comment #1

christian says ...

Obama still isn't going to get it. I've waited for him to say something besides nice platitudes, but as of yet...

comment #2

BNick says ...

Iowa is crazy.

The fact that it has a caucus and not a primary really throws the race up into the air, because instead of just voting you have a couple dozen people in a room debating back and forth for a few hours. There are several rounds of voting and candidates with fewer than 15% are eliminated. This means people's second choices are very important.

In second choice preferences, Obama and Edwards are both significantly ahead of Hillary, which is important. But on the other hand, more of her supporters are people who are likely to show up at the caucuses. Obama and Edwards are relying more on young people, who are less likely to attend caucuses (just ask Howard Dean) and also less likely to even be in Iowa on January 3rd since some of them attend college in Iowa but live out of state.

There are so many different ways to look at this race. I've even read some hyperventilators say that Hillary may panic, pull resources out, and concede the state rather than fight to the end and lose. It's a bit early for that. But her people are worried, for sure.

comment #3

Tim says ...

BNick, if you read the article one of the most striking findings is that Hillary Clinton's "first timer support" is higher than that of Obama and Edwards.

"About half of her supporters said they have never attended a caucus."

Compared to 43% for Obama. Things are looking up. Let's hope they continue in that direction.

comment #4

Dirty Harry says ...

That poll was taken right after the last debate where Obama inexplicably and stupidly fumbled the driver's license question that so undid Hillary.

However, her failure to capitalize on Obama's gaffe is an even bigger failure than Obama's gaffe.

I still think Obama had a pretty poor showing in that deabte and this poll was taken too soon after to show the full effect of that, but it's the after-debate that matters more and luckily for Obama that was focussed more on CNN's poor performance than his own, and the Novak column where the Clinton people tried to get a little too smart with a triple-bank shot and ended up once again reminding everyone of what they don't like about the Clintons.

She's in real trouble and not wearing well.

comment #5

BNick says ...

Yeah, I noticed that too, Tim. Seems to be at odds with everything I've been hearing that Hillary's supporters are more iffy caucusgoers than, say, Obama's are. Edwards I can understand because he came in second last year so a lot of those people must be supporting him again this time around.

This Obama bounce is probably due to his stirring speech in Iowa about 10 days ago, which received a lot of media attention nationwide and probably a torrent of media attention in Iowa.

Since my first post I've read another counterintuitive opinion from a blogger who says Hillary might actually be better off finishing 3rd in Iowa than 2nd. If she finishes 3rd, it's still a 3 person race, which favors her. If she finishes 2nd, the 3rd place finisher is more or less finished, and the anti-Hillary vote is consolidated around the winner, either Obama or Edwards. Fascinating stuff.

comment #6

christian says ...

As I recall, Howard Dean was poised to take Iowa too, but the low person in the polls won. Guy named Kerry. I think Kucinich will make a surprisingly strong show but it's going to be Edwards in the end. That's my bet. Takers?

comment #7

SHR says ...

Great. He'll be President of Iowa.

comment #8

Scott Feinberg says ...

There's actually a 4% margin of error in the poll, making it a statistical dead heat, as both Politico.com and ABC News (which conducted the poll) are emphasizing. I'm not saying this knock Obama--I happen to like them both--had the opportunity to attend events for both and shake both their hands last month. Obviously, you'd rather be the one with 30% than 26%, even with a 4% margin of error, but you need to keep this in perspective--he is by no means "whipping Hillary Clinton's ass."

comment #9

Jay T. says ...

Once again, the Democratic party is losing the real election during their own primary campaigning. Fuck...

comment #10

BNick says ...

Actually, Kerry and Edwards had moved into the #1 and #2 spots in some polls just prior to the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, and their final tallys outperformed their poll numbers. This means there is something to be said not only for poll positions going into Iowa but momentum as well.

You really can't judge the momentum yet, it's too early. We're should be expecting huge poll movements in the last 10 days prior to the vote.

comment #11

Dirty Harry says ...

I was pleased during the debate to hear both Obama and Hillary embrace the Bush Doctrine:

BUSH:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

CLINTON:

"There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

OBAMA:

"The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East."

Always good to hear the other side catching up to neocon reality. Now that both are on board the policy I look forward to them articulating just how they intend to advance it. Which doesn't mean mindless Bush-bashing, or proclamations of they WOULDN'T do, but rather what they WOULD do.

comment #12

BNick says ...

Dirty Harry, that's ridiculous.

Bush has used that policy as a retroactive excuse to have gone to war with Iraq. Certainly Obama and Hillary would not be taking the U.S. to war anywhere in the world for the sole purpose of democratizing a country in order to heighten our security.

The policy of promoting democracy has proven untenable not only in Iraq, but also in places like Palestine, Pakistan, and of course Saudi Arabia, which has thus far been curiously exempt from the policy.

I agree it's good to be idealistic, but you can't let warm and fuzzy feelings about democracy and peace cloud the fact that direct democracy has produced mixed to negative results in the Middle East everywhere it's been tried.

Now appears to be the time for realism.

comment #13

christian says ...

And how is democracy working out for our nuclear pals in Pakistan?

comment #14

christian says ...

Speaking of rats deserting a ship, here's Scott McClellan from his forthcoming book, finally cleansing what's left of his soul:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

comment #15

Dirty Harry says ...

Again. Per the usual... To undercut my point the intellectually lazy put words in my mouth. Who said anything about going to war to spread democracy?

I simply quoted the three of them, noted how they're all on the same page regarding freedom-in-the-Middle East-equals-a-safer-America, and asked what they WOULD do to advance that belief.

"The policy of promoting democracy has proven untenable not only in Iraq, but also in places like Palestine, Pakistan, and of course Saudi Arabia, which has thus far been curiously exempt from the policy.

"I agree it's good to be idealistic, but you can't let warm and fuzzy feelings about democracy and peace cloud the fact that direct democracy has produced mixed to negative results in the Middle East everywhere it's been tried."

Please note you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Obama and Hillary. Because either both are lying in the statements I just quoted or they disagree with you. Same with Christian.

comment #16

christian says ...

DH, Scott McClellan just popped a phat hole in your Armitage Was The Leaker Meme. Hate to wait until April for y'all to call him a Bush hater...

comment #17

BNick says ...

DH,

I think you know full well that Hillary and Obama would not claim to have the "same policy" as the Bush administration when it came to spreading democracy.

Bringing democracy and stability to Iraq is now Bush's stated goal there. So if you still favor staying in Iraq, which I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with, you must favor using our military power to ensure that democracy is allowed to flourish in Iraq. Clearly Hillary and Obama are not willing to do this given their policies of pulling out security forces and retaining only the troops needed to wipe out terrorists.

It's fine for a person to say they think democracy is a good thing. I daresay you'd have a tough time finding a candidate of either party who disagrees. The difference, which you gloss over, is whether you allow the spread of democracy to be a primary determinant of U.S. foreign policy. Obama and Hillary have not committed to that. They've just said they think it's a good thing. Bush has indeed committed us to the spread of democracy, although even he is clearly unwilling to apply the policy in all cases.

I wasn't being intellectually lazy, by the way. You brought up a topic that was at best peripheral to the debate we were having, and I engaged you in it. To ignore you could have been called lazy, but perhaps more prudent.

comment #18

Arizona Joe says ...

I agree that Obama has spoken mostly platitudes. It's surprising given his Harvard Law Review education. For all his intellectual gifts and good looks, Obama sometimes appears callow and not presidential.

Hillary's public persona is not presidential either, at least from my view. Here's a graduate of Yale Law, a law school professor, and a supposedly fine litigator who could not give a good answer to the illegal immigration issue in light of the NY state drivers license fiasco.

I'm voting for the Democrat, no matter who it is. But some of these GOP candidates seem to have more gravitas with the general public.

I think the whole election will hinge on how much hangover there is in the red states over Bush.

comment #19

Spicer says ...

I think Hilary is simply unelectable. She has none of her husband's natural charm or charisma and when she tries to be "warm" the results are ususally very creepy. The criticism that she is too calculated and isn't saying what she really believes is probably true. Bill was able to make that work. Hilary has a nervous laught like the Joker.

comment #20

Spicer says ...

As a fan of Stone Cold Steve Austin, I can say with some certainty that a lead that is euqal to the margin of error for the poll isn't an ass whipping.

comment #21

Dirty Harry says ...

BNick: Don't you think when Obama and Hillary say they're only go to leave troops in Iraq to fight terrorists that that's just a way of saying nothing's going to change form the Bush policy? We both know that's a more palatable way to present the reality of the situation to their base.

And I agree that aiding Democracy in other countries will not be a determinant in guiding their foreign policy, even though they understand it's directly tied to our security. That's why I'm no longer a Democrat.

And all the complaining about Bush not pushing for democracy in every. single. county. is so hollow. You pick your battles or you lose the good reaching for the perfect. Everything in time. He's got enough trouble dealing with Democrats and terrorists trying to stop the good he's doing now. And he's accused of overreaching by his critics as is -- but also criticized for not spreading democracy EVERYWHERE.

The Bush-can-never-be-right harping is one of the first symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

comment #22

christian says ...

"He's got enough trouble dealing with Democrats and terrorists trying to stop the good he's doing now."

Awwww, our widdle prezident has to deal with...democrats AND terrorists (both the same party right DH?) all while taking plenty of time for his friends in big bidness. And true, commuting a convicted felon's sentence for supporting his own lies is hard work. Hard work. Hard. Work.

All that good! Why does America hate him so?

And DH, truly curious. What say you about this coming McClellan bombshell? More BDS?

comment #23

christian says ...

Oh and DH, you might want to revise your "the economy is very, very good" stat from last week:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The housing collapse and credit crisis will slow economic growth and nudge up unemployment next year, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday in a first-of-its-kind forecast that some economists believe will lead to interest rate cuts early in 2008."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071120/fed_forecast.html

I don't mean to pick on you DH. But you are named after a fictional killer cop, so I figger you can take it.

comment #24

Gaydos says ...

Jeezus, Jeff, I'm starting to feel like your press agent, HOWEVER, THANK YOU for keeping it political.

Agree or disagree, we all need to get our brains into the political game as the Oscar derby is nice, but citizenship requires participation.

Unless we pay attention, we're going to have no Oscars, ie no world/no world worth living in.

I'm also leaning toward your candidate, but that's another kettle of fish.

comment #25

Dirty Harry says ...

Christian: Your glee over bad news for America both in the economy and overseas says a lot about you.

1. McClellen said the complete opposite a few months ago, so let's get a little more context before we comment.

2. Democrats and too much of the entertainment industry (except the few Lieberman-types and most rank-and-file voters) and terrorists too-often share the same goals: Both want Bush (America) humiliated in Iraq, and are cheered by bad news -- kind of like your glee over Pakistan now.

6 anti-war-troop-victory films and counting to demoralize the American people, 50 Congressional bills to de-fund the war ie: lose ie: hand Iraq over to the terrorists. Condemning Turkey during a tense international situation, refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq to keep the American people demoralized and uninformed things have turned a corner...

All that behavior is anti-American and aids the terrorists by helping them to achieve their monstrous goals.

3. As far as the economy, if you look closely at that article you'll find it's a prediction -- not the way things are now. Reading really is fundamental. Key word: Forecast. Look it up.

comment #26

christian says ...

What's most monstrous is you calling my calling out of a corrupt president "Anti-American."

What did you call yourself in 1998 while you were tagging Clinton a liar and accusing him of "wagging the dog" when he dropped a few missiles into Iraq? Then you were Patriots right? You were in hog heaven impeaching the president. How much did you hate America then by taking down Clinton before the world? Talk about glee.

But if I wanted glee I would have sat on my ass the past 8 years and let your party run roughshod (with able help from the dems) over the constitution without a peep.

That's why I protested the illegal invasion of Iraq --bcause I care about our troops and sending them to die for lies seems a li'l more Anti-American than noting that Enron and Bush worked hand in hand to rip off the public.

I feel a great sadness for what's happening to my country and world. But your propagation of neo-con lies and spin to service the sleaziest politicians I've ever seen in a lifetime reveals more about your wishes of America's defeat than mine.

The media hasn't "de-moralized" anybody. Reality has -- which is why your party thinks if we just repeat the word "victory" then it will happen.

If you truly love America, you can't love what George Bush and his crooks have done to her. But then, if this was 1973, you'd be defending Nixon and Nam with the same okey-doke. As your pal Medved does to this day. And we know he's a pathological liar. Like Bush and Cheney.

Anyay, thanks for answering. Back to my glee.

comment #27

Dirty Harry says ...

Christian: Putting words in my mouth doesn't make you right.

1. I never accused Clinton of wagging the dog and felt those few who did were out of line. But it wasn't the ENTIRE Republican party trying to lose the war like Dems are now fro political gain. They didn't join the enemy at the hip to see America defeated for political gain.

2. I was glad Clinton was impeached but opposed his removal. He did kind of lie under oath, after all.

And I'm not questioning your Americanism because as you put it: for calling out a corrupt President. It's your focussing on the negative and "huh-huh-huh?" glee over bad news from Pakistan, and twisted reading of everything in a way that fits your America-is-bad agenda like that economic FORECAST as fact.

It's deranged. Bush. Must. Always. Be. Wrong. Must be wrong even when an admission that a few things might be going right might be good for your country. And more importantly its people.

And I happen to think Bill Clinton was a pretty good President. But I'm not suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I can admit he did a number of things well.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

christian: "As I recall, Howard Dean was poised to take Iowa too, but the low person in the polls won. Guy named Kerry."

Yeah, but that's because the Republiscum milked those stupid "soundbytes" of Dean. The Osama-Obama rhyme doesn't appear to stick.

Scott: "Obviously, you'd rather be the one with 30% than 26%, even with a 4% margin of error, but you need to keep this in perspective--he is by no means "whipping Hillary Clinton's ass."

I imagine he will in a month.

Harry:

>BUSH:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

Of course, Dubya likes to tolerate the Turks wiping out the Kurds and denying the Armenian Genocide, the Sauds whipping women as "punishment" for being raped, and the Shiites in Iraq using civil war to keep everyone else out of the political process...

>CLINTON:

"There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

She probably means means everyone participating, when she emphasizes democracy, not just the group with the most guns and people...That's where Dubya clearly diverges.

OBAMA:

"The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East."

I imagine Obama means the type of repression in countries like Burma and Darfur which we've chosen to ignore...

"Don't you think when Obama and Hillary say they're only go to leave troops in Iraq to fight terrorists that that's just a way of saying nothing's going to change form the Bush policy?"

No, because I'd imagine it'd be in an advisory position at best.

"And I agree that aiding Democracy in other countries will not be a determinant in guiding their foreign policy, even though they understand it's directly tied to our security. That's why I'm no longer a Democrat."

Yeah, join the party which supported apartheid and
which let Afghanistan fall into a civil war after it used its people like pawns in a chess game. You're so "progressive" like that...

"And all the complaining about Bush not pushing for democracy in every. single. county. is so hollow."

Oh, I didn't know you like your gas at $4 a gallon. Well, to each his own...

"Your glee over bad news for America both in the economy and overseas says a lot about you."

Yeah, it says that he's right about Bush's "policies" not working.

"McClellen said the complete opposite a few months ago, so let's get a little more context before we comment."

Yeah, and McClellan gets paid to say what's convenient.

"Democrats and too much of the entertainment industry (except the few Lieberman-types and most rank-and-file voters) and terrorists too-often share the same goals: Both want Bush (America) humiliated in Iraq,"

Bush isn't really America, since he only got "elected" by 26% of the eligible voters. And why do we need to see him humiliated, when he's doing a good job on his own?

"kind of like your glee over Pakistan now."

You're right. We really enjoy seeing two fascist thugs losing their credibility.

"6 anti-war-troop-victory films and counting to demoralize the American people,"

And 60% of the public is anti-war and demoralized without the films.

"50 Congressional bills to de-fund the war ie: lose"

Whether or not they fund the war, we already lost.

"hand Iraq over to the terrorists."

We already handed Saudia Arabia over to terrorists. What's the difference?

"Condemning Turkey during a tense international situation,"

Oh, so if the Germans refused to acknowledge the Holocaust, then it'd be ok with you, because our international relations with them are more important?

"refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq to keep the American people demoralized and uninformed"

What progress? It's a cease-fire at best, and it's been that way for four years.

"All that behavior is anti-American and aids the terrorists by helping them to achieve their monstrous goals."

What helps them achieve their goals is us being incapacitated by the trillion dollar debt our great-grandchildren will be paying for years from now.

"As far as the economy, if you look closely at that article you'll find it's a prediction -- not the way things are now."

Sure, things could get better. But that presumes that people will make enough money to keep the economy going to off-set the billions being hemorrhaged by the banks.

"But it wasn't the ENTIRE Republican party trying to lose the war like Dems are now fro political gain."

Um, actually, a majority of Republicans are against this war, too. In fact, they criticized Clinton when he went into Kosovo, too.

"I was glad Clinton was impeached but opposed his removal. He did kind of lie under oath, after all."

So did Larry Craig and Scooter Libby.

BNick: "Bringing democracy and stability to Iraq is now Bush's stated goal there. So if you still favor staying in Iraq, which I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with,"

If he's not serving, then I do see something wrong with his opinion.

Arizona: "I agree that Obama has spoken mostly platitudes. It's surprising given his Harvard Law Review education. For all his intellectual gifts and good looks, Obama sometimes appears callow and not presidential."

If we cared what they learned in college, we would've voted for Gore. (Well, we would've had less votes stolen, anyway...)

"Hillary's public persona is not presidential either, at least from my view. Here's a graduate of Yale Law, a law school professor, and a supposedly fine litigator who could not give a good answer to the illegal immigration issue in light of the NY state drivers license fiasco."

The Clintons thrive on the exploitation of illegals as much as the Republicans. After all, that's really the underlying purpose of NAFTA: to
hurt the working class in both countries in order to satisfy their corporate lobbyist buddies.