I agree with dhoussou's comments, and I fully support Obama's presidential run. Although he originally was behind in Iowa, I always saw his potential to pull ahead and I am not surprised he did!

I've been noticing a surprising trend here in Iowa over the last few weeks. I live in a small town of about 11,000 in south east Iowa where both Clinton and Obama have both spoke at town hall style meetings over the last couple of months. I had been seeing Clinton and Obama signs popping up in peoples yards all over the place. But over the last few weeks I've noticed no new Clinton or Obama signs and in fact have been seeing sign after sign springing up for Ron Paul! Is this a sign of things to come? From the grass roots level here it sure looks that way.
http://www.iowahealthinsurance.biz

Colin: Again you misstate my position concerning race. I stated very clearly race was not a concern of mine or other Dems I know. You, by doing so, are showing your own bias and prejudice. Please read what my comments are before you try and change them into something I did not and have said.

From what i hear from friends, foes and
the general public, away from the U.S.,i
have decided to tell Americans that "The
days of locust"is over.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are
wonderful candidates: Obama, would heal the
internal wounds and raise equality, while
Hillary would surpass Bill Clinton's Global
Peace Initiatives.
On the fight on Terror, they both look
naturally weak.

Lyle -- your explanation regarding race is helpful. I don't agree with you, but if that is your biggest concern regarding Obama then I at least better understand where you're coming from. I still think the idea that the GOP is aiding Obama b/c they want to face him is wrong, but you've certainly made your thinking very clear on that issue as well. Thanks for the clarification -- I'm always interested in your thoughts, whether I agree with them or not.

rich5: I am getting so many popups I can hardly read a comment. I think I have explained my position very well for a person with one year of high school. I also realize I may be unable to communicate with you well educated folks at your level. I make no apology for you not being able to understand what I am saying, that is your fault, not mine.

Colin: I have made it perfectly clear that by some Repubs supporting Obama, they think he is the weakest and I happen to agree with them. Race means little to me and other Dems I know, but to folks in the south, in particular white folks, are just not ready to accept a Dem black man, a Repub black man maybe. There is an article by Karl Rove in the Times[I think] giving advice to Obama on how to beat Hillary. The actions by some Repubs are all over the place supporting Obama in an effort to stop Hillary if you would only take a little time to look for them. I came across this sometime back and passed it along. My support for Hillary has never wavered and I've been called about everything but a milk cow, as the old saying goes, for my staunch support. I will say again, not one person I have had contact with believes Obama can win in 08, and this is well over a hundred folks from all political leanings.

Okay Lylepink, your posts are generally lucid & reasonable, but your thesis that republicans would rather run against Obama defies logic.

You grant that Hillary energizes the republican base. And that republicans are generally distressed by the electoral position they find themselves in.

You agree that the republican challengers are running on the Bush platform. You agree that Bush is the worst prez of our lifetimes. You agree that about 75% of the country think we're on the wrong track.

You can look at the polls on electability and see that Obama (or Edwards) matches up well with any of the republicans.

You can look at candidate finances and see the breadth of Obama support and the general weakness of the republicans by comparison.

You can look to the issues and see how hamstrung the republican candidates are in the shadow of GW Bush. And you can see how they have to walk a tightrope as their constituencies splinter -- shoot, they can't even agree on waterboarding. I'm quite willing to concede that Obama, Edwards and Hillary are "weak" on waterboarding.

So, lylepink, do you care to explain how Obama (or Edwards) is considered weak by you or your friends? So far, your comments haven't made a compelling case for your opinion.

Saying Obama is weak isn't an explanation. WHY is he weak?

I gather from your last point that you think racism would hurt him. You seem to reject the experience argument. Is your SOLE reason for believing he is weak, and therefore cannot win, because of racism? If not, what other specific things make him weak?

Honestly, I really want to know what you mean?

Colin & happy13: I have stated several times why I think he cannot win in 08. I have been involved in politics for 60 years and I have yet to know of one that would not like to run against who they consider their weakest opponent. The Repubs are trying everything they can to stop Hillary and by some supporting Obama in the caucaus and primary they hope to eliminate who they think is their strongest opponent in the General Election. Race is definately a FACTOR, as you well know. The expierence thing is just a bunch of nothing, Knowledge of how our system works is all anyone needs.

Lyle -- I would also love to know WHY Obama cannot win. You never seem to want to answer that question, however, so let me provide some reasons for you that perhaps constitute your reasoning:

*lack of experience (it's true, he hasn't been in the senate very long)

* Race (there are plenty of people who remain skeptical that a black man can be elected president. I disagree, but certainly understand that perspective)

* He's Not Tough Enough (usually this comes up because of his message, which some folks seem to think precludes him from fighting back against attacks.)

Are any of those it? B/c if not, I'm at a loss.

I can understand someone preferring Hillary to Obama or Edwards to Obama. That's fine, they're all capable individuals who would represent a huge upgrade over GWB. But what in gods name makes you think only Hillary can win other than, apparently, hanging out with friends who agree with you? Do THEY offer a REASON?

Sorry for the rant -- I would just like to understand where you're coming from with this stuff. At this point, I don't think anyone understands your rationale relative to only Hillary having a chance.

lylepink...simple question. Why can't he win?

Hillary is an effective Senator and I'd like to see her stay as one. At this point I prefer Obama but would vote for Hilary if she was the nominee. I would put more energy working for my Congressional candidate rather than her if she is the candidate.

rich5: I have stated my opinion several times that Obama has Zero chance in 08. Repubs are laughing at the thought the Dems would be so stupid to nominate him. This is from folks I talk with on a fairly regular basis. I have yet to find one that believes he can win.

Hillary is incredibly divisive. She is not what our country needs at this time. I am tired of this claim "experienced." I am a Barack supporter and I feel that he is able to unite our country and help regain our credibility overseas. We need to get over this intolerance and hatred that has permeated our country. I respect Hillary for what she has accomplished for our country but I hope the American people will think about what is right for our country at this time and vote with their conscience.

Lylepink, I'm glad we agree more than not. Especially true regarding current prez. Worst of ALL presidents, IMO.

And before I explore your comment about her strengths, let me add that I would vote for Hillary over any republican in the general election, but it would be without much excitement.

As I understand what you are saying about her strengths, it arises from the popularity of her husband and the 8 years of his administration and the generally good times our country had during the 90's and the current sentiment of the electorate that we are on the wrong track.

We know that change will be a key factor in the election. The question will be whether that translates into a desire among the voters to identify with Hillary and wish to go back to the 90's or to identify with one of the other candidates and go forward in a new direction.

My own hunch is that 9-11 is the figurative wrench in the mental machinations that would have us go back to our pre-9-11 prosperity. I think we know that that is just wishful thinking. I think voters will dismiss the backward thinking, comforting though it may be and choose a leader who can move us forward and inspire us.

To the extent Hillary represents the achievements of the Clinton administration, she represents experience and competence. Change her votes on Iraq and Iran and she's in -- end of story. But she gave her opponents in the primaries powerful ammo to counter the experience/competence storyline.

As you say, she is a formidable candidate in all regards, however, I think her flaws have yet to be fully exploited and that when an "anybody but Hillary" candidate coalesces from the current field, she will be defeated in her own party even though she'd have a better chance against the republicans.

lypelink: I agree with everything you just said. I just don't see how it means that HRC is the only Dem who can beat the Repubs.

PG

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

rich5: You are correct in most of your post. I have talked with Repubs and Dems about how the Repubs "Hatred" for Hillary will bring them together, we all agree on that point. Where I think most of you are missing the support for Hillary is in the way the GW Administration has handled the job over the years in office, and by any measure/gauge I know about, GW is the worst POTUS in our lifetime, and all the Repubs running now that has a chance to win the nomination are in lock step with him on about everything I can think of at the moment.

rich5 writes
"So, why do they attack Hillary with such verve? That's easy. She is the low hanging fruit that ALL republicans can unite around in their hatred."

Agreed. Frank Rich wrote an interesting piece for yesterday's NYT. He claims the GOP doesn't have a 'Plan B' in the event that HRC is not the nominee. He goes on to quote a number of GOP operatives & conservatives who have nice things to say about Obama in particular.

bsimon: "We can do better" For someone who has no favorite or leaning toward anyone, How can you honestly say that "I know deep down Hillary is wrong for my party and country".??. You are beginning to sound like some of the "Nutcakes" that visit here sometimes, and that is putting it as mildly as I can.

Lylepink opines that Hillary is the one Republicans fear because she is the one they focus on and attack. Ergo, since they aren't attacking Obama or Edwards, they know she is the greatest challenge to them retaining the White House.

Lylepink, if this was a level playing field, I would agree with your analysis completely. But it is not. The Republican party is in a shambles. None of their candidates can rise above their flaws or their resistance from one or more of the powerful factions within the base of their party.

If it wasn't for their dire prospects, they would be attacking Obama and Edwards who are more progressive and more abhorrent to the values of their base.

So, why do they attack Hillary with such verve? That's easy. She is the low hanging fruit that ALL republicans can unite around in their hatred. Attack any of the other democrats and you have to get into issues. But, when you get into issues, you have to navigate the minefields of the splintering republican coalition.

The republican candidates are weak, they are underfunded, they are walking a tightrope trying to avoid alienating different constituencies. In this environment, attacking Hillary now is the only safe ploy for it is the only thing that brings all of their constituencies together.

So, in conclusion, Lylepink, not only does the current republican focus on Hillary indicate the state of the republican field and their internal party dynamics INSTEAD of any indication of the dynamics among the democratic candidates, but it also shows that Hillary's nomination is their only hope from keeping their party from continuing its seismic disintegration. That's not to say she can't beat them in the general election, but it is to say that they would much rather play the game in the target rich environment she would present them.

Admit it, Lylepink. You know this is what is happening here. Think about it. It is plain to see.

Exactly right, bsimon, we can do better. I've never fully understood the love many committed Dems have for Hillary. If you want experience, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are all better choices. If you want change, Obama and Edwards both seem to embody that more than her. I do understand that Hillary is the one that will drive the rightwingers nuts. And while there is some fun in that, it shouldn't factor in to our choice for President

lyle, my misrepresentation of your prior statements was unintentional. I will correct my comment and repost here:


"Perhaps. What stands out in my memory is that for months you have claimed Republicans are supporting Obama and/or sending him money solely to keep Senator Clinton from winning the Dem nomination - allegedly because they think they can beat Obama more easily than Clinton. This kind of statement smacks of irrational fear of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy & is a primary reason, in my opinion, NOT to support Sen Clinton. We can do better."


Lyle, perhaps if you have data to back your statement, I will change my opinion that it is irrational, but without such data I can't help but think you are suffering from self-delusion in order to justify supporting a candidate that you know, deep down, is wrong for both your party and your country. We can do better.

Anyone here see an opening for Edwards (I hope)? If Clinton and Obama start slugging it out over the next few weeks, and Edwards can stay mostly positive, a shift from what he has had to do over the past couple of months, maybe he sneaks out a win in Iowa, Obama in 2nd and Hillary fading to third. I actually don't think this will occur, but is it plausible?

bsimon: "you have claimed that support for Obama is primarly from Republican's who claim to support him...". I have never made such a statement. What I have said and continue to believe is that "A lot of Repubs are supporting Obama in the primaries in an effort to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination because they know in their heart of hearts they cannot beat her in the 2008 General Election." Get your FACTS straight.

lyle writes
"You should read my comments more closely and you will find I have always stated each of us should support whoever they want and agrees with us on the issues we feel are the most important to us."

Perhaps. What stands out in my memory is that for months you have claimed that support for Obama is primary from Republican's who claim to support him and or send him money solely to keep Senator Clinton from winning the Dem nomination - allegedly because they think they can beat Obama more easily than Clinton. This kind of statement smacks of irrational fear of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy & is a primary reason, in my opinion, NOT to support Sen Clinton. We can do better.

My non-scientific analysis of the Sunday NYT shows a decided surge for Obama. Between the Oprah-Obama article in the style section, Dowd & Rich opinion pieces and a front-page reference Sen Obama dominated yesterday's paper. The general consensus is that Sen Clinton's 'inevitability' argument is irrelevant & voters are starting to compare the frontrunners as being equally capable of winning the nomination.

Colin: I think you are a laywer, if so, you know perfectely well there is no empirical evidence to support any opinion about politics. You should read my comments more closely and you will find I have always stated each of us should support whoever they want and agrees with us on the issues we feel are the most important to us. The "Hillary Haters" are well know and in no way are they the ones that support Obama, Edwards or Biden.

Lyle -- one of these days I'd love to see any empirical evidence to support your "opinion" that (1) Senator Obama "cannot" win; and (2) Republicans are supporting him b/c he's "weak." NONE of the GE polls support your opinion. Nor have I read a single article or blog intimating that the GOP is somehow secretly supporting an Obama nomination. Candidly, your often repeated "opinion" doesn't seem to have any support at all. Perhaps we should call it an unsubstantiated "guess" instead?

Oh, and those of us who prefer someone other than Hillary as the nominee are not "haters." We just think someone else would make a better president. Your characterization implies that the only basis for disagreement is an irrational dislike for HRC. That's both condescending and factually inaccurate.

JAnderson130: The reason you see me respond so often is, I think, I am the first to support Hillary on this Blog and most always am the only one who does. There is a lot of the "HATE Hillary" folks on here as well. Biden and Obama are well represented as to folks that have stated their favorite or leaning toward. I am not anti-Obama, just giving my honest opinion and the opinions of others I have talked with. I surely will vote for Obama if he gets the Dem nomination.

This is the first time I have read this blog and I was surprised to see so much anti-Obama, pro-Hillary support until I noticed that seven of the posts were from lylepink where he basically said the same thing. There is no doubt Hillary's campaign is turning up the heat but unfortunately for her she may be the one to have to get out of the kitchen.

LV wrote to me:

"...look up articles by respected conservative economist Bruce Bartlett."

I had read a WSJ op-ed from him. I will look for more, after I finish Boortz. Thanks - because I forgot Bartlett's name...

PeixeGato: When you look closely at Blogs, the Repubs are using any and everything they can to stop Hillary. This is where the "FEAR FACTOR" comes into play. Think of the Repub debate a couple weeks ago and how many times Hillary was attacked and no other Dem that I can remember. I am not convinced yet that any of the other Dems can win next year, and by the Repubs trying so hard to stop Hillary, I am beginning to think she is the only Dem that can win in 08.

jtmorgan61: I know two Repubs here in WV that have given money to the Obama campaign, at least they say they have. Folks I talk with feel the same about Obama, in that they think he has a ZERO chance of winning in 08. Our primary is not in the game when by all reasoning the Dem nominee will be known in early February, although many have registered for the sole purpose of voting for Hillary and will do so. Dems and Repubs I know and talk to from time to time agree Obama has no chance. The Repubs laugh at the thought the Dems will be so stupid to nominate someone who they agree has no chance and see it as another blowout like Nixon did to McGovern.

-Obama: He looks a lot better now. I do agree with Frank Rich's article that Obama never really made gaffes. The Clinton campaign tried to make it look that way, but I'd argue it has actually served to validate Obama's claim to new leadership. I worry that Obama is Jimmy Carter redux. I love Jimmy Carter, but I don't think that Carterism sticks as well as it may have in 1976. I would vote for Obama in a general, but not the NY primary.
-Clinton: She seems to be losing ground. Notwithstanding, her assertion of authority is commanding. It very well could be enough to win both the primaries, and the general. I think she could easily win the general. I'm not convinced Obama could win the general, but I "hope." At any rate, I'd vote for Clinton in the general, but not the NY primary.
-Edwards: I've privately been supporting Edwards, but he's not my first choice. Edwards is my first choice among the top 3 Democratic candidates. I'm convinced he'd embarass Republicans. If he wins Iowa, I think he might win it all. It would be the best chance American progressive/liberal ideals have at reaching the White House next year. I will not support Edwards in the NY primary, but I will in the general. I hope he does win Iowa.
-Richardson: Love him, but it feels more like he wants a cabinet position, which he deserves.
-Biden: Clearly one of the most qualified persons to run the country. It doesn't appear that he'll win the primary. We all lose a little bit when we have to swallow the fact that the qualified candidate loses to the celebrity candidate. But that's another discussion.
Dodd: Igualmente!
-Kucinich: I have to vote for him, on principle. Kucinich is the most principled on the issues. Hate that if you will, but don't deny that fact.

Eugene Debs '08

Clinton is more of a Republican than a Democrat. Her "liberal" credentials amount to ginning up a bunch of shrill feminists and their gay rights allies. Her support is and always has been the Wall Street and corporate crowd. The money for her negative campaigns comes from them. Her insane support for outsourcing, guest workers, and the governments of India and China have cost America millions of jobs and the crown jewels of our technology. New alert! - jobs and the economy trump radical feminism and gay rights. This election will be fought over the economy, ending outsourcing, doing away with the H1-B, L-1 and other guest worker programs and the restoration of this country as a technological leader by forcing U.S. companies to rehire the more than 8 million engineers and scientists and computer programers they dumped for those cheap Indian and Chinese workers. The only Democrats talking about this are Obama, Edwards, and Biden. The leader of the Republican's right now is Huckabee, another genuine populist who wants to place curbs on outsourcing and guest workers (by imposing punitive taxes on companies doing this). The path to the presidency is by getting off the global bandwagon and the hysteria you hear are from the Wall Street crowd that see an end to the money train they have been riding at the expense of the rest of us. Edwards-Obama is an unbeatable ticket. Clinton is more blood lost in Iraq, more jobs lost, continued bleeding of our economy, and an insane social agenda that no one other than her radical feminist and gay advocacy base wants.

I've talked to a lot of Dems about the primary and I've come across a lot of Edwards supporters who say they would support Obama if he won and vice versa. I've come across a lot of Kucinich supporters who said the same thing, and vice versa. In fact, none of the people I talked to said they wouldn't support those candidates if they won the primary.

THEN the conversation turns to Clinton. Many people tell me that if Clinton wins the nomination, they will throw their arms up in dispair and either stay home on election day (they don't believe she will be much better than the Repubs and don't trust her) or will begrudginly vote for her because she is a Dem (but would in no way do any campaining for her).

From my perspective and based on my conversations with other people I don't see how Clinton can win if she will have trouble getting Dems out to vote for her. If she can't get Dems to show out in great numbers, she definitely won't be able to get any independents or Repubs to vote for her. To me, this means that at best, she'll match what Kerry did in 2004 (Kerry wasn't the most inspiring candidate either).

When I talk to young people (those in high school and college), they are excited about Obama. They are excited about the real chance that someone who isn't an old white man will become our next president. They are excited that someone who looks and sounds like he can relate to them may become president.

I think the recent polls prove that as people get to know Obama, they decide to support him. The more they hear, the more they like. And as they begin to like him, they change their support from Clinton (the only one they knew from the beginning of all of this) to Obama (someone they may not have heard of before the campaign started). I belive this is played out in his rise in the polls and Hillary and Edwards' slight fall.

I also seriously doubt that Repubs set up a website touting their support for Obama as a ploy to trick the Dems into thinking that if he is nominated, he will have broad bi-partisan support.

Think about it this way: Can you think of any Repubs that "hate" Obama and what he represents? They may disagree with him, but can you think of any who HATE or dispise him? I'm guessing if you asked that about HRC, you'd come up with a pretty long list.

Lylepink: Do you actually know Republicans who have switched parties to carry out this master plan in the middle of one of the most unpredictable republican primaries in memory? One would think the Clinton campaign would play this up if it were provably true. On the contrary, every interview of a switching Republican I can find suggests that they have actually bought into Obama. There are (were?) moderate Republicans out there once upon a time, and some of them don't want to support Romney or Huckabee.

If you have some counterfactual evidence relating to Rasmussen, i.e. specific polls that moved at the last minute to make him the most accurate in 2004 and 2006 (though wouldn't that be good for democrats?), please present it.

Not really sure where you're coming from with something about fear, envy, and the upper income bracket. It is true that on average Obama's supporters tend to be more wealthy (as well as younger and more educated) than those of the other democratic candidates.

mark:if you want the real dope on the FairTax, look up articles by respected conservative economist Bruce Bartlett. He rips the FairTax a new one.

There will be no national sales tax, ever. And that's all this misleadingly named proposal is.

markinaustin: I have a sneaking suspision Iowa is going to Huckabee and Hillary, although I cannot support this theory, I honestly think on the Repub side these folks know McCain will drop out at some time and most likely support Mike. Mitt almost has to win NH as well to remain credible. Rudy, with all his problems remains the favorite of the media. Remember before Mike announced, I thought none of the then current Repubs could beat Hillary in 08, and were openly supporting Obama in an effort to stop her, and your idea of the Repubs "are extremely unlikely to cross over when their own race is contested." is what they want you to believe. I think it makes it even more likely they will cross over in their effort to stop Hillary. I am trying to think in a logical way that makes sense, but it is hard because of my support for Hillary.

Good article. Clinton's campaign is losing steam and getting desperate, as evidenced by her going Negative today

AggieMike did not say that HRC set up the "bomber" scenario - he said he believed the it was a lone crazy.

He also pointed out that some HRC critics [haters?] would think it was her doing.
---------------------------
Lyle, IA Rs are extremely unlikely to cross over when their own race is contested.
---------------------------
JD, I am almost ready to seek your input on specific issues raised by the "Fair Tax."

jtmorgan61: You have to take all the polls conducted into consideration to get the actual accuracy over a long period of time. The Rasmussen Report is consistant in the 3 to 5% favoring Repubs when you look closely. The one today is a little suprising in that over 50% of those polled as to their favorite say they could change their mind before the caucaus. The Repubs changing their registration and giving money to Obama is an effort to stop Hillary, they know they cannot beat Hillary in 2008 and they can beat Obama,it is that simple. I did not mention the "ENVY/JEALOUS FACTOR" in my prior post, but you can be assured it is in play as well, and the funny thing about it is mostly coming from folks in the higher income bracket.

Claudia, #1, relax, go lie down or switch to decaf or something. You are ranting emotionally, and you know it.

Secondly, do you think I'm the only one who thinks HRC is not to be trusted? With her (proven and admitted) track record in this campaign, can you honestly say that people have no reason to be extremely skeptical of anything she says or does? Are you saying there's no precedent of her acting in a similar way?

I accept your apology in advance.

lylepink, I just typed "giuliani" into google news to get a sample of recent headlines. Here is what came up for major topics:

Clinton, Giuliani wobble with one month to go

Giuliani focuses on economy, criticizing Democrats

Rudy staffers defend allegations of trysts, trickery

Giuliani Talks Campaign Security

Two of the four major headlines are negative. Look, the fear and hate agenda dominated the debate for a while, but it will be put to bed in 2008. Too many moderates are awake and paying attention now, though sadly only because of the massive destruction that's occurred. Do you really think Giuliani is going to firewall both Huckabee and Romney on Feb. 5, anyway?

As for Rasmussen, analysis after the elections showed him to be the closest of all pollsters in 2004, and the WSJ found Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon to be the closest of all posters in 2006. I think that's a little at odds with your claims of a 3-5% Republican bias, don't you think?

As fokr the general, exactly what are the republicans going to do to Obama? You just "know" he'll lose, but tell me why. The muslim thing won't fly, not with independents. It's too demonstrably false and vaguely racist to boot. No one who would have considered voting for him cares about his race. No republican has an impressively long resume to highlight his inexperience besides McCain. His minor peccadillos pale in relation to those of everyone republican candidate besides maybe Huckabee. And he's shown his ability to respond quickly and effectively to attacks without personally going negative this month.

Rmorgen61: All you have to do is listen to the TV talk shows and read the newspapers acoss the country. Whether or not any of them have endorsed anyone is beside the point. The overwhelming Majority support Rudy in their articles and opinion pieces. When I mention the "FEAR and HATE FACTORS", these are real in the political world. I have been watching the polls pretty close, and have even gone so far as to predict exactly what has been happening this past month or so. I will say again Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 2008 and the Repubs will do what they can to help him beat Hillary for they know they cannot beat her, that is only common sense. When you take a second to look at what I am saying, and realize how logical the Repubs think it is, you may change your mind. BTW, the Rasmussen Report tends to be about 3 to 5% in the Repubs favor, so that may be another thing to think about.

Notice that the commenter that raised the issue of out-of-state voters doesn't bother to mention that they are students who live in Iowa for most of the year and are legally entitled to vote there, as they are in every other state. Most college students probably vote where they go to school because elections don't take place on holidays!!!

Chris Cillizza:

Could you please consider doing some real reporting for a change?

I'm going to suspect that Obama's answer to the deportation question was "reform". Yet, if you actually do your best to think it through, you'll realize that the only effective way to avoid such situation is to discourage illegal immigration. Yet, "reform" would encourage even more. So, if you think it through, you'll see a conflict.

Perhaps you should ask Obama about that, pointing out all the forces that oppose enforcement now, and pointing out that those forces would have even more power after "reform".

I know actually thinking things through is difficult, but please do your best and try to do some real reporting rather than simply writing down what people say.

And, for extra credit, ask Obama about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A

Regarding the "out-of-state" controversy, Obama is simply organizing students who are legally allowed to be at the Iowa caucuses, but might be temporarily home for winter break. The other candidates are trying to hit him for it because he has a big youth advantage.

All that has happened is that people are finally tuning into the race, erasing Clinton's edge due to name recognition (which spurred positive media stories that further drove her numbers up). Now they're paying attention, not just to who can properly repeat the most sound bites at a debate but what the candidates are actually saying and why. Chris, you may have been right that Obama wasn't ready to be president in January 2007. But Obama supporters were correct that he would grow into the role in time for the primaries. Not only is Obama up in Iowa, Clinton's lead in NH is down to 7% from ~20% (NH averages a 14% post-Iowa swing) and her lead nationally is down to 9% from ~25% in the only poll taken this week by Rasmussen.

And Lylepink, why is Clinton a stronger GE candidate when she does exactly as well as Obama in the polls with a higher name recognition? Karl Rove's first article in Newsweek was about how to beat Clinton. Clinton has been the only candidate mentioned by name in the Republican debates. If you actually read the internal republican chatter, they're viewing her nomination as a potential saving grace. And no, it's not all a big right-wing conspiracy.

How interesting that Cillizza suddenly believes Obama is "hitting his stride" now. Perhaps if he had been paying attention all along Chris would have been familiar with the Obama those of us who support him know. Instead, Chris, like so many of his media co-horts, anointed Hillary the winner and started preparations for the coronation ball. But with polls showing Hillary moving down, and Obama and other candidates moving up, the media must do a reality check.

"It's worth noting that in both gatherings Obama was playing to friendly crowds," Cillizza says. Clinton has had friendly audiences (Las Vegas, CNN?) Could it be that crowds -- regardless of where he is -- like Obama, and that unlike Clinton he doesn't has to pack them or plant questions to get a favorable response.

So should dyck21005, who -- although he claims to live in Iowa -- is unaware that college students across the country are allowed to register to vote in the state where their schools are located (because in just about all instances they meet the residency requirements for voting. Therefore, as the news department at the Des Moines Register points out, Obama's campaign is not trucking in "illegal students" to disrupt the caucuses, but reminding those students who attend school in Iowa and may be back in their home states with their families for the Christmas holidays, that IF they attend school in IOWA and are registered to vote in IOWA, they may come back to school early so that they may participate in the caucuses. This reminder is not just for students from Illinois, but all, and not just for students who support Obama, but all who intend to participate in the Jan. 3 caucuses. (It helps when you have the facts first, before you cry "foul!")

The gloves are off in Iowa.

Didier Tonami Houssou - Independant Political Analyst

As an independent political analyst, I have been following the race for the nomination of the democratic party's candidate for President ever since Senator Barack Obama made his intentions clear to run. I will give my reading of the state of the campaign and then make some suggestions to help impact the dynamics of the race.

Less than two months before the ballots are cast in the first caucus in Iowa, the two frontrunners for the democratic party nomination are engaged in spirited exchanges to mark a contrast between each other and to offer the voter a clear choice. Barack Obama, of late, opened a 6-point lead over Hillary Clinton in the polls which might give him a chance to win Iowa and upset her status as frontrunner. Such an occurence has the potential to dramatically alter the primary race. As for Hillary Clinton, the aura of inevitability skillfully built by her campaign comes at a price; she has so much pressure on her shoulders that a poor showing in Iowa might forge the public perception that she is a tiger in paper which can irrevocably doom her bid for the nomination. For both campaigns, the stakes are visibly high. The battle has been joined. Iowa has become a battlefield where both campaigns are engaged in a war of words. The undecided voters caught in the crossfires have little time to make up their mind. Many will vote based on the issues that matter to them the most. Likewise, in a political environment where soundbites are highly prized, many undecided voters will base their decisions on the candidate's handling of the attacks and counterattacks; although that seems like a shallow measure of the strenghts of a candidate, that's politics for you. The newfound momentum in Iowa makes Obama susceptible to political attacks. Being a target is a double-edge sword; witty rebuttals always carry the day. On the contrary, aloof responses can go a long way to make a candidate look weak or destroy his or her reputations altogether. To navigate these treacherous waves, I urge Barack Obama to resort to what Chris Matthews, in his new book, Life's a Campaign, calls "Attacks from a defensive position." In a nutshell, that military strategy applied in politics suggest that a candidate not just respond to an attack by proving his or her point, but by using the opportunity to attack the opponent. In my view here is how Barack Obama fares in the use of that strategy.

1- During the Nevada debate, Hillary attacked Obama on his healthcare plan by saying that it is not universal because it leaves out about 15,000,000, which she claimed is the equivalent of the population of the four early primary states! Obama in his rebuttal pointed out that the difference between their healthcare plan is that Hillary's plan is mandatory while his is not. Weak answer. Here is what he should have said:Hillary, don't get me started on healthcare. When you were presiding over the universal healthcare debacle in the 90s when your husband was president, the Congress democratic and nearly 80% of Americans in favor, I fought for healthcare coverage for 150,000 families in Illinois.That is about the past, you might claim, as you do about Iraq. But going forward, I have news for you. The difference between our healthcare plan is that yours is mandatory under the assumption that Americans are not covered because Washinghton does not shove insurance policies down their throats.That is not the story I hear from different families on the campaign trail.

2- During a dust-up in Iowa this week, Hillary Clinton questioned Obama's ability to handle a jittery economy. Obama fired back, claiming she was not Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton. That comeback was applauded by Maureen Dowd in her op-ed piece in the New York Times. Here is a better line:
The last time I checked her records, she was not Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration unless the economic credentials she is claiming are embedded in the White House Archives that she and Bill Clinton adamantly refused to disclose (remember the MSNBC debate with Tim Russert ?).

3- Here is a recurring attack line from the Clinton Campaign: " Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" Obama's answe ? He always seems to cower because arguably, political attacks are incompatible with his politics of hope. That old line needs to be put to rest by a swift counterpunch. Obama should say:
In Hillaryland, hope and truth might be contradictory; in America, hope and truth are synonymous. That is the America I intend to lead.

PS: Granted it is not easy to come up automatically with the soundbite answers that the media relishes.The trick consists in anticipating most of the attack lines and have answers ready at hand. It is not so much the job of the candidate, as he is under tremendous pressure. I have a great variety of such lines for the upcoming debates, the rest of the primary season and the general election. I want to volunteer my time and talent to help elect Barack Obama because it is my belief that when he is sworn in as President of the United States, the country and the world will witness not only a socially and economically just America, but an America where a fair chance is given to every single individual to make the most of himself or herself.

You can contact me at 347-624-0659 or e-mail me at dhoussou@yahoo.com




SupprimerRépondreFaire suivreSpamDéplacer...
Précédent | Suivant | Retour aux messages Sauvegarder le texte du message | En-tête complet
LireÉcrire Recherche Mail : Recherche MailRecherche sur le Web

Options de déplacement
[Nouveau Dossier]
Options de transfert
Comme texte inclus
Comme pièce jointe
Options de réponse
Répondre à l'expéditeur
Répondre à tous
Raccourcis du Carnet d'adresses
Ajouter un contact
Ajouter une catégorie
Afficher les contacts
Afficher les listes
Contact Express
Importer / Exporter
Addresses Options
Aide
Raccourcis Agenda
Ajouter un événement
Ajouter une tâche
Ajouter un anniversaire
Jour
Semaine
Mois
Année
Liste d'événements
Les rappels
Tâches
Partage
Options Agenda
Aide
Raccourcis Bloc-notes
Ajouter une note
Ajouter un dossier
Afficher les notes
Options du Bloc-notes
Aide
Recherche avancée
Recherche avancée

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! France SAS. Tous droits réservés. Conditions d'utilisation - Guide d'utilisation - Aide
REMARQUE : Nous recueillons des informations personnelles sur ce site. Pour en savoir plus sur l'utilisation de ces données, consultez Yahoo! Données personnelles

I may be able to answer many of your questions and give you a lesson in politics at the same time by my own famous quote "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, and in that way you will know what you are doing." There is a slight variation in this sometimes, but the message is the same. I have never been convinced Hillary would win in Iowa, only hoping that the folks there will wake up to the "FACT" that she is by far the one the Repubs "FEAR" most in the 2008 General Election. Noticed the polls have changed again with a new leader.

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

Obama is not encouraging any out of staters to caucus in Iowa except those students who attend college in Iowa and who are home for the holidays. It is perfectly within the law and rules for out of state student to vote in Iowa; the only difference is that this year the caucus is held earlier, during the school holidays. Many of these students will be in class later, during their home states primaries, so Iowa is their opportunity to actually vote. By complaining about Obama's attempt to get them back to Iowa to vote, the other candidates effectively support disenfranchising these young Americans just because they may not like who they vote for. Lame! Go Obama.

dyck,

Those same students will probabaly be in school- in Iowa- when their home states hold their primaries.

Do you just think they shouldn't be able to vote?

The students deserve to vote, the majority of their lives are spent in Iowa, and if Iowa hadn't moved up the caucus, this would be a non-issue.

As long as this is going on, R's should just stop whining about taxes -- since most of your taxpayer money is just being flushed down the toilet in Iraq:

'The NYT off-leads on reports that corruption has reached epidemic proportions in Iraq: Bribery and petty crime are a way of life, and virtually everything the government buys or sells can now be found on the black market. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say one-third of what they spend on Iraqi contracts and grants goes unaccounted for; an estimated $18 billion has gone missing from Iraqi government coffers since 2004. "Everyone is stealing from the state," says one Shiite leader. "It's a very large meal, and everyone wants to eat."

'As for that little girl in Chris's story; what a poignant moment. If it was HRC, how many people would have implied that the girl was a campaign plant, working off a script?'

and your point is, JD? that's a bunch of fanatic hatemongers will claim anything Clinton does is evil? that's their problem, not hers. if you want, i'll direct you to a free republic [nutter] website, where during that hostage crisis in her office, hundreds of posters claimed she set it up. usmc mike said it here, too. these people are absolutely deranged with hatred, and that's what the R base is all about.

Unlike the debates, the Heartland Forum gave all participating candidates fair and equal time and gave the audience the opportunity to be in touch with the real hardships suffered by so many victims of the current status quo under the Bush administration.
As for charges that the Obama campaign has encouraged out of staters to caucus in Iowa, I believe someone has distorted the facts. People from other states have volunteered to help with the campaign out of enthusiasm and support, but there is No such brochure encouraging out of staters to caucus in the early states. NO WAY!

Rise up everyone and keep this movement going: friends, fathers, mothers, children, black, white, Latinos, Muslims, Christians, all religions, all peoples, men, women, boys, girls, democrats, republicans, independents, America, the free world...

Yes this is our movement for a total change

Not tomorrow, not four years time, not eight years time...

Yes, this is the moment!

Rise up, join this movement!

Right Now!

...the fierce urgency of now

http://www.seferm.com/sefermspecials/personoftheyear/person-of-year.asp

Lylepink,

Nice try. Your comments are typical of those who want to 'spin' any kind of republican defection to a democratic candidate. Do know my republican friends and did you speak to them about their concerns regarding their crop of candidates? I didn't think so. That's OK, I guess you had to say someting in order to try and defect the attention that Barack Obama is getting from voters, no matter what their previous political loyalties were. I think Americans want a functional government and elected officials who are willing to tell them the truth. It's time for change, real change. Barack Obama represents that change. Get over it.

I agree, Obama is looking and sounding more presidential and feeling more and more comfortable with the electioneering process. He Hitting his stride and peaking at the just the right time. Meanwhile the Clinton machine appears derailed. Even "Magic-Bill" is scr*wing up. Typical clintonian-style politics is not what America needs and wants right now. We need new blood, new face, new ideas, and a new direction to help heal this nation and the world. I believe Hillary will only make matters worse. She is a divider not a uniter.

Calling the Heartland Forum a "lackluster gathering" is far too kind. Highly scripted, emotionally ladened, questions were met with stump speech pandering answers.

The edge Obama had in the afternoon forum was not just that there was an Illinois contingent there but, they were community organizers and activists. He is one of them.
It would be like HRC at a forum of corporate fat cats or lobbyists. she'd be in her element there.
But, that moment with the little girl was his dad side. His oldest is 9.
He has grown in this campaign. But, it took you guys awhile to notice it.
I suggest that you, Chris, and everyone else read Frank Rich today. His column touches on something that many Obama supporters have waited to see. That while the msm has lambasted Obama for supposed rookie mistakes and gaffes, they now understand this is policy and a total break with the conventional wisdom of failed washington policy that clinton embraces.

Obama is clearly the 'best' of the Democratic candidates, and I could definitely see myself supporting him.

As for that little girl in Chris's story; what a poignant moment. If it was HRC, how many people would have implied that the girl was a campaign plant, working off a script?

dyck21005 - Respectfully, here is Bill Burton's response to Hillary's attack regarding the students:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds:

Rather than denigrating the caucus rights of students who go to school in Iowa, we would suggest the Clinton campaign organize them. Their attack here is borne out of pure political frustration. Iowans are determined to launch a winning candidate for the Democratic Party to bring real change for our country. They will not be deterred by efforts to dampen participation and 11th-hour attacks.

Another example of the continued dishonestly and manipulation by Obama.
Barack Obama is drawing Hugh skepticism RECRUITING NON-IOWANS TO THE IOWAN caucus. NO OTHER CANDIDATES are systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses like Obama
"Barack Obama" brochure "If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your neighborhood. The brochure gives instructions about where to call or go online for information about where to caucus"

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, the state's leading political commentator, wrote "The Illinois Caucus" that the effort to increase participation by out-of-staters "risks offending long-time Iowa residents." And he's correct! "Given that students in Iowa's colleges and universities are from Obama's neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night," Yespen wrote. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans. NO OTHER POLITICAN Democrat or Republican is sending bogus literature recruiting out-of-state voters to manipulate IOWA Caucuses,
Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

"I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... 'New Politics' shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."
As an IOWAN who was on the fence between Sen Clinton and obama, this seals my vote for CLINTON! This guy is showing he will cheat, lie and steal to win; we already have that in a President. CLINTON IS THE TRUE CHANGE IN 2008

lylepink,

I think you are seriously mistaken about Repbulicans deliberately supporting Obama in the primaries, changing their registrations to vote in Dem primaries, etc. The Republican race is even more wide open than the Democratic race. Although I am not an Obama or Clinton supporter, I believe Obama could bring in more swing voters than Clinton.

Personally, I am for Biden - we need a responsible, serious adult in the White House.

WashingtonPete: "The fact that many of my Republican friends will be supporting Barack,". This is what I have been saying for a long time now. The "FACT" is, your friends think he is the weakest of the viable candidates, and of course it is to your advantage to run against the weakest one you can. I am glad you have posted this comment and hope enough Dems will see it for what it really means.

America wants change, REAL change. We have had enough of the politics of the 90's, partisan bickering, lobbyists crowding out the voice of the American people, secrecy, and fundraising scandals. The fact that many of my Republican friends will be supporting Barack, tells me that he is bringing forth a message of 'hope' that our nation can come together and work for the common good. At last, a candidate that can be open and honest with the American voter. It's time to restore America's place in the world community, and bring respect and dignity back to the White House.

Yea! Go, Barack, go! Beat the Clinton machine and lead us into a better tomorrow.