PeixeGato: What part of La La Land are you in?

Obama can win NM, NV, CO, AZ, NC, VA, OH, and possibly LA, all of which Kerry lost in '04 and none of which Clinton will be able to take (with the possible exception of OH and NM). Omaba can make this a landslide victory for the Dems and take this country in a new direction. He can make us feel that we are all in this together, a feeling that has been sorely missed since the Repugs took control of the Congress in '94.

PG

For what it is worth, I have been familiar with Obama since his state senator days, well before his convention speech launched him to national prominence. So, to me at least he is a real person, not a media creation.

And as always, those who claim that Obama is unelectable obviously have not bothered to understand Illinois, and what sort of support Obama has gotten in Illinois. They are also simply not giving enough credit to their fellow Americans.

KOZ--The reason the conservatives rule talk radio is because conservatives like to be told what to do whereas liberals prefer to engage in a dialogue.

Plus the 'libs' completely dominate the Internet.

On the question of the support of the Iraq war, it's a question of intelligence vs believing a propaganda campaign (Hitler and his minions performed that flawlessly, until Sir Churchill and President Roosevelt sniffed it out).

Anonymous sounds like the typical Obama fan.

OOOH, lylepink has spoken! Stop the presses! The infallible lylepink has spoken, and we must all bow before Our Lady of the Wrinkly Horse Face! It's a good thing no one wants to discuss any real issues - that would be tiresome and difficult. So much easier and nicer to see who can cheer the loudest for his/her preferred candidate. Rah team!

And the kingofzouk is an insufferable @$$hole who is never right about anything. Anonymous has spoken!

Nissl: Iowa is a must top three for Obama. Richardson could be the one that comes in third and with Hillary and Edwards the top two, Edwards should win, but I have information this past week to not be suprised if Hillary does win in Iowa. The 12:33 PM Post by mountain man is the best explanation I have seen so far. NC is out of the question. With the early February voting this most likely will be over. I posted on the 15th my revised Electoral vote count for Hillary going up from 288 to 309 by adding Pa.

Hillary is going to be our next President, so you folks can either get on board now or later. lylepink has spoken.

I think Obama needs to lead early and start establishing himself over the summer. If he gooses Hillary into rushing onto the airwaves, all the better. Her strengths are competence and experience, not her interpersonal skills. As a couple of posters above noted these aren't impact ads, but they're well-constructed and help with name ID.

Edwards should be more or less toast 3-4 months from now. Obama then needs to carefully go negative on Hillary (iraq, health care, etc.), and show an improved debate performance, this fall. I think that would be enough to put him over the top; I do think that Obama will pick up the majority of Edwards supporters at the wire as they are mostly netroots who are likely to have an anybody-but-Hillary attitude. I also think that if Hillary's electability gap opens back up she will be in big trouble.

BTW Lyle, as far as early states I can see Obama taking Iowa, where he's statistically tied. I can see him taking SC, where the most recent poll had him ahead. Nor are the polls in any of the other states particularly firm.

Clinton is a name, Obama is a leader. So far, Obama has lead Hillary Clinton on predicting the war's wrong-headedness, on a plan to withdraw our soldiers from Iraq, on joining the Selma event, on voting against the funding of the supplemental, on refusing lobbyist and PAC money, and very importantly, leading all candidates on being open and above-board by making public his income tax returns and earmark requests. Even on his speaking to the future instead of the past, it is interesting to watch Hillary lately as she once again follows his lead, trying to subtly incorporate Obama's main points into her speeches.

Whoever downplayed Obama's eight years as a successful state senator needs to actually list Hillary's accomplishments during her eight years as a presidential spouse so that there can be an actual comparison made between the work of Obama legislating and the work of Hillary playing hostess or being a figure-head on commissions. Without such a listing, I am afraid 'her experience' boils down to sharing a well-known name for eight years.

What exactly was that poll supposed to prove, zouk? The general public in the UK hasn't come around to believing what a large majority of scientists are saying is reality. Not exactly front-page news, but I digress.

I do concede that Obama and Clinton have similar views on most positions. So does about 75-90% of the Democratic Party. That's why they're Democrats. I think we're going to find, as we near the beginning of primary season, that the issue will be raised of who has an ability to bridge the ever-widening divide.

Find me someone who genuinely hates Barack Obama. I imagine that they're hard to find. Now, find me someone who genuinely hates Hillary Clinton. This isn't my argument, though.

My argument is this: I know several registered Republicans and more than a few Democrats who will vote Democrat in 2008, unless Hillary Clinton is the nominee. I think she wins if Bloomberg runs because the Democratic base will back their nominee regardless, while the far right is distancing themselves from the frontrunners (Thompson's a pipe dream). But, regardless of the national polls, it will be a battle for her to win the general election when about 95% of the country has already made their mind up about her, and half of those don't think too much of her.

"Blarg - there is an important distinction between the format of talk radio which is mostly political and time sensitive and the format of a movie, which is entertaining... talk radio measures the entertainment...of the host."

Now I see the difference! Movies are just about entertainment, while talk radio is...also about entertainment?

And, yes, I think "Knocked Up" is one of the best movies of the year. It was hilarious. Definitely more fun than the glorified Powerpoint presentation "An Inconvenient Truth", a movie that has never entertained anyone.

those are nice ads by Obama- but using Lawrence Tribe - who nobody but a bunch of elitists may know makes no sense- also when you have the two politicians in the ad who nobody knows and you have to read the labels to get the point that one is a republican and one a democrat you lose the ad

No punch and no lasting effect I predict- they don't add anything to the media hype that people have heard- More feel good and I think the problem Obama has isn't the feel good one- he is a nice guy- its the experience one- and this ads nothing there

Lyle - try dealing with the facts posted by Proud. what has Hillary done for you or anyone else? there will be little need to distort her policies. Massive government programs will prove to be unpopular. Losing a war and strangling an economy is no way to win an election.

so does she want to win the war or not? Her proclaimations just aren't clear. Is bill the co-president or not? are we going back to the 90s or ahead to the new century? Is she a Yankess fan or a cubs fan? Can she make a single decision based on principle? you know like Mc Cain and Rudy, regardless of popularity.

robert chapman: Your last post was very well stated and MM: Your posts also. Hillary will win in 08, and the trash machines are not even warmed up yet for the GOP, how much false information and distorting of facts will be put out by them and their supporters will indeed be interesting, to say the least.

"Almost three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today. This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution. The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally."

they watch Gore but they don't believe it. Based on the numbers of viewers of "Knocked up" do you think this is one of the best movies of the year? Of all time? Knocked up is directly comparable to Moore. Take a situation and play on the most revered or feared aspects of it. the end result is a total waste of two hours in a cool dark room, intellectually speaking. Of course we have already discussed the lack of interest in intellect displayed by the Libs.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three_quarters_believe_global_warming_a_natural_occurrence

Blarg - there is an important distinction between the format of talk radio which is mostly political and time sensitive and the format of a movie, which is entertaining. granted both media serve to entertain but one is interactive. I said the entertainment value of the movies is high and this is verified by the attendance.

but they are measuring something different. talk radio measures the entertainment, intellect, wit, quick reactions and logic of the host. In this field Repubs dominate. One could say that the Libs lack intellect, wit, logic, etc.

On the other hand, if you wanrt to measure the directors ability to edit and present pieces of footage, the Libs seem to be winning this front. but the observational nature of the movie does not allow for questions and rebuttal, as talk radio does. Perhaps this feeding of propoganda is happily digested by the population without question. but the free speech aspects are not comparable.

try comparing the monopoly of the printed press, which is dominated by the left with the domination of the TV by the left with the single format dominated by the right - talk radio. movies are simply too different for analysis.

"Obama's On the Air in Iowa"

Same could be said for rampant hog farm odor. coincidence?

Andrea I think you are completly overstating Obama's skills. He was a community organizer so what? I've known lots of them and wouldn't want any of them to be president. If Obama really was such a great leader why hasn't he done anything in the Senate?

^^^^comment paid for by the obama campaign,but its spot on in some instances.
the last two general elections, instead of going for experience, who did we vote for? someone who we can have a beer with. i much rather go with someone who knows what they are doing,than learning on the job. that makes 2008 more important to both sides. rather than trying to find the next reagan, or trying to bring back the clinton years, both parties should be focusing on new faces in this new election.

In a June poll sponsored by American Solutions, 85 percent of the American people said it was important to defend America and its allies. Only 10 percent were opposed. On an even stronger question, 75 percent said it was important to defeat America's enemies. Only 16 percent disagreed.

So the hard left in America is only 16 percent. It is outnumbered almost 5-1 by those who would defeat our enemies.

Zouk, thanks for signing your post. It puts you a cut above some people here who shall remain nameless.

But you miss my point. You say that liberal ideas aren't popular because liberal talk radio fails. But when liberal documentaries succeed far more than any conservative movies, you ignore it. If you're going to take the ridiculous position that popularity equals correctness, you have to consider all the data.

Mountain Man, why do you believe Hillary is electable? Republicans despise her. They've been attacking her for more than a decade. If she's the Democratic nominee, that's a huge benefit for the RNC. They can tap the fundraising power of the large conservative base that hates the Clintons, and use the old attacks that they developed in the 90s. And considering how fundamentally unlikeable she is, she won't attract any crossover support. So what's your defense of Hillary?

There is little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, so we need to look beyond the issues to differentiate the best candidate. Experience does not matter so much to me. No person ever has all the right experiences needed for the office of president. Every president faces different challenges. What experience did Abraham Lincoln have that equipped him to deal with the Civil War? What experiences did FDR have that equipped him to handle the Depression and WW II? I just heard on a talk show that the first Bush was probably the most experience person elected to the office of president and we all know how his 4 years turned out. So does experience really matter? No.

The deciding factor must be the candidate's ability to lead; and their intellectual ability to surround themselves with knowledgeable and competent advisors, some who had differing points of view, in order to make the right decisions.

Obama has the intellect of Lincoln, the ability of FDR to surround himself with knowledgable and competent advisors from differing points of view, and the charisma of JFK to stir American's into action. Just imagine, with the traits of some of our greatest presidents in one person, how great America can be under his presidency.

It's time we voted for someone with true leadership skills; someone who can lead people; someone who can get Congress to propose and enact meaningful legislation - instead of blaming Congress for failing to enact their platform; and someone who can inspire Americans to particiate in the process of healing our nation and making it a better place for all citizens.

Remember we are voting for a Leader. Let's focus on intellect and true leadership ability.

Obama may be behind in the caucus polls, but general election polls when he is matched against the republican candidate - he wins. Why then aren't people looking at who has the best electability factor in the general election. This should also be a serious consideration going into the caucus. Wake up Democrats - Hillary can't win in the general election, but Obama can.

blarg I'm glad we agree that Obama & Hillary are very similar ideologically the difference is then political. If Obama was president I'm sure he'd be a million times better then our current president. The only problem is that Obama is unelectable. Because of his race and lack of political skill. He has trapped himself as a reformer and wont be able to maintain his cred much longer.

I see the depth of intellect on the left is baby-pool shallow.

any intelligent posters out there?

For those of you that support Obama: The information you have on him is exactly the "Media Creation" I have referred to. I have serious doubts about him winning even one caucaus or primary, much less the General. If any of think or know of any state he will win, I sure would like to be informed.

hello zouk, tired of your anonymous rants? you must really want attention now,with your obsession with harry reid.or is nancy pelosi? or better yet hillary? or better yet spamming the room with nonsensical articles,lies and half truths? we here at the anonymous posters union would like to ask you do you even have a job? or a girlfriend(michelle malkin and ann coulter dont count) or a boyfriend?(jeff gannon?) please continue your howlings at strawmen and made up facts, but those in the fact based community(everyone else that is) will ignore you and point to you as a example of the 25% of support for your hero george w bush.

thank you and god bless
international brotherhood of anonymous posters union 1515.

M Moore is no doubt a gifted propagandist, although it is a stretch to call his stuff documentaries. He is very good at selectively choosing examples that highlight his exteme political points. but highlighting anomolies and ignoring the everyday is not a documentary, it is entertainment. Same goes for Gore.

And I support their attempts at competing in the marketplace. How about the rest of you Libs try it? Unfortunately for you, as soon as your ideas hit the airwaves, they will be DOA based on thier content.

Notice the only facts we have to analyze this situation - the plummeting approval ratings of the new congress and ratings of Fox and rush vs Air america/NBC. Can you imagine that the Dem copntrolled congress is less liked than the old R controlled one? Less liked than Bush or Cheney? that Harry Reid is equal to Scooter?

Winning an election means you actually have to govern, win votes, advance ideas, form coalitions, etc. how woefully unprepared the Libs were to do anything this grown-up.

and now the public is well-aware of that fact.

Michael Moore's movies are the most popular documentaries of all time. Al Gore's movie was also very popular. What do you say about that?

(By the way, I'm glad you admitted that conservative talk radio has its own "facts", which don't necessarily relate to the actual facts.)

"Hillary could win AR, FL, IA, & NM in a general election for starters. Obama Gore and Kerry all will lose those states and more."

What a silly statement. I am 100% sure that Hillary would not win AR or IA in a general election. NM is extremely unlikely, and Gore and Kerry both came very close to winning FL, so that's no achievement unique to Hillary's appeal.

There's a reason people like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Larry Elder and others rule talk radio while liberal attempts at coherence like Air America, heard only by the station's janitorial staff and a few others, go bankrupt. People like their opinions and their facts. Talk radio is a business, after all. But we forget -- liberals hate capitalism as much as they hate free speech.

The liberal mantra seems to be: We disagree with what you say and will defend to the death our right to restrict it.

"Her Senate record is one of serious, solid accomplishment through bipartisan legislative craftsmanship"

Huh??? More like Hillary's pathetic Senate performance - a list of accomplishments that are so meager her supporters ought to be embarrassed.

She has had a total of twenty bills passed since she entered the Senate. Of those, fifteen have been purely symbolic in nature. Let's review her "list of accomplishments"...

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

• Name courthouse after James L. Watson

• Name post office after John A. O'Shea

• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":

• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Unfortunately, it will take more than a village to rid us of Hillary
and her media-driven inevitability.

too much intelligent content. Let me attempt to ruin that.

Obama has big ears. hillary has big thighs. edwards has big hair.

See the depth and breadth of my intellect now?

IC

I would just like to add how much I love Obama's style. These commercials deliver a subtle and smart message with broad appeal. I can't wait to see how they develop.

Obama is such a caveman!

I am at home waiting for the plumber to leave before I go to the office, so I read all the posts, and some, like Golgi's at 10:12A, tickled me. Thanks.

It now appears Biden has no chance among D voters, with net higher negatives than anyone else [Rasmussen]. That's too bad. Richardson has the experience, but not the tv presence, and the 3 leading Ds were still arguing about who said what, and when, about Iraq, until this Obama ad cycle.

Everything we know now will have changed enough in six months that Obama's gamble on tacking to the center now may just work for him.

See Sally Quinn's op-ed in WaPo today, consider Dick Lugar's pronouncement on Iraq, consider John Warner's push for Baker-Hamilton, and read the WaPo series on the VP. Understand that Israel-Palestine may blow up in the face of the west like Lebanon.
Think about Darfur and how it adds to the complexity of dealing with China and how it points up our weakness to act where action is called for.

Know that foreign policy, all foreign policy, must drive the next prez and whoever s/he is, s/he must work across the aisle and around the world, or we are in for continuing unrelenting bad news. Obama shows that he does not want to be boxed in by D politics as usual, but as Truth Hunter has said, some of us would still want a more experienced hand at the tiller.

And John McCain, whom I disagree with on both the core premise that Iraq is central to suppressing jihadist threats to the west, and on the "need", right this red hot minute, for this entire immigration package, seems the only R who has both the experience and the proven ability to work across the aisle. The Rs are killing him for his work across the aisle and the Is are killing him on Iraq, so we may get a D and an R with no critical foreign policy experience. Then Obama's newness will not matter - only his ability to reach out to Is and Rs, and to surround himself with non-ideological wisdom.

Seems smart, to me.

Although I'd vote for her in the general, Hillary has no chance of winning a general election, OK? If you're even thinking of picking up one swing vote anywhere in the United States, don't nominate her

In the 06 election Clinton won in every demographic category and won 25% of the GOP vote.

Her Senate record is one of serious, solid accomplishment through bipartisan legislative craftsmanship.

This has served as the basis for her electoral success.

Believe me, in a deep blue state like New York, the Republicans are tough and know what they believe in, but even here, Clinton was able to capture the votes of a quarter of them.

She won overwhelmingly among swing voters, too.

Which other candidate has been tested in a big, competitive, expensive and tough arena like NYS?

I have dear friends and relatives who would prefer a daily root canal procedure to a Hillary Presidency, but, but, but

one cannot understate the vast, serious but quiet excitement Hillary brings to the race.

Hers is only name that people who don't know me bring up and their responses are overwhelmingly favorable.

How ironic that a candidate trying to break the glass ceiling is excoriated for "her sense of entitlement."

Clinton can win the election for President in 08 and when she does will perform her duties in a manner that will make her supporters proud and that will reflect the best and highest aspirations and values of America.

We will finally have fulfilled a major and indispensible part of America's unkept promise of equal opportunity.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

I agree with Adam. The 30-second spot is aimed at primary voters who, as in 2004, were thinking about electability above all else. Edwards is coming at the electability issue with all the subtlety of a brick. Obama's showing bipartisan appeal rather than simply claiming to be a viable general election candidate. It'll be interesting to see how it comes out on the mind vs heart issue, but at least two candidates are positioning themselves as the candidate for which you don't have to choose one or the other.

I view the Obama commercials the way I would view bullets in the executive summary of a longer report.

Although I am very impressed with the bullets, I am exceptionally impressed by Obama's sophistication with the internet and sent both commercials to a number of interested persons. I think that the Obama campaign is doing a good job overall.

Obama's plan appears to be to introduce the candidate to ever broadening circles of the electorate and to build his name recognition and favorable perceptions of him.

These ads show him as brilliant, idealistic and generous. They also show him as a skillful conciliator who is concerned about his opponents as well as his supporters.

People will be able to use the internet to show these ads to their friends and thereby build a just folks dimension into the ads.

I eagerly await the development of substantive ads after Obama has built up his favorable name recognition.

Obama is demonstrating a masterful command of the organs of political communication.

It remains to be seen if this will translate into a broad coalition that is capable of electing him and providing him with a base from which to govern.

But he has made a good start and he has the attributes of leadership needed to make a good President.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Draft Gore... He isn't running, guys. But OK, let's imagine he is because it is the only way to avoid yet more Draft Gore posts. So, fine, let's say he is in.

But who is your second choice, if for some reason Gore experiences spontaneous human combustion or is transformed into a frog or something else prevents him from being a serious candidate the morning of the primary?

Draft Gore Hits the Airwaves in Iowa

A campaign to draft former vice president Al Gore into the 2008 presidential contest has gone on the airwaves in the early campaign state of Iowa.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/draft-gore-hits-airways-in-iowa.html

Wow, Mountain Man actually said something positive! Sure, he did it while bashing Obama, but it's still amazing.

What misinformation are people saying about Hillary, exactly? Is it misinformation to say that she's not as good a public speaker as her husband? Or that that she didn't read the NIE? Or that it's possible for her to lose? Or that Republicans hate her, and she has no appeal to swing voters? Tell me which is those statements is false, because they all seem valid to me.

Let me explain this in terms you'll understand, Mountain Man: You say that Hillary and Obama agree on the issues, so there's no reason why Obama supporters shouldn't also support Hillary. But that means there's also no reason why Hillary supporters, like yourself, shouldn't support Obama. Other Democrats dislike Hillary for the same kind of reasons which make you dislike Obama. Get it?

Obama's ads are selling him beyond Iowa as a NATIONAL candidate. Of course that will play well in the caucuses, if the Iowans believe that he can carry it off nationally, they will be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt locally, in a close election. From the perspective of the present time, (June '07)I think that it's really going to be closer than people think in Iowa and NH for the top 3. I agree with the analysis on Steamboat Hillary. She truly believes that she is entitled, and has cadres of supporters pumping her inevitability of nomination, who believe the same. She is very allied with the memory of Bill's tenure, and wouldn't be anywhere near her fundraising or status without his total committment to her candidacy. You will get the two for the price of one, if she can pull it off. They are in it together, no matter what the party line is to the contrary. It is the Dems to lose. However, she has the most chance of any of the present crop of candidates to lose it, if she gets the nomination.
Likeablity vs. arrogance and entitlement? Likeabilty, even with border line competence, will win out every time..... Just look at 2000 and 2004...............

Please wake up! The Clintons have been kicking repub ass their whole lives! They know how to win red states. Hillary could win AR, FL, IA, & NM in a general election for starters. Obama Gore and Kerry all will lose those states and more.

There are voters out there who may agree with Clinton on every issue, yet still will not vote for her. Believe it.

There are voters out there who may agree with Clinton on every issue, yet still will not vote for her. Believe it.

The bipartisan/general election message may very well be aimed at primary voters. Remember that Howard Dean was the choice of the ideological left, but many didn't think he could win in the general election and voted for Kerry or Edwards in Iowa. I think that it's shrewd considering that many Democrats' fear of Hillary is that she'll lose the general election because so many Republicans are dead set against her winning the White House.

So much missinformation about Hillary here we might as well be on Karl Rove's blog. You Obama fan's crack me up by how clueless you all are about Hillary. If you actually paid attention to what she has done you may be surprised that you probably agree with her on most issues. I mean her and Obama have voted in lock step with each since they've both in the Senate so why all the fuss?

Anyway, back to the point of this blog Obama's ads. These ads by themselves suck. They don't define Obama, they don't say what he stands for or what he will do. They give little tidbits that will be lost in the collective pysche by caucus time. These ads are just another fundraising gimick to keep the Obama boat afloat just a little longer.

Although I'd vote for her in the general, Hillary has no chance of winning a general election, OK? If you're even thinking of picking up one swing vote anywhere in the United States, don't nominate her. Please. The dems NEED 2008. Please.

By the way, one last thought: the Iowa caucuses are notoriously hard to poll. So, I suspect that we will not have a good idea what to expect in Iowa even right before the Iowa caucuses. And without knowing what to expect in Iowa, I don't think we can know what to expect elsewhere after Iowa. So, I strongly suspect the Democratic primary race will remain wide-open right up until the process starts.

Brendan, actually, of all the candidates running, Richardson or Biden would probably be the best president, although they are not very good candidates.

Obama I think would also be a good president, having the smarts and the ability to think on his feet and NOT yet having been completely pulled into the Washington game.

Hillary just feels that it is her right to be president - due to her famous "deal" with Bill - and everything else - positions, relationships - comes second.

By the way, I simply do not understand why people are still arguing that Obama cannot win the nomination. The fact that he is in a stable second place in national polls is quite an accomplishment for someone so new to the national stage, particularly given the overall quality of the Democratic field. And it is still just June of 2007.

Moreover, even if those national polls don't change in the next six months (and of course six months is more than enough time for a lot of changes), there is already at least one clear scenario in which Obama could get the nomination. That would be for him to beat Clinton in Iowa (something the Iowa polls suggest is certainly possible), and then translate that into a bandwagon effect that would lift him above Clinton everywhere else.

In fact, the greatest threat to Obama's eventual nomination in this scenario would likely be Edwards (who might win in Iowa even if Obama beat Clinton), not Clinton. But that is where Obama's solid advantage over Edwards in the national polls, along with his relative fund-raising success, might benefit him. Or not--it would be fascinating to see what happened in NH if Edwards and Obama finished 1/2 in Iowa. Or what would happen after NH if Clinton came back from a 3rd place in Iowa and managed at least a 2nd place in NH. And so on.

Again, my main point is that it remains way too early for such speculation. But even if it were January and not June, I think it would clearly be the case that Obama had a possible path to the nomination, along of course with Clinton, but also Edwards and probably Richardson (even a 3rd for Richardson in Iowa could launch him into contention). So, dismissing Obama's chances, particularly after what he has accomplished so far, simply seems nonsensical to me.

1. I like Richardson. I'm glad he is moving up in the polls. However, I don't think he can win the general, unfortunately.

2. I really like Obama. I think he has sufficient experience to be president, given that any president - even Shrillary - will have to learn on the job. (Being Bill's wife in peacetime when the economy was booming is no preparation for what the president will face in 2009.) I think Obama has the curiosity and the intellectual ability to do a first rate job as president.
Out of curiosity, lylepink, is there ANYTHING about Obama's positions that you agree with? And is there ANYTHING that you think can be criticized in Hillary's? i.e. is your support based on logical assessment? can you assess the positions independent of their author?

3. I really don't like Hillary. I think she has an air of entitlement which is completely unjustified, and although she is intelligent, she has put that to work so far entirely for her own ambitions - consistently making decisions purely for political reasons, rather than with the "big picture" in mind.
She is too intelligent to have trusted Bush to invade Iraq only as a last resort, and had she read the NIE, too intelligent not to have realized that she could not logically justify her support for an invasion. This makes me think that she did not read it so that she could maintain plausible deniability, with the result that we are now firmly enmeshed in this generation's Vietnam... with the difference being that pulling out - without an international force replacing US troops - may not be possible for many years. Thanks, Hillary!

I thought these were pretty effective ads. The overt message is very positive and at this stage Obama is still just beginning the process of introducing himself to the voters. Given his favorable positive-negative balance among those who do know him, he is best served right now by trying to extend that same pattern to those who do not yet know him.

But I think there were some subtle (very subtle) contrasts being drawn as well. The 30-second ad emphasizes the good will that Obama was able to generate among Republicans even while working on progressive issues. The 60-second ad emphasizes that although Obama could have made a lot of money as a lawyer, he chose to work as a community organizer instead. Given who else shares the top ranks of the Iowa polls, I think those points of emphasis are not entirely accidental.

Chris why no mention of Richardson and the latest poll?

"New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has jumped to 13% in a new survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers, a 10-point gain since March. He is the only Democrat to make any significant gains over the past three months. Among the likeliest caucus-goers (representing just over 40% of the sample -- voters who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary, and say they are definite to attend next year's caucus) Governor Richardson has actually overtaken Senator Barack Obama and moved into third place at 18%."

Obama should take both Clinton and Edwards to ask for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate prior to the Iraq War.
http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

JamesCH, Clinton has never tried to cast herself in the same light as her husband. I have never seen any evidence of that, and in fact, Bill generally keep his distance from the campaign so that won't be construed.

And after Edwards' campaign (inevitably) collapses, I don't see all of his supporters moving to Obama. Far more likely that they'll scatter amongst all 7 candidates.

Say what you like about Clinton, but out of the Democratic contenders, she'd be the best President. Not a great primary candidate, I'll admit, but I'd rather have the 44th President, not the 3rd Democratic loss in a row.

Sen. Obama is not a media creation any more than Bill Clinton was in 1992. As the country learns more about him, the more he will stand out as an alternative. Sen. Clinton's lead is a direct result of being a known entity. Anywhere from 25-35% of the country is yet to form an opinion of Barack Obama.

The sooner people come to realize that Sen. Clinton is not her husband, the better off we will all be. She isn't the commanding public speaker he was. She doesn't have the everyman (or everywoman) appeal that he has. When she tries to connect with audiences, she frequently comes off as disingenous and arrogant.

Her nomination is far from a lock, and if she begins to lose the fundraising battle, you could easily see the dominos begin to fall. In addition, if John Edwards' campaign begins to flag, his supporters will likely move to Obama rather than Clinton as well.

I've read other quotes of Lawrence Tribe on Barack Obama that have really impressed me.
Tribe is one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars.

"He was all around the most amazing student that I can remember having in 37 years and thousands of students."

"... When I look at my kids and grandkids and ask what makes me hopeful about the future -- one thing is Barack Obama."

Have we ever heard praise like this about any other presidential candidate??

America deserves the best of the best in the White House.

vwcat: I disagree with you completely about the media giving Hillary a total pass. The exact opposite is true and has been since the "Baking cookies" remark. Obama has been, and is a "Media creation". I agree with Truth Hunter and am still conviced Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 08. This is not meant as a put-down in any way, but my honest opinion I have had from the very beginning.

The professor, though not terribly well known, is Laurence Tribe, considered by many to be the leading Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court expert in the world, having argued 38 cases before the Bench.

These ads will be more effective closer to the caucuses, after the really dirty laundry on everyone begins to air. And I agree with Tribe on one thing for sure: it takes an exceptional kind of man to pass on being able to name his price in favor of community activist work. I don't think I could've done it.

Obama is pulling voters from the indies and mod. repubs and they reregister democratic to vote for him in the primary. This is trending on his website. many come on and announce their party and that they have registered as democrats to vote Obama.
I hope Obama hits home with the fact that he publicly posted his earmarks. courage and leadership and where is Hillary's?
but, the msm has been giving her a total pass for everything all season. And then people wonder why her polls are so high. Gee.....

Most Iowans don't make up their mind until right before the caucus. I doubt they will remember anything from these ads and that's good because they don't really say much.

These commercials strike a nice cord, think most Dems in Iowa will view them favorably.

The question they raise is, however, do community service and kudos from his professor.... a mistake I think to use the professor, it's what a non-experience student would use on a resume.... add up to qualifications for president on the current deadly serious international stage.

No doubt Obama was and is an exceptional young man. Personally, I would be more comfortable with someone who has a few battle scars.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

This was expected and I doubt it will help much in Iowa. From information I have received in the past week, Edwards is slipping slightly and Hillary is gaining. Obama had to do something to remain in the race, for the media has played him big for quite awhile and now he is no longer a novelty to them and will not get the free media he has enjoyed for so long. We will know in a couple of weeks how well this is going to play.