The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Hey Washington Post, you might want to pick up a copy of the LA Times to see the major story you are missing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center

How did all of those poor people give $1,000 donations to Hillary Clinton?

so the campaign hand delivers the story to WAPO who cuts and pastes it to the web- with enough time to get in 18 ? it's true the clinton campaign is taking for granted not just rational democrats but rational independents who I believe will realize at worse this is a bill clinton 3d term- and no matter how much you like him it's a slippery slope, or she is her own woman-one who is extremely intelligent and disciplined. but it's still a slippery slope. many organizations ban this kind of nepotism. I'll keep saying it 4 consecutive presidents from 2 immediate families is not modern thinking it's 15th century thinking. people have to realize our democratic republic is fragile - and a brazen ascendant ruling class is not desirable, whether it's bush or clinton and certainly not 4 in a row.

Most Americans now recognize that they made a tremendous mistake in reelecting Bush He has demonstrated that he is the most incompetent and ignorant president we have ever had. Let's not make the same mistake again. Vote for someone who is honest, has not flip-flopped, is intelligent and consistent. Long term political experience is a negative trait, not an asset. Vote for Obama...

I just don't get it..the comments here reflect what I experience in my 'real world' yet the polls indicate otherwise..

I will, for sure vote for a 3rd party candidate if Hillary wins the Dem ticket..for now fully supporting Obama..

Judging from this article, the clinton campaign certainly isn't taking anything for granted. Strong arming students isn't out of bounds.

WOULD-BE "STUDENTS FOR BARACK OBAMA" TOLD ATTENDING HILLARY PRESS CONFERENCE WAS "PART OF CLASS"

FITSNews - October 18, 2007 - Students at Claflin University, a historically black college in Orangeburg, S.C., are accusing the school's administration of prohibiting them from forming a "Students for Barack Obama" chapter, yet simultaneously compelling them to attend a press conference supporting his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In fact, several students who serve as volunteers on Obama's presidential campaign tell FITSNews that they were coerced into holding Clinton signs and standing behind State Sen. John Matthews, who unveiled Clinton's higher education plan at a press conference held at the school last week.

Which would probably explain some of the unenthusiastic expressions visible in this photograph.

Here's what we've been told ...

About three weeks ago, an honors student at Claflin University says she approached the administration about establishing a Students for Barack Obama chapter at the school. The student was told that she and fellow students could not form such a group on campus, but no reason was given for the school's decision.

Fast-forward to last week, when this same honors student says that she and other Obama supporters were in a class that was cancelled so that students could attend Sen. Matthews' presentation on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She and other scholarship students say they were "coerced by administrators" into standing behind Matthews during his address. About half of those students are Obama volunteers who felt they had "no choice" but to stand behind Matthews at the event.

Not surprisingly, Clinton stickers and placards were passed out while the Senator was making his presentation, and a sign-up form for the Clinton campaign was circulated, which many of the students said they felt they were obligated to sign.

Claflin is technically a private institution, but it receives millions of dollars in government grants each year due to its historically-black designation.

According to a senior U.S. Department of Education official who spoke with FITSNews on the condition of anonymity, the school's political favoritism - if proven true - may violate the First Amendment rights of these students, as well as a federal prohibition against using tax dollars to promote a political campaign.

"It stinks to high heaven," the official said. "Given that Claflin receives federal money and based on the school's clear support for Clinton and its efforts to limit support for Obama, this could be a violation of that prohibition. It could also be a potential violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association, but you'd have to determine the constitutional standard for a private school that accepts federal dollars. Are they considered a government actor for constitutional purposes or not? That's what a case like this would hinge on."

Claflin University did not return repeated phone calls from FITSNews seeking comment. Clinton's campaign said it would look into the allegations.

Count on FITSNews to keep you in the loop as this potentially explosive story continues to develop ...

pjkiger1....you say taxes will quadruple under Hillary. You've been listening to Rush and Sean too much. That's crazy (unless of course, you are one of the privilged making millions -- then, yes, YOUR taxes might go up - as they should.)

Mark Penn is ridiculous...

24% of Republican woman will vote for Hillary?

Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_Ha_

Hillary was not a great lawyer based on her own activities in Arkansas. She's never run anything of consequence. She never produced anything. She has never employed more than 14 people or so in her Senate office, but she doesn't have to make that payroll. You make the payroll! You pay for her staff. You pay for her. She can talk about bills that she introduced and advocacy groups that she supported, but that doesn't mean very much. She damns every industry and insists that they need to be controlled by government, their profits need to be taken. We've been sold a bill of goods, ladies and gentlemen, about how smart and about how experienced Hillary Rodham Clinton is. The fact is, she has never shown us anything in anything she's ever done, how smart she is. She has no experience that relates to serving as president. The things that we know that she's done, we all question. We all wonder why in the world she's receiving accolades for this stuff when they were botched. Yeah, she was first lady. But I'm talking about the kind of experience you earn on your own, that makes you prepared for the presidency. First lady is the first lady, but at the end of the day, nothing was on her shoulders. No full-fledged constitutional responsibility was on her shoulders, and she didn't get elected. She probably doesn't realize that. "Blue plate special: buy one, get one free." She probably thinks she was, but she wasn't. So she can take on whatever she wanted to take on that her husband gave her. At the end of the day, it's not her responsibility. She's never been a diplomat. She's never been a government. She's never been a general. She's never worked in any of the industries that she wants to regulate.

I really liked the Post until I started observing its pro-Clinton reporting. Everything is Clinton in the Post. I thought the Post was better than that. The disproportionate coverage is ridiculously blatant.

I reject the media telling me who is the "frontrunner" before a single vote is cast, and not providing in-depth, quality reporting about John Edwards and other Democratic candidates. I'm a Democrat and a female, but firmly reject the Clinton machine. In fact, I'm downright rebellious against it. My candidate is Edwards-- he's sincere, and he can beat the Republicans and change the country.

Media is working mailny for current government. This government is behind Hillary. She is looking outrages during her debates. She doesn't have either smarts or any class, but she has joint support of Bush-Clinton forces. People with ability to beat her, like Gore, chose to stay clear of the fight. Obama is behaving fully unreasonable, and, I think, he doesn't want to fight this fight for real, as well. Edwards can't be considered seriously. Current view of the issue is sad, and doesn't seem to be changing. Whichever.

DearUrban..., do not be naive! If Clinton is nominated, and it looks so now, she would be elected. She is promoted by Bush machine. So, Guiliani, McCain, or whoever, would yield her, like Guiliani did in 2000 for her, and Kerry did for Bush in 2004. Your vote or mine, for example, would not change it. And she would, I think, officially solidify new one party deeply dictatorial and fully corrupted American political structure. That is the structure all big empires had.

The PROBLEM is not so much the Clintons, as much as it is a problem that sits with the entire mainstream media.

It is so bad that the State Department has claimed such obvious bias in the mainstream media has prompted them to create a blog that would create the transparency that they have hoped for. The Post Op-Ed writer had been crass enough to suggest 'fat chance' of the State Dept. being more transparent. But the fact remains, the media definately does all it can to control public opinion.

Hillary is a despicable human being. She is out for #1. That would not be the USA. Her and Bills #1 is there bank account that continues to reap enormous rewards from the DC lobbyist networks.

John Edwards is the ONLY candidate that is hard set in destroying that network.

If we stay steadfast to what we believe, look for the integrity and maintain hope for our future, we can put someone like John Edwards in the White House!

We need to work for it! Success doesn't come out of thin air, rather from the deeds of our core intentions.

What is Hillary's history? Once you answer that you can easily summize that her intentions are not for the well being of our local, state, and national well being.

Yes, Hillary Clinton election means that Bush is staying. Actually, I think that it might be even worse. He didn't create, at least uncountable petty wars, etc. Anyhow, Obama doesn't seem to try to make his run to be anything more than some kind of symbolic protest, though he has a chance to do it more real and heavily grounded. So, under such circustances Clinton's victory seems inevetable. It would be even worse than what we have now, and, undoubtely, very, very bad.

once again, the post shows they are little more than the media arm of the clinton campaign. there is a big difference between hillary and bill: bill was an outsider in '92, running against an entrenched establishment, while hillary is the embodiment of that establishment. behind her "class" and "smarts" as another poster put it is a shrewd, cynical politico with no integrity whatsoever and that will become apparent in the general election, and if nominated she really will, finally, make john kerry look like john kennedy.

america-DON'T BE CHUMPS.

I don't have any idea what Hillary stands for. She is a former Wal-Mart director, someone who voted for war in Iraq, a Cubs fan who became a Yankees fan to run in NY, a darling of the wealthy who contribute to campaigns, someone whose subpoenaed Whitewater records (or part of them) mysteriously showed up in the personal quarters at the White House years after having been subpoenaed, and other things that leave her core beliefs completely obscure. Who would we be voting for? Being generally nice, a woman, generally liberal and a former First Lady is not nearly enough. True liberals don't vote for preemptive wars, anyway. I prefer several other Democratic candidates, Obama probably first, though Richardson and Edwards are also solid, and cannot see voting for Ms. Clinton.

As normal, The McCain-Feingold election reform is so convoluted that it is ineffective and allows dishonest funds into the corrupt politicians' coffers. The URL above will take you to an article in today's WSJournal. We voters are most upset that a candidate for President has taken 800K dollars from a felon and wants us to forget it if she gives it back. She violated the FEC laws by accepting the fraudulent funds. She should be viewed as a common bank robber. This morning she says she is not returning the bundled money. Senator she is one of your colleagues if such a person worked in any industry they would be waiting for trial instead of being considered as a President. The Senate needs to summarily dismiss all such people. If not then the entire Senate shall be painted with the same brush

Lifelong democrat here, so take my warning.

I support Obama, or even Gore.

I will not have Senator Clinton shoved down my throat by the main stream media, or some womens movement.

I will vote for the GOP candidate before I vote for the Clinton machine.

I will vote a full democratic ticket EXCECPT for the president, if Clinton is the nominee.

I will not vote for ANYONE that sent the US military into Iraq. No exceptions...

Senator Clinton represents a state where 3000 US citizens were brutally murdered, and she and "W" have failed to avenge the deaths of those trapped inside the WTC, and those that decided to go up, while others rushed down.

I demand justice, for those killed on 911, and Clinton & "W" have no clue who attaked us that dreadful day.

Has Clinton shown ANY leadership on the hunt for Osama...? The man her husband also failed to deal with.

You do not reward that kind of incompitence...

Although Hillary Clinton is a good, a very good candidate, Barack Obama is the best. America needs a democratic president, a competent president, after President Bush. The problems with Clinton are her views on the war and her husband. She wants to keep troops in Iraq, and does the United States really want Clinton (Bill) in the White House aqain? I don't think so.

Hey Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton and Penn think you don't matter.

Care to send them a message?

Women that I know personally who voted for George W. Bush are telling me they will vote for Hillary Clinton. I think that confirms Bush as the worst and most imcompetent President in US History.

If H. Clinton is the Democratice nominee, she will do more harm than good for the Democratic Party. Many Democrats will not vote for her, and her nomination will leave the party weaker in the long run, even after the horrific Bush presidency.

Mark Penn was a guest on Charlie Rose last night.

To say that he was unimpressive gives his performance too much credit.

He was blathering nonsensically about what he calls "microtrends." I am a well educated person, and I had no idea what he was talking about.

I am very pleased that he is the head of Hillary's brain trust. There is little doubt, in my mind, that he can be out-foxed by Obama's campaign strategists.

The route to the White House for Obama is better lit this week than at any previous time.

He is starting to attack Clinton with some real verve- and now we know that Mark Penn more resembles Penn (from Penn and Teller) than an effective political strategist.

No, the Clinton camp is not over confident. It is you in the MSM who ask stupid and loaded questions because you are not given the worship you think is your due by the Clinton camp. Don't feed off crumbs from the disconteneted. Do your job. Use good old shoe leather. The MSM coverage of the races is pretty awful. You fellas need to get back to basic journalism.

Hillary Clinton will be out on her broom on Halloween

She, her husband, and their ilk are Corporatists, not Democrats. And those who are fooled are fools.

I don't think we had the real Al Gore in 2000. He was too decent, too polite, and he tried too hard to include everyone to the point that we never saw what he really thought and who the real Al Gore is, the man we see today. Principled, caring and passionate.

I dread that Hillary Clinton is being too cautious and too worried about votes and not enough about letting the people see who and what she truly values and believes.

milbrooks27 is right. I will vote in California's primary. If Clinton wins here I will register and vote for a third party and its candidate in the general election. I am sick of Demo politicans promising a lot when electioneering and disappointing as office holders every time.

I wont be voting for her becasue she outsources jobs, wishes to even increase the number of H1-B workers that take software and engineering jobs from Amercian workers, and is for legalizing illegal aliens. A vote for Ms. Clinton is economic suicide. Beyond this, her radical feminist supporters are just plain dangerous lunatics. I've *never* voted for a Republican in my life (and I'm 60), but if she is the nominee, I'm going to vote a straight Republican ticket. The nuber of blue dog Democrats that are going to desert the party over Clinton is going to cost Democrats dearly.

priestd -- Ah, I see where you are coming from. It is also interesting to keep in mind that game theory is itself a developing field. Perhaps if game theory were more complete than it now is, it would be able to account for the "what if everyone did it" paradox inherent in the "my vote doesn't matter" mindset. I've heard that no economist votes because according to economics, individual votes don't matter. Guess what, in a few years some bright economist will figure out that individual votes actually do matter if you look at the data in the right way, and all of a sudden, economists will start voting. In the mean time, I personally just go with common sense and vote anyway...

The real question is, "What is happening to Mr. Balz?" Once a responsible, professional reporter, he seems to be heading off the rails right before our eyes. His reporting is becoming more "interesting" these days, more mind-readin, broad generalizations, perpetuation of established narratives, etc. Sad, really. Reliable, informative political reporting is getting so hard to find. Please stop with the "interesting" stuff, it's not helpful.

I think there still is a good chance that voters will wake up and decide that they resent the fact that the large media organizations and polling companies seem determined to declare the winner of the Democratic nomination--months before the primaries and caucuses begin!

People may begin to think, "Wait a minute, nobody asked me about this," and a real contest may develop in the final weeks before voting starts.

Hillary will Rule the World!!! But please....get rid of the lesbian style pant suits and do something with the hair.

sickofspam: we don't necessarily disagree. I'm speculating as to what might happen, not whether it is wise to do so. Although I might point out that, from a game theory perspective, there is no rational way to "use" your vote unless there is a real possibility that the election will come down to one vote. Since your vote will almost certainly not affect your actual interests, one reason for voting is as good as another.

We've already elected a blithering idiot as president, why not break another barrier this time around?

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_elected_i_will_have_the

priestd -- Yes, sure, it would be nice if the best candidate were a woman and that candidate were elected.

But when a voter's primary motivation is to vote for a candidate just BECAUSE that candidate is a woman... I'm sorry, but that voter is obsessed with gender, and is not using her vote wisely. Even if it is your grandmother.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

If hillary is elected, you will see your taxes quadruple. Who do you think is going to pay for all of her grandiose ideas?

In addition, look back when bill was running and what he promised to do. Now look forward and see what he did to keep those promises. You will find between slim and none.

hillary only pays back those that give to her big time. She only cares for your vote and not for you and or your family.

if this happens, and heaven help us if it does, we will become a socialist society. If you work for a living pay heed, you will also be paying for the person who can work, but because of previous welfare type programs believes that he deserves to get part of your hard earned pay.

For the person who will vote for hillary because she is a woman disgusts me. I am a woman and IF the person was qualified it would be a different story. However, this woman is not.

To get a better azimuth check, ask the people of New York. remember just one of her promises to them - I will not be running for president and will serve out my term.

Overconfident? She's got the best campaign organization, she's done well in the debates so far, she's caught up to Obama in fundraising, and she's got great poll numbers that are improving each go-round while closest competitor is stuck in the 20s. That sounds like realism to me.

Don't get me wrong--I like Obama and Edwards and Richardson, and what they stand for. (Richardson is probably the best-qualified person in the race on either side.) But Hillary is the best general election candidate for the Dems because she's tough and seasoned under fire. She doesn't make mistakes. And as previously noted, she's very popular among women, who make up the majority of the electorate. I didn't agree with her vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002, but I believe her when she says that as President, she'll end the war.

My grandmother is 84 years old, arch-conservative, and Catholic. She has voted for one democrat for president in 60-odd years. Care to guess which? It was JFK. You can call it insulting, sexist, condescending or whatever to suggest that women will be more inclined to support a female candidate, but I would guess that a lot of them would like to prove that our nation is not too backward to do so, after practically every other industrialized nation has.

Maybe Ms. Clinton doesn't understand just how soft her support among women (Democrats and Independents)actually is. The more I hear her speak, parse, and triangulate (not nearly as well as Bill did), the less sure I am of where she would actually lead us, should she win.

Looking at her roster of big-spender supporters that certainly do not support the kinds of programs she claims she would implement (health care in particular), and her vote on Iran (which she knows FULL WELL is a thinly veiled mechanism for the White House to launch its long lusted after war against Iran), I'm not convinced that we won't get another weasel by electing her.

The problem is that the Republican Party offers NO ONE for the vast numbers of moderates and progressives, and Clinton seems close to being anointed as the Democratic nominee. I'm not so disheartened as to stay home next November, but I may simply not vote for either Presidential candidate (whoever they are), and confine my votes to local, state and Congressional races.

I'm almost tempted to vote straight ticket for Republicans, and to encourage other Democrats and Independents to do so. Why? The Republicans have created a horrific set of problems for this country: two (maybe three) wars started but not finished, an economy that only truly benefits about 20% of the population and punishes the rest of us, and a full-out frontal assault on some of our most important civil rights. Many Americans seem to blindly or actively support these actions to their own detriment and risk.

Maybe they need more exposure to the REAL policies and agendas of Republicans before they realize what Republicans actually stand for and just how much damage they can cause.

And maybe we need to think about making Republicans accountable for their consequences. Maybe we need to make Republicans clean up their own messes, for once, instead of dumping them off onto Democrats and then waging nuclear political war the day after their successors take offices, before they've even identified what kinds of records (much less, how many) have been shredded to cover up the misdeeds of the current administration, and long before they can even begin to figure out how to restore America to what it was before Bush, a country with courage AND genuine morality, a country respected in the world, and trusted.

info1 writes
"I have something mindblowing to say: What if she is the most qualified, intelligent candidate ?"

If that were the case, we could have an interesting discussion. Since she is neither of the above, its a moot point.

Senator Clinton is certainly the most polished candidate in the race. That in no way makes her the most experienced nor the most intelligent. She may also be the most politically savvy politician in the race, but that does not make her the best candidate for the job. Our current President was, and is, an extremely effective campaigner. I dare say the record demonstrates that one skill does not necessarily transfer well to another.

The general election is much less clear than the primaries. At this point, Hillary does look like she has a very good chance. But the general election is farther away and it is much harder to predict how the campaign will actually unfold.

Bill Richardson was asked about his (almost non-) candidacy. He replied confidently and cheerfully that he will win the nomination.

Nothing unusual, right? This didn't merit a front page story.

In fact, it helps candidates to be optimistic about their electability. There is some psychology in it; that is to say, voters do not want a candidate to actually sound like a loser.

But the premise of this commentary is: "The Clinton campaign insists the race is not a forgone conclusion, but strategists sound awfully confident that she will overwhelm both the Democratic field and the eventual GOP nominee." And this was actually worth the front pages.

The premise of this commentary seems to be a little forced. Of course, with Hillary's polls so rosy we would naturally suspect her campaign to have some real confidence. And maybe that is the difference here, as compared with Bill Richardson's campaign, in which the media could care less what he claims.

It is not over until the votes are counted. Of course, there is always some possibility that the race will narrow. But Hillary looks like the best Democratic candidate by a pretty wide margin. Once people have locked on to that reality they will not be quick to change. That is good because both of her major competitors look like very long shots to win the general election.

One thing that cannot be denied - There are women voters out there who say "The only reason you don't like Hillary is she's a woman."

For example, my mother-in-law says that to all my male relatives. I don't like Hillary and I am a woman, so she doesn't know what to say to me.

But you know what? Someone who says something so unrealistic is so obsessed with the notion that everyone is sexist, that they have reached the point of paranoia and denial.

Hopefully American women will not sink to the level of electing a president on the basis of a paranoid gender obsession.

Hillary Clinton Is In Her Power

There comes a time when a person can feel the power of one self. Every dynamic can be scene; every thing seems to make sense, and everything you say is right on. Hillary Clinton is in one of those modes. To beat her, you will have to match her energy and some.

The media, by design and conservative choice, continues to try and define Clinton in negative ways. By keeping the race tight, they enjoy more patronage. With the advent of conservative media like Fox News and their wantabees, CNN and MSNBC, there is a consistent drum beat of negative attacks. The worse of them is probably Chis Matthews.

The concerning and unfair aspect of attacks on Clinton are the left has no equal. There is no real left wing monopoly on the news; instead, there is only the extreme right,who control cable TV and most of the radio waves. I surely hope the masses are truly fed up with the Republicans because the country is in need of balance. If our country go any further to the right, it will be a long time before we see a fair and balance media, congress, and other critical elements of our government.

Joseph

Is there some rule at the Washington Post and New York Times that at least one favorable column must be written about Hillary Clinton every 24 hours? Good grief, this article is not even a report on anything she has said, it is her strategist's spin on the campaign he is heading. And, surprise, he thinks he is running a good campaign.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton's road to victory wil not be determined by cross over republicans or yellow dog (partisan) democrats, these folks do not pose problems as, for the most part, they are either for her (democrats) or against her (republicans). Her problem getting elected will come from enthusiastic independents and democrats supporting Obama or Edwards. While these voters will volunteer, donate and vote for Edwards or Obama, there is no evidence that they will transfer that enthusiam to Clinton.

In the same breath that Penn pontificates about the many female republicans that are likely to vote for Hillary, he takes independent and democratic Obama and Edwards supporters for granted. That may be a big mistake.

"I think you'll see a tremendous influx into the political process of women who weren't as politically oriented," he said.

As a "woman" voter, I find Mr. Penn's observations offensive, condescending and downright sexist. Seriously, does he think woman are that monolithic and that we will turn out in droves for Hilary simply because she is a woman? Mr. Penn, do you cast your vote based on how much a candidate is "similar" to you? Here is another bit of data for your projections: I am a democrat, tried and blue, and if Hilary is our presidential candidate, I will be staying home that cold November day, for the first time in my life, I will NOT vote. Supporting the "Clinton-Bush family dynasties" is fundamentally bad for the precepts underlying American democracy.

I have something mindblowing to say: What if she is the most qualified, intelligent candidate ?

I think any person in politics has skeletons, and the clintons have had theirs paraded about 4 times over.

We're getting over a president who squeezed the military, dragged our reputation through the mud, emphasized politics over science, and dragged us into a questionable war.

I think any of the Dem candidates could run circles around Dubya.

Hillary's prospects to win the Democratic nomination are directly tied to voters' perceptions of whether Congress will put enough pressure on Bush to start the process of ending the war.

Whenever Congress has been perceived as taking steps to end the war, Hillary's numbers have grown. When voters become concerned that Congress will not take a tough stand, the polls swing toward Obama.

Hillary has helped herself by supporting bills that would fundamentally alter the policy and end the war. However, her position on Iran and her vague words about when US troops will be brought home will cause consternation among Democratic voters and they will take a serious look at alternatives. The nomination is Hillary's so long as she doesn't take a strategic and politically expedient position on the war to assuage the DC establishment or conservatives.

The way for Hillary to lose the nomination is for antiwar voters (that means liberals, moderates and conservatives who form the majority view on this issue) to lose faith in her commitment to end the war. If she reverts back to a 2002 position, she won't win.

I wonder if the number of people who refuse to vote for Hillary because she's a woman is close to the number who are only voting for her because she's a woman.

The Hillary crowd is smart not to declare victory too early---they know one mistake could turn everything upside down (the Dean scream anyone?)

thebobbob,

I am a fellow Democrat who supports the best candidate in this race period:

Senator Barack Obama.

Overconfident? >shrug

"The Republicans will "flip-flop" her worse than Gore in 2000."

Who believes anything a Republican says? Why did we invade Iraq? What about the deficit? Global Warming and Evolution are liberal left-wing conspiracies? Civil Liberties or Mushroom clouds? Helping sick kids is 'gasp' socialized medicine?? The morality party?? Any democrat is going to kick their butt.

Smh @ this ridiculousness. I thought people voted the best candidate available man, woman, black, white, republican, democrat. If we're just gonna try to be a nation thats a part of some sort of historic landmark, then our country will be history. Hilary Clinton is no Bill Clinton and Americans are gonna find out the hard way. The same way the did with Bush, which was also too late.

I don't think the Clinton camp is overconfident, seeing Hillary in action for many years, she is very cautious and being in politics, she must know that things can change rather quickly.

However, it is fair to start looking at the general election when you have a new edge in IA and you have 50+ support among your own party nationally. Why would IA Dems deny her the nomination when the majority of the party wants to nominate her.

Finally, she will be the GOP's worst nightmare and I cannot wait to see the GOP's heads blowing off on election night 2008 after the mess they have created.

Maybe Mark Penn would like to talk about his company's client, Blackwater?

Yes, peterdc, Bill Cinton's third term would be something.

Peterdc,

Whatever happened to "vote for the best candidate"? Isn't that what women struggled to get the vote for -regardless of what man or woman is running?

Clinton says what she thinks the people want, then changes her mind again and again.

The Republicans will "flip-flop" her worse than Gore in 2000.

"Will the real Hillary please stand up?"

It is interesting to listen to Penn and of course he is a biased consultant to Clinton. But the reality is that he is not only talking about his own polls but those being taken by everyone else in the nation.

Clinton appears to have an overwhelming lead among women across the nation as they realize that she really has a chance to win.

His view of Republican women may be a little optimistic but if my friends mother is any indication not very. She is 79 years old and lives in a southtern state. She had never voted for a Democrat in her life- and doesn't think very highly of Bill Clinton. But she recently told my friend that if Hillary is on the ticket she will vote Democratic for the first time in her life. When my friend asked his mother why, and my friend is also a Republican, his mother told him that if she can see a woman President elected in her lifetime she will vote for that woman no matter which party she is in.

I think that Hillary will surprise a lot of people not only in getting elected but in ending up one of our greatest Presidents. She will finally break the highest glass ceiling in the world and will do it with grace and class and smarts.

Dont these writiers realiz bush is staying. Real American will have to storm the whitehouse to get this vermin out. Then Blackwater will blow us all away. Its time for a revolution now...its probably too late.