton people."
Keep lying you nasty little Hillary Haters.
I've never slandered Obama's religion, called him a drug dealer, or called him a liar.
But I will call you the last.
People will begin to see you for what you are, Anonymous: Bushiites with a left twist - willing to defame an opponent, while accusing your opponent of defamation, hypocritically denying your own slanders and libels.
The country deserves better than another preening, arrogant, self-serving political leader whose followers seek to destroy and defame anyone who criticizes their chosen hero.
Kefa wrote on January 3, 2008 12:17 PM:HRC is in it for the long haul.....and no shifting Republicans trying to load up for BO to shift things to set up the dumber then dumb Dems is gonna stop her. No press piling on is gonna stop her. Mark my words.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 12:52 PM:The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on finding reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 12:54 PM:My favorite Obama tactic is the one called winning elections. The nerve of that guy.
A tip of my hat to Chino Blanco. That made me laugh. :-)
HRC is in it for the long haul... No press piling on is gonna stop her. Mark my words.
Indeed, I dare say that you are right about that, dear Kefa. I am as tickled as any other Obama supporter right now about the way the tea leaves and entrails suggest an Obama victory, but even if said victory really emerges (only an "if" at this point), our work is far from done. Sen Clinton is still a very formidable candidate and the worst thing that we could do is let a few early victories go to our heads.
Momentum is a good thing, to be sure, but it is no substitute for the very hard work we need to start doing immediately to translate early success into later success on Feb 5. That date will see democratic primaries or caucuses in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah. We can probably count NY and IL as already settled, but the rest must be regarded as still very much in play, so if you live in or near one of those states, contact the Obama campaign offices and see what help they need.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 1:03 PM:But how can Hillary hang in there, since she told NBC that Women are not tough enough to go Caucus?(Snark Alert)
Hillary calls herself a feminist, and then blames her sisters for not being strong enough to go vote. She will do and say anything, and throw any one under the bus, if she feels that it will direct attention away from her own failures. Women fought for the right to vote long before Hillary came along and declared that they are not up to handling such a responsibility.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 1:50 PM:There's no way I could support Bacrack Hussein. The guy smells of phoniness. Remember, Dukakis came in third in Iowa. Even if Bacrack pulls off a win, the game's not over.
colonpowwow wrote on January 3, 2008 1:58 PM:Liam:
Re your characterization of Clinton's statement the other day - Do you have to unscrew your socks before you go to bed each night?
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 2:00 PM:Liam: "That is what Senator Obama offers."
Since Obama refuses to compromise on the things that most drive conservatives, the war in Iraq and the war on terror, he is hardly going to "heal the divide" as you think.
And comparing him to JFK is pretty funny, since JFK failed miserably (from a progressive perspective) in his major foreign policy initiatives, driving us deeper into Vietnam and giving us the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco.
JFK was a great orator and giver of promise, but he never accomplished anything of significance.
All this fawning and fantasy over an unproven individual who has never led men or a political entity is pretty amusing.
"Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other . . ."
Yes, the vomitous hate-filled verbal sewage Obama supporters are spewing against Hillary surely argues for how much mutual respect we can expect them to show "the other side."
Biggest laugh I've had all day.
You've called the GOP and Clinton (which you associate with the GOP) every filthy political name in the book and painted them as evil personified, but hey you'll just forget all that and they will too and we'll all sing Kumbayah!
And to think you people actually seem to believe your own contradictory and hypocritical drivel, where you spit on people and then seconds later say "let's just be friends and not spit anymore!"
Obama Supporter wrote on January 3, 2008 2:11 PM:There's no way I could support Hitlery Rodhater Clit-on. The gal smells of phoniness, lesbianism, and satanic torture. Remember, Gore came in first in Iowa and he was GOP-lite and lost. Even if Hitlery pulls off a win, the game's not over and we can still sabotage her in the general election like we did Gore.
Rock on Obama!
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 2:31 PM:The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on finding reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers.
Liam: "That is what Senator Obama offers."
Since Obama refuses to compromise on the things that most drive conservatives, the war in Iraq and the war on terror, he is hardly going to "heal the divide" as you think.
And comparing him to JFK is pretty funny, since JFK failed miserably (from a progressive perspective) in his major foreign policy initiatives, driving us deeper into Vietnam and giving us the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco.
JFK was a great orator and giver of promise, but he never accomplished anything of significance.
All this fawning and fantasy over an unproven individual who has never led men or a political entity is pretty amusing.
"Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other . . ."
Yes, the vomitous hate-filled verbal sewage Obama supporters are spewing against Hillary surely argues for how much mutual respect we can expect them to show "the other side."
Biggest laugh I've had all day.
You've called the GOP and Clinton (which you associate with the GOP) every filthy political name in the book and painted them as evil personified, but hey you'll just forget all that and they will too and we'll all sing Kumbayah!
And to think you people actually seem to believe your own contradictory and hypocritical drivel, where you spit on people and then seconds later say "let's just be friends and not spit anymore!"
anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 2:42 PM:Lame: "Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus."
Exactly what Obama supporters have most vigorously criticized in Clinton and the congressional Democratic leadership.
And since Obama has been in the Senate long enough to have proposed "reasonable compromise" and to have promoted "rational consensus" on both Iraq and Iran and has not proffered any such compromise or delivered any such consensus, he's a failure by your own criteria and your justification for his candidacy a delusion.
Why are clinton people sooooo shrill and negative? Wait until the votes tonight will you. You could still win for pete's sake. You are not helping your candidate by your negativity. Can't you wait until tomorrow? Just think you could be crowing.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 3:17 PM:Even if [Obama] pulls off a win, the game's not over.
No doubt. Sen Clinton can easily afford to lose Iowa. Those of us who want a non-Clinton nominee have quite a bit more work to do still.
RWN wrote on January 3, 2008 4:40 PM:Allow me a bit of insight or incite...
When the Obama campaign began it was designed not as a political campaign but a political movement...like FDR's outcome it was about changing the political electorate or participation of the electorate as the only successful strategy to overcome the insider position of Hillary...this is now in play....If and when the electorate of Iowa and NH followed by SC show up and overwhelm the regulars it will be historic...now the ingredients are more than merely change of standard bearers but change of standards.
Some call it a realignment and that appears to be in play right now. Huckabee's play is also a sign for this although on the disenfranchised right and evan-right....
The interesting point will be the pundits overwhelmed if it comes to participation. More interesting will be in Hillary finishes 3rd not once not twice but three times consecutively....
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 5:13 PM:The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on finding reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers
I do not like to see Democrats going at one another the way some posting here do. I really don't. That people who are trying to be supportive of change in America and are supposedly on the same side - though they support different candidates from the same party - can be so vitriolic and unkind is troubling indeed. I hope that no one loses sight of the goal. No matter who wins the nomination, this horrible and destructive name calling and ill will has to end and we have to direct our passions to defeat whomever the Republicans put forth to continue the insanity perpetuated by Bush and his ilk.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 5:36 PM:No matter who wins the nomination, this horrible and destructive name calling and ill will has to end and we have to direct our passions to defeat whomever the Republicans put forth to continue the insanity perpetuated by Bush and his ilk.
Indeed. Well said.
