Political Musings

Obama: Experience Matters

2008-02-25T22:35:00.002-06:00

Official Tina Fey Weekend Update Clip

2008-02-25T17:30:00.001-06:00

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221773

CAMPAIGN NEWS BRIEFING

2008-02-25T12:31:00.001-06:00

CAMPAIGN NEWS BRIEFINGS - Feb.25, 2008

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT NEWS BRIEFINGS - FEB. 25, 2008
Clinton Ramps Up Criticism Of Obama In Rhode Island. NBC Nightly News (2/24, lead story, 3:35, Allen, 9.87M) reported, “Hillary Clinton campaigned in Rhode Island today. A small state that votes in the shadow of Texas and Ohio on March 4th. Clinton began her day facing more speculation her campaign is on its last legs while she went after Barack Obama with sarcasm.” Sen. Hillary Clinton: “Now, I could stand up here and say let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing.” Allen: “Today Hillary Clinton cast Barack Obama as naive about how difficult it is to get things done in Washington, a different tone from yesterday's outrage.”

Clinton Reassures Donors On Campaign’s Prospects. The AP (2/25, Fouhy) reports that in an attempt to “reassure anxious donors, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday outlined a road map she said she will follow to beat Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries March 4.” Clinton “insisted that her campaign is on track and moving forward, despite losing 11 contests to Obama since Feb. 5.” Clinton said, “I am very optimistic and extremely positive about what we're doing as we go forward in these states [Ohio and Texas.]”

Clinton Calls Chafee’s Criticism Of Iraq War Vote “Revisionist History.” The Providence (RI) Journal (2/25, Arsenault) reports that in a Journal interview, Clinton responded to criticisms in former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s forthcoming book that Clinton’s vote to authorize force in Iraq “should be a career-ending lapse in judgment.” “‘I’m not going to contradict his personal opinion,’ Clinton said. ‘That’s certainly his to hold. But I think there’s a lot of revisionist history going on here. At the time, it was very clear that we were hoping to rein in Saddam Hussein and determine what, if any, remaining weapons of mass destruction he had. Because the facts are, he had them when we went in after the first Gulf war.’ Clinton said she supported the threat of force to compel Saddam to accept inspections, and blames President Bush for abusing the authority extended by the resolution. ‘It was a sincere vote by me at the time, and if I had known what he would do with the vote, I would not have voted for it.’”

Granholm Defends Clinton’s Reaction To Obama Mailers. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” (2/24, 10:30 a.m.), where they were asked to address Sen. Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the release of flyers by the Obama campaign which Clinton claimed misrepresented her positions on trade agreements and health care. Granholm, who is backing Clinton, defended Clinton’s outrage, saying “I think she rightly feels so strongly about these two issues that those fliers touched on—health care and trade—that she felt she had to come out strongly.” The rest of the article can be seen here.

Clinton Criticizes Obama Over Supermarket Union Ads. The New York Sun (2/25, Gerstein) reports that the Clinton campaign “is charging Senator Obama with hypocrisy for denouncing independently funded advertising campaigns,” but that “Clinton’s own position on the appropriate role for so-called 527 organizations is murky, a fact which complicates her attempt to tarnish Mr. Obama concerning the issue.” The Sun notes that the Clinton campaign was reacting to “a plan by a supermarket union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on pro-Obama television advertising in Ohio.”

Clinton Regrets Husband’s “Racially Charged” Comments. The Wall Street Journal (2/25, Chozick, 2.06M) reports Hillary Clinton “expressed regret over the weekend for racially charged comments her husband made in South Carolina that some pundits have said played a part in her campaign's recent troubles.” At the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium in New Orleans, Clinton said, “If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, or misinterpreted or not, then obviously, I regret that.”
Clinton Campaign Questions Obama’s Support For Israel. Newsweek (2/25, Hirsh, Ephron, 3.12M) reports that the Clinton campaign has “sent around negative material about Obama's relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK.” The e-mails “raise questions about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama's Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for ‘greatness’ to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a ‘bloodsucking religion."
Obama Draws “Surprising Numbers” Of Republican Voters. The Los Angeles Times (2/25, A1, Barabak, 881K) reports in a front page story on the “GOP renegades” who “are part of a striking phenomenon this campaign season: They are ‘Obamacans,’ as the senator calls them, and they are surfacing in surprising numbers, blurring the red-blue lines that color the nation's politics.” Susan Eisenhower, “a GOP business consultant and granddaughter of former President Eisenhower, has endorsed the Democratic hopeful. Colin L. Powell, who served in both Bush administrations, has hinted he may do so as well.” Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, “who quit the Republican Party after losing his reelection bid, endorsed Obama even though he campaigned for Chafee's opponent last year. Mark McKinnon, a strategist for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, says he will continue to back the Arizona senator, but will step aside rather than work against Obama if the two meet in the fall election.”

Farrakhan Praises Obama At Nation Of Islam Convention. The Chicago Tribune (2/25, Ramirez, 607K) reports that in a speech to “thousands of members of the Nation of Islam in Chicago at their annual convention, Minister Louis Farrakhan on Sunday praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing America's racial divisions.” Farrakhan “spoke about the war in Iraq, the nation's ailing economy and the increase in natural disasters, saying the world was in a perilous state and Obama could help it recover.” The speech, “titled ‘The Gods At War—The Future is All About Y.O.U.th,’ closed the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day Convention, which commemorates the birth of the movement's founder, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad.”

Conservatives Say Obama’s Patriotism An Issue. ABC World News (2/24, story 2, 2:50, Tapper, 8.78M) reported, “If Clinton has not been able to put Obama on the defensive, Republicans are hoping to by questioning his patriotism. Making hay out of his not putting his hand over his heart last summer during the national anthem, his removal of his American flag lapel pin, and other incidents.” Obama has “said he would push back against questions of his patriotism by arguing the Republicans were the ones that took the country to war without giving troops the proper equipment. He said, quote, ‘We'll see what the American people think is the truth definition of patriotism.”

Michelle Obama Mocked For Lack Of Pride In US. In an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (2/25), Ralph R. Reiland, an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University, writes about Michelle Obama’s recent statements suggesting that she has recently become “proud of my country,” noting that during her “adult lifetime” the cold war ended, and that “could not have happened without the United States.” He adds that at the same time, the US economy made significant gains. He continues to compare Obama to Fidel Castro.

Rothenberg Asks If Obama’s “Change” Means Liberalism. In his Roll Call column (2/25), Stuart Rothenberg says Obama “continues to promise change and stress his ability to unite Americans. It’s a feel-good campaign built on soaring rhetoric and good intentions. Pardon me if all of the fawning from the national media, and the endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and Garrison Keillor, leave me less than convinced that he can bridge the deep divide that separates Americans.” In politics, “the devil is always in the details, and except in rare cases, Obama has either avoided them or, more importantly, failed to note the obvious contradictions in his message and his record.” Obama is “a wonderful speaker, and his calls for change obviously resonate with many Americans.” But “does Obama want to find common ground between Democrats and Republicans? Will he push issues and alternatives only with a national consensus? Or is ‘change’ simply a value-neutral word for liberalism?”

Obama Criticized For Backing Away From School Voucher Support. The New York Sun (2/25) editorializes, “No sooner had we issued Elizabeth Green’s dispatch under the headline ‘Obama Open to Private School Vouchers’ than his campaign was scrambling to undo the potential damage with the Democratic primary electorate,” releasing a statement reading, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.” The Sun adds, “Parents of schoolchildren, in sharp contradistinction to teachers’ unions, will prefer Senator Obama’s initial statement to the clarification issued by his campaign. The initial statement was change you can believe in. The follow-up message was the same old interest-group Democratic Party politics as usual. It was plainly designed to assuage the teachers’ unions, who are the enemies of change.”

Experience v. Inspiration

2008-02-25T12:30:00.001-06:00

"When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/experience-vs-inspiratio_b_87982.html

Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'

2008-02-25T12:29:00.002-06:00

A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BGP-EJQPd8

--

“Today in the crowd I was given two mailings that Sen. Obama’s campaign has been sending out. … I have to express my deep disappointment that he has continuing to send false and discredited mailing with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio”.

“We have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false, and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods”.

“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook” . “This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged.”

“He says one thing in speeches and then he turns around and does this,”

“That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful, it is destructive particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care by waging a false campaign against my plan, to be talking about NAFTA in a way that tries to make him appear to have a plan when he does not.”

“It is the worst kind of politics. Number one, it is wrong and untrue, and number two, it is exactly the talking points that the health insurance industry and the Republicans use on a daily basis.

“Sen. Obama knows that it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if the can’t afford it. … My plan has more financial help my plan has been evaluated by independent experts as actually achieving universal coverage and providing the financial assistance so everyone can have health care.

“This mailing about NAFTA saying that I believe NAFTA was a ‘boon’ quoted a newspaper [Newsday] that has corrected the record. We have pointed it out, the newspaper has pointed it out. Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats.

“Well, I am here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?”

“This is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican party,”

“Shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public, that’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio, and lets have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

Daily Texan Endorsement: Time to clean house

2008-02-25T12:29:00.001-06:00

As voters, we're often torn between our hearts and our minds when making crucial decisions concerning the welfare of the country. This endorsement is no different.

In the past year, we have been entranced by the powerful timbre of Barack Obama's voice. We have felt our hearts soar with each progressive idea he has put forth, especially his call for youth action and enrollment in public service programs. But we do not think he is the wisest choice for president. George W. Bush has made a mess of America, and we believe Hillary Clinton is the best person to clean it up. She is prepared and willing to be a leader who is "a lot less hat and a lot more cattle," as she stated during Thursday night's debate.

Clinton is a seasoned politician, and some argue that works against her. But Bush has been wildly successful in destroying every positive function of the machine that is Washington, D.C., and Clinton has the political tools and knowledge to fix it.

We have admired the consistent integrity of Obama's campaign. He is everything a politician shouldn't be, meaning that we think he is a good human being. To truly be a leader we can look up to, Clinton should learn from her refined opponent's style.

But during Thursday's debate, Obama made a major gaffe in incorrectly stating that he had received endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas. We may not be considered a "major" paper to many, but we represent a crucial constituency of close to 50,000 young and enthusiastic voters, and we've been scrutinizing every move of the candidates leading up to today's endorsement. Sure, Obama took many under his spell when he graced our city with his presence early in his campaign, but we think he prematurely considered his work in Austin done.

We've taken into account our communication with each campaign as an indication of how each candidate's government would function. Upon finding out the debate would not be open to students, Obama's campaign told us there was nothing they could do to get more students into the debate, whereas the Clinton camp was sympathetic in offering assistance. This makes us wonder how far Obama would go for us as president.

The youth vote, especially here in Texas, is extremely important to both candidates. As Texas, Austin and UT have all entered the limelight as major players in the nomination process, we have been confused by Obama's relative absence from the home of such an important, excited and loyal constituency.

Clinton, while not as dazzling as her opponent, has asserted her presence to us. She has pledged to restore government support to college students by increasing the availability of Stafford Loans and Pell Grants. Her outline for a universal health care system is thorough and sound, while Obama unfairly exploits the resounding term "universal" in terms of his plan, which is voluntary and wouldn't actually serve America in its entirety (like Social Security, policy can only be universal if it is mandatory). Furthermore, Clinton's plans for Iraq ensure a gradual transition to stability for the Middle East.

Clinton's abrasiveness, while somewhat off-putting, is essential in scrubbing our country clean of the grime the current administration has let build up. And by promising that the clean-up will begin in full effect on day one of her presidency, she's proved to us over and over again that she's ready, even excited, to get her hands dirty. Meanwhile, Obama's curent focus is geared toward winning the nomination, and we need more than hope and rhetoric to be reassured that the critical transition to come with the next presidency will be handled safely.

We live each day in anticipation of Democratic leadership for this country. But considering the current state of America, now is not the time for radical change.

We'd like to see Obama and Clinton work together in achieving the many goals they share. Obama has our confident vote in four (or eight) years' time. But for now, we can't risk trusting the judgment of our hearts. Logically, Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the United States. Under her leadership, we can return to being the great country we once were

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/02/22/Opinion/Endorsement.Time.To.Clean.House-3228848.shtml

Won't Back Down

2008-02-25T12:28:00.001-06:00

Well I wont back down, no I wont back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down

Gonna stand my ground, wont be turned around
And Ill keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wont back down

Hey baby, there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down.

Well I know whats right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down

Hey baby there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down
No, I wont back down

Deliver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjDKOqI-0lw (It's very Texas!)

Resolved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAyvHL2m6Tc

Proud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmnmDkG_-cI (featuring John Glenn airing in Ohio)

Level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS1u-d6aqsk

SNL Debate Spoof

2008-02-25T12:27:00.001-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLZ18U1Txnc

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221776

'Let's Get Unified!' Sarcastic Clinton Mocks Obama's Rhetoric

2008-02-25T12:26:00.001-06:00

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/52534.html

On Sunday, before a rally of several thousand, she added a heavy dose of sarcasm.

“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”

She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/clinton-turns-from-anger-to-sarcasm/

Obama's "New" Voters

2008-02-25T12:25:00.003-06:00

Previously Obama took credit for helping to expand the playing field for Democrats by "attracting new voters and independent voters into the process in a way that Senator Clinton cannot do."

Now, a forward being sent by Texas Republicans (below).

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Also see: Why Republicans are voting for Obama:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27036
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/02/12/why-i-voted-for-obama/
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?

===

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton’s (and Bill’s) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, “she’s done!” Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton’s defeat on March 4th!!!

###

National Post: Hillary has a point

2008-02-25T12:25:00.001-06:00

Over the past eight years, Hillary Clinton has compiled a relatively moderate record in the U.S. Senate. She famously voted to authorize the Iraq war, but in other ways too she has moved away from her image as a hard-left ultra-feminist toward the national centre.

Her party's liberal base has noticed -- and resented the shift. Her opponents have not. And so Clinton suffers the worst of both worlds: Conservatives oppose her because they think she is a liberal. Liberals oppose her because they suspect she is not. Add to that her husband's scandals and the larger Evita Peron problem posed by a First Lady running to succeed her husband and the result is free fall.

Meanwhile, Obama has managed to soothe many conservatives into imagining him as a unifying figure, despite his own clear record as the most consistently liberal member of the U.S. Senate. It's a good trick, so long as it lasts -- but it gives every sign of lasting just long enough.

Yet there is a reality here beyond the image. Hillary Clinton has given every indication of being a more responsible potential commander-in-chief than Obama. She has refused to pledge unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Obama has done. He has offered to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary has declined to offer America's enemies such a PR coup. Her foreign policy advisors include level-headed people like Richard Holbrooke. His are led by the most dovish of the former Clinton hands, including Anthony Lake. Obama has even accepted advice from Robert Malley, the most prominent U.S. advocate of engagement with Hamas.

Obama talks about "building bridges." And certainly his style seems less angry than Hillary Clinton's. He does not seem to hate his enemies the way she does, does not engage in loose talk of vast right-wing conspiracies against him. That's all to the good. Yet it is Clinton who has compiled the better record of bipartisan co-operation in the Senate.

Obama's supporters react angrily against Hillary's claim that she offers action, Obama only words. But she has a point: Not in a long time has a candidate sought the presidency on the basis of a record as slight as Barack Obama's. His supporters compare him to Abraham Lincoln, who served only a single term in Congress before winning election as president. A better analogy might be William Jennings Bryan, who won the Democratic nomination in 1896 on the power of a great convention speech. Obama too gave a great speech in 2004. Beyond that, there is only guesswork, hope and fantasy.

Supporters of a strong American foreign policy will of course prefer John McCain to either Democrat. But if a Democrat it must be, Hillary Clinton seems the better choice for a national security voter. Largely for that very reason, Clinton's party has chosen otherwise.

If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, he will face some very difficult realities with very little preparation. At that point, many Democrats -- and not a few Republicans -- may find themselves recalling Hillary Clinton's prophetic warnings that there is all the difference in the world between making speeches and effective government.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070&p=1

Tina Fey: Bitch is the New Black

2008-02-25T12:22:00.000-06:00

Texans for Hillary

2008-02-11T13:40:00.002-06:00

And if you're interested in volunteering to help the campaign, go here: http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/Texas/

Helping Hillary

2008-02-11T13:40:00.001-06:00

We've got a unique opportunity to help our country by helping our candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton. She's been there for us time and time again, so let's show our support and the strength of our cause by each donating $10.44 on February 12, 2008.

Here are the reasons:

First, Obama supporters think they own democracy. Let's show them they don't. Democracy belongs to the people and leaders should be in it for the people, not for cult-like adulation.

Second, if they can give $5, we can give $10. If they can give a pint of blood, we can give two. Point is, our resolve is bigger than theirs. We will make it hurt twice as much because we are stronger and our candidate is better.

Third, the 44 cent designation shows we have faith that she is destined to be "44." Hillary Clinton is and will be the 44th President of the United States of America.

Fourth, the small amount is doable for the majority of people. If you question whether it is for you, forgo eating out that day or give another amount, but leave the 44 cent designation to show you know Hillary is 44.

Fifth and more importantly, we have our girl's back. She's not only fighting a tough campaign, but she is also fighting the MSM, the GOP and the rampant sexism ingrained in our society. We have her back, and in times like these where her message is being drowned out by the evil that men do, we can help buy her a little more voice so that our voice, the voice of the people- the voice of the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan, the poor, the elderly, the infirm without access to medical care, the veterans deserted by their own countrymen....... IS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.

So join us on February 12th and show some love for our girl. Go to HillaryClinton.com and donate $10.44 and make sure the rest of the world hears the message that Hillary is 44!

http://operation104goodbuddy.blogspot.com/

Goodbye To All That (#2)

2008-02-11T13:39:00.000-06:00

Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan

February 2, 2008

Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .

The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”

So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?

And goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”

She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”

And for decades, she’s been learning how.

So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?

“Our President, Ourselves!”

Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

###

2008-01-31T23:02:00.001-06:00

2008-01-29T23:40:00.001-06:00

2008-01-28T13:57:00.001-06:00

2008-01-24T22:21:00.000-06:00

2008-01-21T23:10:00.001-06:00

GLORIA STEINEM: Women Are Never Front-Runners

2008-01-08T00:07:00.000-06:00

Women Are Never Front-Runners

By GLORIA STEINEM

Published: January 8, 2008

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

2008-01-07T18:28:00.000-06:00

2007-12-31T12:56:00.000-06:00

Sweet: Obama says, “No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it whe

2007-12-28T12:28:00.000-06:00

DES MOINES, IA.—The Obama campaign faced a distraction on Thursday after some news outlets ran stories suggesting chief Obama strategist David Axelrod seemed to link Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq war with the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Sen. Barack Obama vigorously defended Axelrod during a CNN interview on Thursday evening for comments Axelrod made in the morning after a speech Obama delivered in Des Moines. The dust-up will likely be over by the time you read this and the news cycle has moved on.

The Des Moines remarks were Obama’s penultimate “change” speech, completely overshadowed by Bhutto’s murder. The terrorist attack returned the conversation to foreign policy.

In standing up for Axelrod, Obama fell back on one of his campaign standbys and blamed the off-message situation on “Washington,” as in “Washington is putting a spin on it.”

Obama got a little impatient with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when Blitzer started to read him the Axelrod quote. One of the most accomplished speakers in the nation was reduced to stuttering as Obama tried to head off Blitzer from reading the quote on national television.

Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto's assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”

Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”

(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)

Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”

Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.

(At this point it was the reporter making the argument--asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)

Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question.”

(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to. )

Obama then said, “The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa."

"But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan."

Obama went on to defend Axelrod, one of his closest advisors.

“He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense, and I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.”

Since a viewer by this point would have little idea what Obama was reacting to, Blitzer pressed ahead and read the quote.

That’s live television. Obama was trapped and Blitzer knew it.

Blitzer said, “ Well, I know that sometimes comments can be taken out of context and you're trying to give us the context. I'll just read to you what he said, and then I'm going to let you just respond. "She was," referring to Hillary Clinton, he said…

“Wolf!” said Obama.

Blitzer continued, reading the Axelrod quote: "She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which, we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may still have been players in this event today. So, that's a judgment she'll have to defend. “

Here’s another version; I asked Axelrod, “Looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

Axelrod replied, “Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved — we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.”

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_obama_says_no_i_i_i_i_i.html

2007-12-26T20:05:00.000-06:00

NY Times: After Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour

2007-12-18T23:14:00.000-06:00

POLITICAL MEMO
After Delay, Clinton Embarks on a Likability Tour

By PATRICK HEALY
Published: December 19, 2007

DES MOINES — The tableau was classic Clinton: Bill Clinton chatting with African-American cashiers and baggers at a grocery store here Tuesday, telling them how wonderful Hillary Rodham Clinton was, while she waited quietly for him to finish so they could dazzle more voters.

The couple’s one-two political punch, still going strong after three decades, has special import now: Mrs. Clinton has embarked this week on a warm-and-fuzzy tour, blitzing full throttle by helicopter across Iowa to present herself as likable and heartwarming, a complement to her “strength and experience” message that the campaign felt a female candidate needed first.

Now another major question faces the Clinton team in Iowa: Did it wait too long to try to humanize Hillary? The presidential caucuses are little more than two weeks away, Mrs. Clinton’s negative poll ratings remain high, and some of her advisers wanted to accentuate her personal side earlier.

Instead, until now she has embraced a variety of other strategies, and faces a high hurdle as she competes for popularity against a familiar face (former Senator John Edwards) and a charismatic newcomer (Senator Barack Obama).

Mrs. Clinton addressed the challenge head-on with reporters Tuesday at the grocery store, a frenzied scene where Mr. Clinton delayed a photo opportunity with his wife by giving an interview to “Entertainment Tonight,” and where their special guest, the former basketball star Magic Johnson, was a bit off message in noting Mrs. Clinton’s experience rather than what a nice person she was.

As her husband and Mr. Johnson looked on, Mrs. Clinton told the reporters: “I know that people have been saying, ‘Well, you know, we’ve got to know more about her, we want to know more about her personally.’ And I totally get that. It’s a little hard for me. It’s not easy for me to talk about myself.”

Or, as Mr. Clinton put it a few minutes later, “We want to give people a good sense of her, not only as a leader but as a person.”

Mr. Clinton’s role in all this is particularly interesting. He has been unleashed in ways that he never was in the 2000 campaign, when his favored candidate, Al Gore, kept him on the bench. At that time, the Gore camp worried that Mr. Clinton was scandal-scarred and that the candidate needed to appear like his own man. (In 2004, Mr. Clinton was recovering from heart surgery and did not campaign for the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, until the final weeks.)

Mrs. Clinton appears to have fewer doubts about conveying independence. She is counting on her husband to help voters color in her human side, and Mr. Clinton has embraced that role with a vengeance.

“We faced Clinton fatigue and Clinton scandals in 2000, and had to navigate Gore around that, but now it’s very different,” said Donna Brazile, who served as a campaign manager for Mr. Gore and is a friend of the Clintons. “Bill Clinton has rehabilitated himself in terms of his stature, and he has a great opportunity to help her win.”

But he is only one weapon in the campaign’s efforts, as Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday, “to kind of round out who I am as a person.” After months of holding off campaign officials who wanted to roll out her mother, Dorothy, and her daughter, Chelsea, Mrs. Clinton recently relented, and the two women happily joined her in Iowa and were videotaped for soft-glow political commercials.

Farmers from New York State, some of them Republicans, are in Iowa talking to farmers about ways she has helped them, and her best friend from the sixth grade is touring Iowa telling stories like the one about the way Hillary Rodham would take off her thick glasses to flirt more confidently with boys.

The timing is delicate, however. For much of this year, the Clintons concentrated on arguing that Mrs. Clinton was tougher and better prepared than Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, a posture intended not only to appeal to voters who wanted a tested leader but also to persuade them that a woman was strong enough to be commander in chief.

But since November, Iowans have been whipsawed with messages from Mrs. Clinton: She and her allies have attacked Mr. Obama to try to increase his negative ratings, argued in favor of her strength, portrayed her as a force for change and, now, highlighted her persona.

Inside the campaign, the communications director, Howard Wolfson, has been well known for urging that the humanizing effort start earlier, but the campaign decided to emphasize strength and experience instead. Now some voters and advisers wonder if her camp waited too long to address Mrs. Clinton’s personality.

At several of her campaign events recently, Iowans, even some of her own supporters, publicly asked if she was likable enough to win, and some noted that people found her “cold” and “remote.”

Ellen Sweet of Iowa City, who attended a Clinton rally on Monday night, said she was surprised at how nice Mrs. Clinton was.

“I’ve been pledged to Obama for so long, I can’t change, but she moved way up in my mind tonight,” Mrs. Sweet said. “She just came across as appealing and confident in her beliefs. I wish I had seen all these sides of her before.”

To be sure, some Iowans may not ultimately accept the warmer Mrs. Clinton as genuine.

At Mr. Clinton’s campaign stop with Mr. Johnson in Waterloo on Tuesday, Teresa Fagerlind, 58, an activities coordinator at a retirement village, said the former president had persuaded her to support Mrs. Clinton.

“He said some things about her that I hadn’t heard before,” Ms. Fagerlind said.

But her son, Matt, 28, was less persuaded, saying he was not sure that Mr. Clinton was the best one to vouch for his wife. “It’s like my mom saying how great I am,” he said.

Admitting that her own mistakes may have fed unfavorable impressions of her is still not the style of Mrs. Clinton. On Monday night, when asked by someone at the rally why there were people who did not like her, she did not criticize herself or delve into introspection.

“There are people who will never vote for me,” she said. “It breaks my heart, but it’s true.”

Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/us/politics/19clintons.html?ref=politics

Washington Post: Clinton Under A Harsher Microscope?

2007-12-18T23:07:00.000-06:00

Clinton Under A Harsher Microscope?
The Candidate's Coverage Is Bemoaned for Being Held To a Tougher Standard
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Page C01

DES MOINES, Dec. 18 -- After weeks of bad news, Hillary Clinton and her strategists hoped that winning the endorsement of Iowa's largest newspaper last weekend might produce a modest bump in their media coverage.

But on Sunday morning, they awoke to upbeat headlines about their chief Democratic rival: "Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint," said the New York Times. "Obama Is Hitting His Stride in Iowa," said the Los Angeles Times. And on Monday, Clinton aides were so upset about a contentious "Today" show interview that one complained to the show's producer.

Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And at least some journalists agree.

"She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."

Newsweek's Howard Fineman says Obama's coverage is the buzz of the presidential campaign. "While they don't say so publicly because it's risky to complain, a lot of operatives from other campaigns say he's getting a free ride, that people aren't tough enough on Obama," Fineman says. "There may be something to that. He's the new guy, an interesting guy, a pathbreaker and trendsetter perhaps."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton says the accusation of softer treatment is untrue but "the Clinton campaign whines about it so much, it becomes part of the chatter. No candidate in this race has undergone more investigations and examinations than Barack Obama has," he says, citing lengthy pieces in the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. "As Obama says, running against the Clintons is not exactly a cakewalk. Their research operation has ensured that if there's any information about Obama to be had, it's been distributed to the media."

The question, of course, is what journalists do with that information.

Asked for comment about the coverage of Clinton, her spokesman, Jay Carson, says: "I'll just say that at the Clinton campaign, we do our best to live by the old adage that it's not wise to pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel."

For nearly a year, the New York senator was widely depicted as the inevitable nominee. But now many media accounts are casting her recent dip in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls as a disaster in the making.

"Slipping Away?" said a headline on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Hillary Clinton's campaign is teetering on the brink," Fineman wrote in Newsweek. CBS's Jim Axelrod said her operation is "reeling." The Los Angeles Times said she is facing her "most serious crisis." And a banner headline on the Drudge Report asked: "Is It the End?"

When Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman resigned last week after raising the issue of Obama's adolescent drug use, the issue itself received scant treatment in the media because Obama had disclosed it in his 1995 autobiography. "He has been able, by luck or planning, to control his own story, because he wrote it first," Fineman says.

The Illinois senator's fundraising receives far less press attention than Clinton's. When The Washington Post reported last month that Obama used a political action committee to hand more than $180,000 to Democratic groups and candidates in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the suggestion that he might be buying support received no attention on the network newscasts. The Clinton team is convinced that would have been a bigger story had it involved the former first lady.

There was also a lack of media pickup when the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that an Obama aide had sat down next to him and "wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life."

When NBC's David Gregory interviewed Hillary Clinton Monday during her round of morning-show appearances, he briefly noted her endorsement by the Des Moines Register before asking what had happened to her momentum. He pressed six times for a reaction to her husband's telling PBS's Charlie Rose that the country would "roll the dice" if it elected Obama. "So you're choosing not to answer that question," Gregory finally said.

Moments later, when Meredith Vieira interviewed John McCain, who had also won the Register's endorsement, most of the questions revolved around how he could win the Republican nomination despite trailing in the polls, with one query about his temper.

When Obama appeared on "Today" last month, Matt Lauer asked whether Clinton was playing the "gender card" against him, about his pledge to meet with hostile foreign leaders, and whether he thought the country was heading for a recession.

Journalists repeatedly described Obama as a "rock star" when he jumped into the race in January. His missteps -- such as when his staff mocked Clinton's position on the outsourcing of jobs overseas by referring to the Democrat not as representing a state but as "D-Punjab" -- generated modest coverage, but rarely at the level surrounding Clinton's mistakes. Some reporters told Clinton aides when she enjoyed a double-digit lead that she is held to a higher standard as the front-runner.

Obama did undergo something of a media audit earlier this year, with stories focusing on his record in the Illinois Senate and his ties to indicted fundraiser Tony Rezko. But his recent rise in the polls hasn't brought the kind of full-time frisking being visited on the hottest Republican, Mike Huckabee. In fact, much of the coverage of Oprah Winfrey stumping for Obama bordered on gushing.

In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.

Some reporters confess that they are enjoying Clinton's slippage, if only because it enlivens what had become a predictable narrative of her cruising to victory. The prospect of a newcomer knocking off a former first lady is one heck of a story.

Halperin, who surveys political news at Time.com's the Page, says: "Your typical reporter has a thinly disguised preference that Barack Obama be the nominee. The narrative of him beating her is better than her beating him, in part because she's a Clinton and in part because he's a young African American. . . . There's no one rooting for her to come back."

Sometimes the Clinton complaints go too far. In the PBS interview last week, Bill Clinton challenged the media's ridicule of his wife for pointing out that Obama had written a kindergarten essay saying he wanted to be president one day. It was just a joke, the former president contended, and Obama's camp "got a few stenographers to write stories as if this kindergarten letter was serious," he said. In fact, the kindergarten matter was included in a humorless release about Obama's longtime ambition, and Clinton aides have admitted it was a mistake.

Her campaign faces lingering resentment among many reporters over the lack of access to the candidate and the aggressive style of some of her operatives, who push back hard against stories they dislike. CNN correspondent Candy Crowley received a blistering e-mail merely for asking questions about reports that the former president was unhappy with the campaign's direction.

When Obama was languishing in the polls for months, the media tended to fault him for not being aggressive enough against Clinton, rather than for specific positions or comments.

"The problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character -- to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level," the New Republic's Michael Crowley wrote. Fineman suggested that Obama "attack more in sorrow than in anger" and "argue that Clinton is too polarizing, that she cannot win a general election."

Some accounts have questioned Obama's record but were not widely picked up by other news organizations, despite a full-court press by the Clinton camp. Politico questioned whether Obama might be too liberal for a general election, noting a 1996 questionnaire in which he opposed the death penalty and backed a ban on the manufacture and possession of handguns. The Capitol Hill newspaper also reported that after reporters questioned Obama's declaration that lobbyists "won't work in my White House," he softened his stance at the next campaign stop, saying lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House."

Clinton benefits greatly from her global celebrity and the novelty of a president's wife trying to win the office he had held. She can command attention at a moment's notice, such as when all six network and cable morning shows jumped at the chance to interview her Monday, just as the five Sunday shows did in September. But the withering spotlight can also lead to the spread of distortions, such as an erroneous radio report that she and her party had eaten at an Iowa diner without leaving a tip.

At an appearance Monday in suburban Johnston, where she was lauded by old friends and people she had helped, Clinton seemed to signal a degree of frustration with her media image.

"I want you to have some flavor of who I am, outside of the television cameras," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802184.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

2007-12-09T13:40:00.001-06:00

ABC News Interview with Hillary Clinton

2007-12-07T11:07:00.001-06:00

2007-12-05T16:47:00.001-06:00

Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt

2007-12-04T09:25:00.000-06:00

Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
BY ROBIN GERBER | Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It's not that voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.

A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the stark dilemma that competent women face. In "The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.

Women were forced to choose between competence and being liked and trusted by their colleagues, but leaders must have both to succeed. Stereotyed expectations about leadership styles led to conclusions that men were being assertive in the same situation where women were viewed as abrasive.

As the study concluded, "These perceptions not only influence whether people respect women's styles of leadership, but also the extent to which women leaders are perceived as trustworthy."

Clinton's two main rivals for the nomination, Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama, are exploiting her double-bind. They realize that she's secured her position as an experienced, accomplished politician. That's why they've taken to accusing her of being dishonest. Edwards put it most baldly, at one debate saying, "The American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth."

Is there evidence proving that Hillary Clinton can't be trusted? To quote one of the great presidential debate responses: "No."

Take the example of abortion rights, where Clinton was accused of changing her position to match a shift in the political wind. The attack started in July 2006, when she said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and was immediately pilloried in the media for abandoning her pro-choice stance. But she'd used those same words seven years earlier in a speech as first lady. Clinton is a strong defender of abortion rights and also hopes unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Where's the dishonesty in that?

Clinton's vote on the 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq has raised the loudest cries about trusting her. Obama's been relentless in construing her vote as a blank check for war, and portraying her as dissembling when she disagrees. As proof of her perfidy, Clinton was accused of failing to make any effort before the invasion of Iraq to influence the president's policy.

In fact, she repeatedly pressed the case for weapons inspections in Iraq, and against President George W. Bush's acting precipitously. She said she believed that Bush would live up to his statements about using UN inspectors, and that Bush "took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it." While it's fair to disagree with her approach, there's no fairness in the claim that her actions on Iraq prove her untrustworthy.

As a presidential candidate, Clinton has held her know-how and experience up like a battle flag. But along with competence goes the ambition, assertiveness, even aggressiveness that she and other leaders bring to the tough job of leadership. And there's the rub. Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics - as long as you're a man. When Clinton displays this "masculine" style, she loses the public trust.

What's a woman running for president to do? Pull the gender card out of the deck and hold it up high. Most people are unaware of their bias or don't want to recognize or acknowledge it.

Clinton needs to challenge her opponents and voters with a simple test: Substitute "Henry" for "Hillary" and reassess his/her strengths and weaknesses. They may be surprised to find that the smart, competent, assertive, aggressive, ambitious "Henry" Clinton running for president seems like a very trustworthy man.

Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way" and the forthcoming novel "Eleanor vs. Ike."

AP: Clinton Cranks Up Rhetoric Against Obama

2007-12-03T14:22:00.001-06:00

Clinton Cranks Up Rhetoric Against Obama

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation's leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.

"So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said.

For the second day in a row, the New York senator and former first lady turned up the heat in her race with the Illinois senator.

Her rhetoric - and countercharges from Obama - underscored the tightness of a race in which polls show a dead heat between them, with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina also in strong contention. Many Iowa caucus goers say they still haven't made up their minds or could yet change them.

Clinton accused Obama of a "rush to campaign" in not returning to Washington this fall to vote on a resolution naming an Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. The Bush administration supported the measure, as did Clinton - and Obama has criticized her for it.

"Presidents can't dodge the tough political fights," she said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton retorted, "The truth is, Barack Obama doesn't need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president."

A new AP-Pew poll showed Clinton essentially tied with Obama in Iowa, 31 percent to 26 percent, with Edwards at 19 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 10 percent.

Clinton's campaign events on Monday were all based encouraging voters to go to the Jan. 3 caucuses - and to bring a buddy.

She held a campaign event at the Surf Ballroom at Clear Lake, the same hall where three Rock 'n' Roll legends performed before their death in a plane crash in February 1959.

"I am old enough to remember Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper," Clinton told her audience. She said she felt like hearing Valens' "La Bamba."

She was late for the Clear Lake event after a campaign plane carrying reporters ahead of her remained on the runway after landing when the cabin began filling with smoke. The plane had to be towed off the runway before Clinton's plane could land. The source of the smoke was not immediately apparent, the pilot and campaign aides said.

"We were circling and circling and circling," Clinton said.

She pledged to be "a president who wakes up every morning ready to fight for our families ... and the causes we believe in. It's what I've been doing for 35 years."

While her husband Bill was president, she said, "we created" millions of new jobs during the 1990s.

The Iowa caucuses are Jan. 3, and New Hampshire votes Jan. 8. Several other states quickly follow, culminating in races on Feb. 5 when two dozen states hold contests.

Clinton is fighting to nurture a sense of inevitability and to stop Obama or Edwards from undercutting it with an Iowa victory.

Clinton assailed the Illinois senator on Sunday for a political action committee he controls that has contributed money to elected officials in early voting states. Obama has brushed off the criticism.

Politico: Obama warned drive could offend Iowans

2007-12-01T13:07:00.001-06:00

The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is drawing some local skepticism for a drive to recruit non-Iowans to caucus at their Iowa colleges.

“If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood,” says a four-page “Students for Barack Obama” brochure provided to Politico.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, the state’s leading political commentator, wrote in a blog post called “The Illinois Caucus” that the effort to increase participation by out-of-staters “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.”

“Given that lots of 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 Obama campaign contends that it’s doing nothing unusual — that Iowa college students have long caucused near their colleges. And a separate Reigster news article quoted Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro as saying of the Obama instructions: “I think it's playing within the rules.”

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”

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."

The instruction is part of an Obama campaign effort to counteract a potentially serious blow to youth support for his campaign: The Jan. 3 caucus date means colleges will still be on holiday break.

Many Democrats theorize that college students are more likely to vote heavily for Obama if they go as organized college groups rather than hit or miss as individuals, scattered at their folks’ caucuses all over Iowa.

“If you are from Iowa,” the brochure says, “you will probably be home for the caucus and will caucus in your hometown.” The brochure gives instructions about where to call or go online for information about where to caucus.

Yepsen wrote that the out-of-state college students’ participation would be legal, but said he isn’t certain “whether it’s fair, or politically smart.”

“No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses.,” he said. “No other campaign appears to be doing it in this campaign cycle.”

The student section of BarackObama.com has a “Rock the Caucus” section designed to make it as easy as possible for collegiate supporters of Obama to turn out.

“Join the Facebook group to learn more,” the site says. “If you are 17 years old — you can still caucus! Just as long as you are 18 by Nov. 4, 2008. You do not have to register beforehand — just show up at the caucus. ... We at the Obama campaign have plenty of resources for students out, especially if it is your first time caucusing!”

The question of who can participate was already sticky. In early November, Dodd’s campaign staff asked the campaigns to pledge that their out-of-state staff and volunteers would not attempt to caucus. Most of the campaigns signed the pledge.

The Clinton official said: “We have a policy that if you move to Iowa for the express purpose of working on the campaign, you can not caucus.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7125.html

Politico: Clinton seizes opportunity after crisis

2007-12-01T00:11:00.000-06:00

Friday afternoon began with possible tragedy: A hostage crisis at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire.

As the incident unfolded Clinton’s campaign closed its doors and canceled her public appearances.

But nightfall brought a happy ending: the campaign workers safe, the man in police custody — and Clinton flying to the scene to express thanks.

The hostage-taking itself offered a rare, if small, genuine drama in a campaign season governed by strict schedules and scripted stump speeches.

And as soon as it ended, Clinton took full advantage of the opportunity she had unexpectedly been handed.

In her New Hampshire press conference, she stood before a column of police in green and tan uniforms. She talked of meeting with hostages. She mentioned that she spoke to the state’s governor about eight minutes after the incident began.

The scene was one of a woman in charge.

“It looked and sounded presidential,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “This was an instance of the White House experience of this campaign. They knew how to handle this.”

That the crisis was outside Clinton's control gave it a rare quality in this era of hyper-controlled politicking, Sabato added.

“What’s most important about it is that it’s not contrived. It’s a real event and that distinguishes it from 99 percent of what happens in the campaign season.”

Clinton’s campaign has long been dogged by key questions: is she authentic, does she genuinely have the experience to be president, and is the country ready for a woman as commander in chief — especially during wartime.

“She has never run anything. And the idea that she could learn to be president as an internship just doesn’t make any sense,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said in one campaign ad.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has argued the same line.

“I don’t know Hillary’s experience,” Giuliani has said. “She’s never run a city, she's never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”

Looking the part

Friday presented Clinton with a moment to look the part of president.

“You had one of these breaking news stories ... and so everybody was glued to the set,” said Robert Thompson, founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “She got on TV and provided a sense of closure and executive cool. It is like how Giuliani used television during his crisis.

“There was a sense that this was a dress rehearsal of how she was going to deal with... crisis as president,” Thompson added.

In her two public appearances after the hostages were freed, she was stern, but she also spoke of the concerns she felt as a mother, admitting to a “horrible sense of bewilderment” and “outrage.”

Her decision to express her personal anxieties offered a window into how she may veer into territory men avoid — personal feelings during a possible public tragedy.

Clinton heads the largest and most manicured of all operations. Her campaign has an especially organized staff that surrounds her. She stays on script and she stays on schedule.

Even as she flew to New Hampshire Friday evening, she was planning to return to Iowa Saturday in order to return to schedule.

What the hostage incident offered Clinton was a brief reprieve from the petty narrative of her versus Sen. Barack Obama, a break from what at times has devolved to intra-party bickering.

“Voters look for opportunities to see how candidates react in crisis,” Sabato said. “And this was a mini crisis.”

Washington Post: Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations

2007-11-29T21:41:00.000-06:00

Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 30, 2007; Page A08

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign helped recommend several of the donations his political action committee made in recent months to politicians in key primary states as the campaign was working to secure endorsements, campaign officials said yesterday.

The acknowledgment alters the campaign's original account of how donations were directed and raised questions among some legal experts about whether the presidential committee was using Obama's leadership PAC to benefit his campaign. The Obama campaign said it is confident it complied with the law.

Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.

An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.

But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.

Hildebrand was a paid consultant at Hopefund last year and is now a deputy campaign manager.

"He was being paid in part to help us identify targets of opportunity, and to the extent there was any one person who had an overview of what we were trying to accomplish, it was Steve Hildebrand," Bauer said. Asked if other campaign officials also made recommendations, Bauer added, "I have no doubt."

Bauer stressed that Hopefund also solicited input from others, including the fundraising committees for Democratic House and Senate candidates. The PAC also processed requests directly from local candidates. In the end, Bauer said, his law firm made the final decisions and dispatched the donations.

Obama stopped raising money for Hopefund when he announced his presidential bid in January, but he has stood out from some of his rivals by continuing to make donations from Hopefund as the primaries approach. Most other presidential candidates shuttered their PACs.

Bauer said he is confident that the PAC and the campaign complied with rules the Federal Election Commission enacted in December 2003 governing how leadership PACs can operate when their candidate is running for office. "There's not even a remote question about whether this is legal," he said.

Campaign law experts, however, said they were less certain. They noted that the 2003 rules state that any leadership PAC expenditure coordinated with the politician's campaign should be treated as "in-kind contributions" subject to a limit of $5,000. The rules define a coordinated expense as any made in "cooperation or concert with or at the request or suggestion" of a campaign.

"I think this is something the commission should look at. If the money was, in fact, used to help the campaign, was requested by the campaign and coordinated with the campaign, then it could be considered an in-kind contribution," Lawrence Noble, the FEC's retired chief counsel, said.

Former FEC chairman Scott E. Thomas, a Democrat who served on the commission when the 2003 rule was approved, said the FEC at the time was focused more on how to keep PACs from subsidizing presidential campaigns by picking up the costs of polling, salary and other goods and services.

"He is clearly pushing the envelope, no doubt," Thomas said. "I would clearly recommend the commission take another look at this to see if there is some reasonable line that can be drawn so presidential campaigns aren't directing donations from the PAC a few months before the primaries."

While PAC donations went to politicians who endorsed Obama's presidential bid, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Hopefund did not make contributions to obtain presidential endorsements and the campaign never expected or instructed staff to recommend a contribution because it would win an endorsement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.html?hpid=topnews

New Hillary Ad: "Strong"

2007-11-29T08:23:00.001-06:00

In Houston, she said she would not "wilt under pressure."

Boston Phoenix: Hillary is Still the Strong Favorite

2007-11-29T00:37:00.000-06:00

Hillary is Still the Strong Favorite
By Steven Stark
With roughly a month to go until the nominating process actually begins in Iowa, the contours of the 2008 presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. And on the Republican side, which we'll review in depth next week, there are still, incredibly, five candidates with a legitimate chance to gain the GOP nod.

Because the mainstream press focuses on the day-to-day machinations of the campaign -- a process exacerbated by the rise of Internet coverage, which takes every minute-by-minute development and blows it up out of proportion -- it's often difficult to get a sense of the big picture.

But each race has now assumed a discernible story line. For any of the Democrats not named Clinton, the key is to beat her in Iowa, lest they see their chances for an upset slip away. Sure, the nomination likely won't be decided until February 5, when more than 20 states hold their contests. But if Clinton's challengers can't beat her in Iowa on January 3, they're unlikely to win in the other key Democratic tests before Super Tuesday -- namely New Hampshire on January 8 and South Carolina on January 26. The race, then, will be over almost before it started.

(Michigan will also hold a primary on January 15, but the DNC declared the state to be in violation of the rules on the ordering of primaries, so most of the Democratic contenders have asked to have their names removed from the ballot. As a result, the press is unlikely to cover it extensively. The Nevada caucus on January 19 is also likely to receive little coverage, since caucuses, which require voters to meet at a designated spot and time to declare their preference publicly, tend to attract fewer voters than primaries. Plus, South Carolina Republicans are holding their primary the same day, so that's bound to steal some headlines from Nevada.)

Hillary's heels

Clinton currently holds about a 20-point lead in most national polls, which should give her some security. After all, one has to go back to 1972, when George McGovern bested early leader Edmund Muskie, to find a race in which a front-runner blew such a large lead going into the primaries. That doesn't mean it can't happen again. But it does mean, despite Clinton's well-publicized recent travails -- specifically her sub-par debate performance in late October and some narrowing opinion polls in Iowa and New Hampshire -- that it's unlikely.

Clinton does, however, have two Achilles' heels. The first is that an unusually large number of voters just don't like her, raising the possibility that, if an opponent could galvanize all the anti-Clinton voters on his behalf, he might have a chance of upsetting her.

The second is that, if she had to rank all 50 states in which she'd like to be tested first, Clinton would probably put Iowa last. There's a bit of a culture clash between New York, Clinton's designated home, and Iowa -- which is one reason Rudy Giuliani has, by and large, stayed away from the Hawkeye State. Clinton's husband didn't even run there in 1992, conceding Iowa to favorite son Tom Harkin, so she has had to build her organization from scratch. And Barack Obama is a senator from a neighboring state, which, on paper at least, should be a huge advantage -- even though the press seldom mentions it. (Although Clinton grew up in Illinois, it's not the same as representing it in an elected national body.)

Most important, Iowa is not a primary contest but a caucus state, so level of participation is far lower than in an ordinary primary. That's bad news for Clinton, since her voters tend to be poorer than Obama's more upper-middle-class constituency and, historically, poorer voters don't vote in as great numbers. All things being equal, her voters in Iowa are simply less likely to turn out.

In truth, however, should Clinton lose that state, it's not at all clear that she would then go on to lose New Hampshire five days later. There's a long history of candidates losing Iowa and coming back to win New Hampshire -- such as Ronald Reagan against George Bush the elder in 1980.

And New Hampshire is, after all, a primary state where Clinton should do better -- though the participation of independents in that Democratic primary could skew that, since she polls better among registered Democrats.

But as long as Clinton wins New Hampshire, she is likely to remain the front-runner and go on to win South Carolina on January 26 and wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday 10 days later. Conversely, both Obama and John Edwards must finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa to remain viable. And they probably have to win one of the other two big January contests, too, in order to seriously challenge the front-runner. Again, it's not impossible. But it won't be easy.

Media Matters: Matthews cited Zogby Interactive poll without noting criticism of methodology

2007-11-28T22:08:00.000-06:00

On the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during the recurring "Big Number" feature, host Chris Matthews said, "Tonight, our Big Number is the number five. That's the number of Republican presidential candidates that [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] trails in the November matchups." Matthews said the information came from "a new Zogby poll." However, Matthews did not note that the poll was an online Zogby Interactive poll in which participants were chosen from a database of volunteers. Matthews omitted this fact despite statements by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal -- who appeared earlier in the day on MSNBC -- that such polls are unreliable.

A November 26 release detailing the findings cited by Matthews clearly identified the Zogby Interactive poll as an "online survey." The release included a link to the "Interactive Poll/Survey Methodology," which answers the question "Who Participates in Zogby Interactive Polls?" by noting that the participants "are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals." The database is composed of people who register themselves, as the same answer noted:

Zogby has assembled a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum -- liberal, conservative, and middle of the road; politically active and apolitical; easy to reach and hard to find. Many individuals who participate in Zogby's telephone surveys also submit e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls.

In the same answer, Zogby responded to "criticisms that interactive political polls include 'self-selected' political junkies skewing polls for fun and one-upmanship" by asserting that "[r]espondents of Zogby Interactive polls do not choose to take part in a poll, rather they are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals, much like the database of millions across the country who have telephones."

However, during his November 27 appearance on MSNBC Live, Blumenthal expressed doubt about the Zogby Interactive methodology. Blumenthal noted that the poll's findings differed from other recent telephone polls and added: "[W]hat's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys." Indeed, Wall Street Journal Online columnist Carl Bialik noted on November 16, 2006, that Zogby Interactive's 2006 Senate election "predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined."

In a November 26 post on his blog Political Arithmetik, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Charles H. Franklin, former president of the Society for Political Methodology, wrote that the Zogby Interactive poll cited by Matthews "has produced some odd results" and mentioned that the online poll did not rely on "a normal random sample of the population." Referring to a November 26 Reuters article headlined "New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans," Franklin further wrote that "based on the large outliers the Clinton results produce, I'd hold off on the Reuters headline until I saw some confirmation from other polls."

On its website, the AAPOR states that "[e]ven if opt-in surveys" -- like the Zogby Interactive poll -- "are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases":

When we draw a sample at random -- that is, when every member of the target population has a known probability of being selected -- we can use the sample to make projective, quantitative estimates about the population. A sample selected at random has known mathematical properties that allow for the computation of sampling error.

Surveys based on self-selected volunteers do not have that sort of known relationship to the target population and are subject to unknown, non-measurable biases. Even if opt-in surveys are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases stemming from the fact that the pool has no knowable relationships with the full target population.

Similarly, in response to a previous Zogby Interactive survey, Blumenthal wrote in an April 26, 2006, blog post:

Why is it important that the survey was conducted online?

1) This survey is not based on a "scientific" random sample -- The press release posted on the web site of the trade group that paid for the poll makes the claim that it is a "scientific poll" of "likely voters." As we have discussed here previously, we use the term scientific to describe a poll based on a random probability sample, one in which all members of a population (in this case, all likely voters) have an equal or known chance of being selected at random.

In this case only individuals that had previously joined the Zogby panel of potential respondents had that opportunity. As this article on the Zogby's web site explains, their online samples are selected from "a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites that span the political spectrum." In other words, most of the members of the panel saw a banner ad on a web site and volunteered to participate. You can volunteer too -- just use this link.

Zogby claims that "many individuals who have participated in Zogby's telephone surveys also have submitted e-mail addresses so they may take part in online polls." Such recruitment might help make Zogby's panel a bit more representative, but it certainly does not trans[f]orm it into a random sample. Moreover, he tells us nothing about the percentage of such recruits in his panel or the percentage of telephone respondents that typically submit email addresses. Despite Zogby's bluster, this claim does not come close to making his "database" a projective random sample of the U.S. population.

From the discussion on the 10 a.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC Live, which featured Blumenthal and Iowa-based pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose firm conducts the quadrennial Iowa Poll for The Des Moines Register:

HALL: Here to help us make sense of some of the numbers that are floating around out there, Mark Blumenthal, editor and publisher of Pollster.com, and Ann Selzer, she's a pollster and president of Selzer and Company. Thanks for joining us.

BLUMENTHAL: [unintelligible] to be here.

HALL: All right, Mark, I want to start with you.

SELZER: Good morning.

HALL: Good morning. We were talking in our newsroom. There are two recent polls out showing very different results --

BLUMENTHAL: Right.

HALL: -- when it comes to Hillary Clinton versus the top Republican candidates. You got one poll showing that she'd be beat by these Republican candidates. The other shows that she would come out ahead.

HALL: How do you make sense if you are a person at home and you stumble across one of these reading them online or maybe in the paper, and they're so different?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, that's always the trick, and I'd say go to Pollster.com, and we'll help you figure it out.

HALL: OK, outside of that.

BLUMENTHAL: The Zogby poll -- the one that looks very different from the poll from Gallup -- also looks very different from all the other recent surveys, and what's different about it is it was done online for people who had volunteered to be interviewed online. That particular method by that pollster wasn't all that accurate in 2006. So, I would just -- I'd be more cautious about the online surveys.

HALL: And, Ann, is that a concern how the pollsters get the information? Is, let's say, a phone or online not as reliable?

SELZER: Well, online polls are notoriously unreliable. And with one poll you get one answer, you do another poll the same way the next day, you can get a very different answer. So, telephone has shown to be the most reliable, that is you get the same answers if you do it the same way, consistently.

From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Time now for the Hardball "Big Number" that tells a big story. Tonight, our Big Number is five. That's the number of Republican presidential candidates that Hillary Clinton trails in the November matchups. According to a new Zogby poll, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and, believe it or not, Mike Huckabee, that's five, count 'em, five Republicans all now beating, yes, Hillary Clinton in the matchups for next November, and it's tonight's "Big Number."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711280004?f=h_latest

DailyKos: Kos: Zogby "interactive" polls are junk

2007-11-28T10:14:00.000-06:00

Zogby "interactive" polls are junk
by kos
Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:53:47 AM PST

I know Hillary's opponents are jumping on Zogby Interactive's latest poll showing Hillary doing substantially poorer than her opponents in head-to-head matchups than her opponents.

Let me make this as clear as possible: Zogby interactive polls are JUNK. They are about as solid as the Daily Kos cattle call polls would be if we were trying to claim the community represented all Democrats.

Witness this little bit of disclaimer:

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

How a poll that is essentially a web poll can be considered credible is beyond me. But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at how poorly the Zogby interactive poll performed in 2006 (after a disastrous debut in 2004):

I opted to use Mr. Mitofsky's method in my own number crunching. I looked at five pollsters that were among the most prolific: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Zogby (which releases separate telephone and online polls) and Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon. For all but the latter, I used the numbers posted on the organizations' own Web sites. For Mason-Dixon, which keeps some of its poll data behind a subscriber wall, I used Pollster.com to find polls from the two weeks before the election. I checked the results against vote counts as of this Tuesday [...]

On to the results: In the Senate races, the average error on the margin of victory was tightly bunched for all the phone polls. Rasmussen (25 races) and Mason-Dixon (15) each were off by an average of fewer than four points on the margin. Zogby's phone polls (10) and SurveyUSA (18) each missed by slightly more than four points. Just four of the 68 phone polls missed by 10 points or more, with the widest miss at 18 points.

But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined. Zogby predicted a nine-point win for Democrat Herb Kohl in Wisconsin; he won by 37 points. Democrat Maria Cantwell was expected to win by four points in Washington; she won by 17 [...]

The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8 points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18 races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points, erring on six races by more than 15 points.

Seriously, Zogby polls suck. Yet according to Google News right now, the "Hillary loses against all Republicans in the general" poll has been cited by over 200 media, while the far more respectable Gallup effort which shows that Hillary in fact beats them all has been far less reported.

The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.

By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.

You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.

Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

The media has its agenda, which right now is the "Hillary is fading" narrative. The hard core supporters of the other Democratic primary candidates have their agenda -- to raise bullshit "electability" arguments against Hillary.

And those of us who remain reality-based and dispassionate throughout this all can only shake our heads at the credence being put in a discredited shill of a "pollster".

Update: Pollster.com:

It is reasonable that the people who volunteer to take political polls over the internet are considerably more interested in politics (and likely more strongly partisan) than is a random sample of likely voters. That should be expected to lead to fewer people with "don't know" responses as better informed and more partisan respondents are likely to both know more about the candidates and to have made up their minds sooner than a proper random sample. That helps explain why Zogby's 2006 internet polls looked as they did.

But this does no good in Clinton's case.

Actually, it's a perfect explanation. You see Hillary's results in the dKos straw poll? In all internet polls she far underperforms her "real world" numbers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/28/95347/662

Huffington Post: Obama's PAC Money

2007-11-28T10:06:00.001-06:00

An examination of Federal Election Commission disclosures reveals that over the last reporting period Senator Barack Obama's now suspended political action committee, known as Hopefund, has given New Hampshire politicians, supporters and others tens of thousands of dollars.

The Washington Post has previously reported the flow of Obama PAC money toward Granite State politicians but did not itemize or total the $73,000 that the Illinois Senator has recently sprinkled through New Hampshire.

Congressman Paul Hodes and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter received $4,000. Hodes has endorsed Obama and is his New Hampshire campaign Co-Chair.

After hearing reading the report, the Clinton campaign released a statement that said "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."

State Senators Janeway and Cilley also received a donation from Obama's PAC and endorsed the Illionis Senator. Cilley told The Washington Post "There were no negotiations about financial remuneration. No quid pro quo. I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies."

Among the list are several politicians who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Senators D'Allesandro, Sgambati, Hassan and Estabrook all received $1,000 from Obama yet endorsed Clinton.

Total Disbursements To New Hampshire Politicians For Last Reporting Period:

Paul Hodes for Congress: $4,000.00
Carol Shea-Porter for Congress: $4,000.00
NH Democratic Party: $5,000.00
Jeanne Shaheen for Senate: $5,000.00
Hillsborough County Democrats: $1,000.00
Belknap County Democrats: $1,000.00
Janeway for Senate: $1,000.00
Sullivan County Democrats: $1,000.00
Rockingham County Democrats: $1,000.00
Iris Estabrook Campaign for State Senate: $1,000.00
John Shea: $1,000.00
Carroll County Democrats: $1,000.00
Strafford County Democratic Committe: $1,000.00
Merrimack County Democrats: $1,000.00
Grafton County Democrats: $1,000.00
Hollingsworth for Executive Council: $1,000.00
Cheshire County Democratic Committee: $1,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $5,000.00
New Hampshire for John Lynch: $1,000.00
Friends of Jackie Cilley: $1,000.00
Sgambati 4 Senate: $1,000.00
Comm. To Elect Lou D'Allesandro: $1,000.00
Maggie '08: $1,000.00
Friends of a Democratic Senate: $15,000.00
Committee to Elect House Democrats: $15,000.00
Coos County Democrats: $1,000.00
Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate: $1,000.00

Total: $73,000.00

The Fact Hub: Fact Check: Polls Show Hillary Beating All Republicans

2007-11-27T08:40:00.001-06:00

There were two polls yesterday that pitted Hillary versus her potential Republican challengers. One was an online poll by Zogby that found Hillary trailing Republicans, the other was a poll from Gallup that found Hillary beating all Republicans by substantial margins.

Which do you think got more coverage?

As of about 9AM, the Zogby poll was covered on TV news 15 times and the Gallup poll was mentioned twice – by the Hillary campaign's Mark Penn and Ann Lewis.

The Gallup poll showed that if Hillary was the nominee she would beat Giuliani by five points but if Sen. Obama was the nominee the race would be tied. Gallup also showed Hillary beating John McCain (by 6 points), Mitt Romney (by 16 points) and Fred Thompson (by 13 points). Hillary also leads all Republican contenders in Real Clear Politics' poll average.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4383

Washington Post: Calculation and Conviction

2007-11-27T08:35:00.000-06:00

Calculation and Conviction
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, November 26, 2007; Page A15

Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is guilty of triangulating, poll-testing and telling the American people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

Maybe so. But then it's fair to ask: Is Obama telling the American people anything they don't want to hear? More specifically, as he campaigns for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, is he saying anything except what polls suggest Democrats there might want to hear?

His campaign points to Obama's traveling to Detroit to endorse higher fuel standards for automobiles, his preaching parental responsibility in black churches and his refusing to promise Iowa activists that he will cut the defense budget. He backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, not a crowd-pleaser this electoral season.

But to the extent that Obama's positions have shifted over the past several months, they've shifted uncannily to where middle-class Democratic voters happen to be.

Obama still presents himself as the candidate who can rise above the tired old debates and tell everyone "what they need to hear," as he said in an address on schools last week. But what he said about schools was what Democrats and the teachers unions want to hear: Schools need more money. Merit pay for teachers has morphed, in his plan, into a "professional compensation system designed with the help and agreement of teachers' organizations." And making sure schools teach all children, especially poor and minority children, to read and do math is derided as preparing children "to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."

In keeping with the pacifism of much of the Iowa caucus electorate, Obama now attacks Clinton for a position on Iran that is nearly identical to one he espoused a few months ago. On Iraq, he used to agree with her that some troops would stay to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists, train Iraqi forces, and guard embassies. Now he says the anti-terrorist mission might be accomplished from outside Iraq, and recently on "Meet the Press" he dropped the training idea altogether.

In September, he proposed $80 billion in tax goodies for middle-class earners, including a tax credit that wouldn't be phased out until earnings reached more than $200,000.

It's true that he favors the tiny Peru trade agreement. But with polls showing increasing anxiety in Iowa about globalization, Obama has turned up the anti-trade rhetoric, opposing the more meaningful agreement proposed with South Korea and ignoring NAFTA's record of raising living standards here and in Mexico.

It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.

You could argue that there's nothing terrible or surprising in this. People who run for office, unless they're totally quixotic, respond to voters' views; that's the point of democracy. It's commonly accepted that Democrats "run left" in the primaries and then shift toward the center in the general election, while Republicans perform the mirror-image dance. A little cynical, maybe, but nothing new; by this reading, Clinton, as the front-runner, has just had the luxury of shifting a bit early.

But campaigning does pose a test of character: Are there any principles that a candidate holds strongly enough to take an electoral hit -- or to try to lead and bring the electorate along -- rather than follow the polls? This year and over the years, we've seen, for example, that John McCain has some such principles: on Iraq, on immigration, on curbing the influence of money in politics. With the rest of the field, in both parties, it's not so clear.

The question is particularly acute for Obama, because of his line of attack on Clinton and because he built his candidacy on two foundations: that he can heal the nation's partisan divisions and that he will lead "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction," as he said in Iowa this month. Without those distinctions, he's just a former state legislator from Illinois with a half-term, and few accomplishments, in the U.S. Senate.

But when the first selling point left him stuck in second in national polls, he shifted, apparently without much difficulty, to attacking Clinton from the left. And at some point it's no longer enough to describe yourself as courageous. Obama followed his not-calculation-but-conviction statement, in a speech generally credited as one of his strongest of the fall, by pledging to stand up to corporate lobbyists, end the war in Iraq and take tax breaks away from companies that send jobs overseas -- not exactly bitter medicine for his Democratic audience.

In the last Democratic debate, Obama again laced into Clinton for not providing "straight answers to tough questions," but it seemed a bit half-hearted. Maybe that's a good sign; maybe he's not happy with how his campaign has diverged from what he promised it would be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501557.html

Washington Post: Clinton's New Hampshire Machine

2007-11-26T17:52:00.000-06:00

CONCORD, N.H. -- Barack Obama may be gaining in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton touched down here yesterday to issue an implicit reminder: when the race moves to New Hampshire, she'll have the Machine.

That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment -- state legislators, retired officials and lawyer-lobbyist types who tend on the whole to be as personable as most of their small-state neighbors. But there was no mistaking the show of Establishment force at the historic carriage house here where Clinton came to pick up yet another high-profile Democratic endorsement, from Susan Lynch, the wife of the state's popular governor John Lynch. Clinton was introduced by the speaker of the New Hampshire House, Terie Norelli, and the relatively small audience packed into the room included the president of the state Senate, Sylvia Larson; an influential veteran senator from Manchester, Lou D'Allesandro; and at least a dozen other state legislators from the Concord area.

Larson said the local establishment backing for Clinton is a reflection of legislators' belief that she is better prepared for presidency than her rivals. "She's the experienced, capable candidate who's ready to go to work on the first day," said Larson. "Those of us who've worked in the field all these years recognize that it takes time to make things happen, that you need that background to succeed."

Just how much weight the local poobahs' backing will carry come the Jan. 8 primary remains to be seen. Al Gore had a similar lineup of support in 1999 and 2000 and barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Bill Bradley. In 2004, the establishment was more splintered among the Democratic candidates.

The Clinton campaign is hoping that Susan Lynch's endorsement, for one, could pack some real punch. It will be seen in many quarters as an implicit blessing from her popular husband, who is officially remaining neutral, much as John Kerry benefited from the endorsement of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack's wife in Iowa in 2004, and as Clinton benefits in New Hampshire from the backing of power broker Billy Shaheen, husband of New Hampshire's former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is officially remaining neutral as she prepares to run for Senate. In addition, Susan Lynch, a pediatrician, is well-liked and respected in her own right, and her word may carry some extra weight given that she has generally shied from politics.

"As a first lady, pediatrician and most importantly, a mother, I do not take my endorsement light heartedly," she said today with Clinton at her side. "But I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country."

After the event, former state representative Carol Burney said Clinton may be getting such particularly strong establishment support in New Hampshire because that establishment includes so many women leaders. "We got women running the state here," she said. "It's wonderful so many [establishment Democrats] support her because it says our New Hampshire machine is in the process of getting her elected."

Confirmation of this theory was provided a moment later when Mary Louise Hancock, a former state senator and the unofficial grand dame of New Hampshire Democrats, called Clinton to her wheelchair to give her a Susan B. Anthony coin that Hancock had won as part of a women's leadership award. The coin was a good luck charm, Hancock said, to be returned when Clinton became president. "If you've been a legislator then you understand government," Hancock said, later explaining her strong support for Clinton. "What people don't understand is that politics is about government. Because she understands government, she'll be able to run the country."

After Clinton left with the coin, Hancock was swarmed by television crews asking her to elaborate on the moment. The significance of the blessing of the 87-year-old Mrs. Hancock -- a longtime fixture of the Concord scene -- was lost on some of the Secret Service agents looking on. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them asked a reporter. "Who is she?"

Time: Why Oprah Won't Help Obama

2007-11-26T14:56:00.000-06:00

To win the Democratic nomination for President, Barack Obama still needs the same thing he has needed all along — for voters to see him as ready to be commander in chief by January 2009. So now the question is: Will appearing at weekend campaign rallies with Oprah Winfrey help him achieve that goal?

Mark me down as more than a bit skeptical.

Winfrey's endorsement — and her announcement that she will appear with Obama at campaign events in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire on December 8 and 9 — helps bring the following four things to Obama: campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.

The four things that Obama has on his own in great abundance — without Winfrey's help — are campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.

It might seem that the support and upcoming appearances of Winfrey are surely a net plus for Obama. His campaign manager David Plouffe tells TIME that she is a "transcendent figure," who has avoided sullying herself in politics before and, thus, will provide "a newness and freshness" in appealing to the female and older voters whom Obama is trying to reach.
Without question, Winfrey's foray onto the campaign trail will get Obama more publicity and a chance to convert her fans into Obama supporters.

But a more important event for his chances of winning might actually be taking place on Tuesday of this week, when he appears in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with some of his top foreign policy advisers for a forum with local residents. Joining Obama will be Bill Clinton's former national security adviser Tony Lake, along with Richard Danzig, Susan Rice, Samantha Power (a TIME contributor), and Sarah Sewall, as well as some prominent New Hampshire retired military officials. It was just this kind of event that Bill Clinton used effectively in his 1992 campaign to convince voters that he was ready to be commander in chief.

None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey — or particularly famous at all. But their validation — that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security — could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do.

In polls and focus groups, voters continue to express doubts about Obama's readiness for the presidency, particularly when compared with Clinton. Some analysts have taken to saying that "experience" is a threshold question — that Obama does not need to be seen as more ready than Clinton, just ready enough to do the job. That might be true (or it might not), but the evidence suggests that many voters still have reservations about the Illinois Senator. And the Clinton campaign plainly intends to do what it can to undermine her rival on this very point between now and January.

So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters.

In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be — dare it be said — counterproductive.

With reporting by Karen Tumulty.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1687526,00.html

Huffington Post: What's With Chris Matthews Flacking Obama?

2007-11-25T23:01:00.000-06:00

Following a week of "Hardball" encomia to Barack Obama coming off the Washington Post/ABC News November 20 Iowa poll, this morning's NBC "Chris Matthews Show" had the rat-tat-tat commentator declaring Obama "ahead" in that state.

Culminating in an eye-widening leading question to his panelists -- did the Illinois Senator have his best chance ever to beat Sen. Clinton in Hawkeye-land -- the network show exposed Chris Matthews as ballistic on Barack Obama. Perhaps escaping the chance to be invited back, Elizabeth Bumiller and David Brooks demurred and refused to catch Matthews' Obama bouquet. Bumiller said she didn't know; Brooks said there was an improvement over six months ago.

What are the facts about this poll?

First, the "ahead" moniker is false. The poll shows Obama ahead within the margin of error. In fact, the poll shows that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are each commanding so substantial a part of the caucus voters that a victor is unpredictable. And all polling in Iowa is suspect because diehard supporters can change their minds through the caucus process; many are undecided until the end; and supporters of candidates bringing up the rear (who may get less than the 15% of those present required to be considered) can throw their support to a front-runner, a result no poll can anticipate.

Second, some of the poll was done in the two days prior to the Nevada CNN debate. In that debate, both Obama and Edwards were booed when attempting to knock Hillary. She showed strength and leadership in deflecting their attacks, something that some poll respondents did not know or see.

Third, it depends who shows up at the caucuses. If caucus-goers are predominantly from the group of Iowans who think strength and experience are most important, Hillary Clinton wins running away. The fact that those polled are "likely voters" does not disclose whether they are "strength and experience" voters or "change" voters or, indeed, whether such arbitrary designations are mutually exclusive (they are not).

It is indeed unfortunate that Matthews has attached himself to this poll like a barnacle to a hull. Most commentators would cite the results with at least the caveat regarding the margin of error. Not he. And he hardly ever mentions Edwards, a formidable player is Iowa with an experienced and dedicated cadre of caucus voters.

The fluid situation in Iowa deserves a more balanced account than that being broadcast by Chris Matthews.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-baer/whats-with-chris-matthew_b_73995.html

NY Times:Clinton vs. Obama, Take 2 in Iowa

2007-11-20T15:04:00.001-06:00

Clinton vs. Obama, Take 2 in Iowa
By PATRICK HEALY
Updated SHENANDOAH, Iowa — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just sharpened her new attack on whether Senator Barack Obama is experienced enough to be president, questioning his recent statement that living overseas as a child contributed to his experience level.

Senator Clinton made the remarks to a campaign audience here after a new Washington Post/ABC News poll showed a statistical tie between the two rivals here in Iowa, with Mr. Obama at 30 percent and Mrs. Clinton at 26 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. A third candidate, John Edwards, was at with 22 percent.

Here was the Clinton wind-up: “I have traveled the world on behalf of our country - first in the White House with my husband and now as a aenator. I’ve met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women’s rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.

“I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next president. With a war and a tough economy, we need a president ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges.”

And here was the pitch: “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don’t think this is the time for on-the-job training on our economy or on foreign policy.

“I offer my credentials, my experience, and qualifications which I think uniquely equip me to be prepared to hit the ground running on Day One. And I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home. For 15 years, I have been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here.”

Updated: 3:35 p.m. Bill Burton, campaign spokesman for Senator Obama had this to say: “Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and travelled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton, they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first.”

On Monday, Mr. Obama cited his personal background and his four years living in Indonesia as a child as contributing to his experience and knowledge on foreign affairs.

“I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good
foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.”

He also said, according to the AFP, “a lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs isn’t just what I studied in school — I studied international relations when I was in college — it’s not just the work I do on the Senate foreign relations committee. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live.”

Mr. Obama has cited many factors contributing to his experience and judgment on foreign affairs and national security, from his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to his years studying and observing issues as an Illinois state senator. He has cited his early opposition to the Iraq war as a sign that he has better judgment on national security than Senator Clinton, given her vote in favor of military action in Iraq. Mr. Obama has also written two books that have drawn on his trips and experiences overseas, including in Africa, where his father was born and lived for many years.

Mrs. Clinton began anew trying to undercut Mr. Obama’s experience during a campaign swing on Monday, saying that Americans should choose a candidate for president who did not need “on the job training.” Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004; Mrs. Clinton was elected in 2000 after eight years as First Lady. One Clinton adviser said this morning that Mrs. Clinton decided to make the new offensive against Mr. Obama after facing weeks of criticism from him and another rival, former Senator John Edwards; the three of them are locked in a very tight race in Iowa.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/clinton-vs-obama-take-2-in-iowa/

Obama Fumbles Again

2007-11-20T08:16:00.000-06:00

Politico:

Obama's facts

No good campaign innovation goes unimitated, and the Obama campaign just launched an answer to Clinton's "Fact Hub," called Fact Check.

A bit of a stumble out of the gate, though: The campaign seems to have posted, and then removed, an item claiming that Hillary called Nafta a "boon." Here's a screenshot of the vanished item.

(In, er, fact, the word comes from a Newsday claim about what she was thinking, not a quote.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Obamas_facts.html

Senator Clinton's New Ad

2007-11-20T08:10:00.001-06:00

Clinton ad strikes back at attacking Republicans

"CONCORD – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., unleashes her first negative ad today, hitting back at leading Republican hopefuls who in recent weeks have launched assaults at her over the airwaves.

The ad forcefully makes the argument that she's become the favorite target of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona because she stands the best chance of beating any of them in a November 2008 general election. The commercial viewed by The Telegraph on Monday opens with slowly moving video images but not the audio from Romney and McCain ads critical of the New York senator.

"Here they go again – the same old Republican attack machine is back. Why?" the announcer begins in this new, 30-second commercial.

"Maybe it's because they know that there's one candidate with the strength and experience to get us out of Iraq, one candidate who will end tax giveaways for the big corporations, one candidate committed to cutting the huge Republican deficit and one candidate who will put government back to work for the middle class."

The ad will air on TV stations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, began airing a commercial earlier this month blasting "Hillary and the other Democrats" for wanting to give illegal aliens an eventual path to citizenship if they pay fines, unpaid taxes and learn English.

McCain had his own TV commercial that lampooned Clinton as a pork barrel politician for favoring $1 million towards a museum to honor rock concerts at Woodstock, N.Y.

In September, Giuliani, former mayor of New York, purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times blasting Clinton for attacking the character of Iraq war commander Gen. Anthony Petraeus, the architect of the surge of American troops sent to Iraq last summer."

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS08/311200022

CBS News: Obama Fact Check

2007-11-19T17:30:00.001-06:00

Senator Clinton Standing Her Ground

2007-11-19T14:07:00.000-06:00

Newsweek: HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story.

2007-11-19T14:06:00.000-06:00

"She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Why would I expect otherwise? The event was a victory lap--an appearance in front of a group, recently merged with the United Transportation Union to form the 230,000-strong Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation (SMART) conglomerate, that had already decided to support Clinton for president. No wooing necessary Just order up a few hundred yellow "SMART Choice" t-shirts and blue "SMART Choice" buttons, pass out the "SMART Choice" placards, stand at the "SMART Choice" podium in front of the "SMART Choice" backdrop and let the flashbulbs flash.

Not that union endorsements aren't useful and all. But announcement ceremonies aren't typically the best place to experience the unique frisson of retail politics--the skepticism, the seduction, the sale--in person.

Unless, you know, they are. With Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" warming up the crowd--and Clinton herself still touring the next-door SMWIA Apprenticeship Facility--I approached Jerry Waller and asked why he's supporting Clinton. His answer? "I'm not." Two of his yellow-shirted union brothers rolled their eyes. Waller, 54, moved from Detroit to Las Vegas ten years ago; a former military police officer, he was broke until the Local 88 "took him in." That said, his loyalty doesn't necessarily extend to his union's presidential pick. "A lot of guys hate her, actually," he said. "There's a lot of anger. I remember when they passed out fliers a few weeks back. One guy just threw it to the ground."

Waller's top concern this cycle is health care. On Sept. 21, 1984, he was "completely buried" when an underground pipe he was working on collapsed. "You New Yorkers have 9/11," he said. "I have 9/21. I was out of commission for five years. Workingman's comp blew me off." I asked who he is supporting. "Don't know yet. I'm still researching. John Edwards came by here, oh, five months ago. I was impressed. It was more informal than all this. If Hillary wants my vote, she needs to turn more human. She's too staged."

Clinton's speech wasn't a barnburner, by any stretch. But it was relatively rousing. In addition to the usual labor-friendly lines ("You can't say you're pro-family if you're anti-union"), attacks on the Bush administration ("We gave them a $5.6 million surplus...") and local appeals ("Vegas is the fastest-growing city in America, right? Lots of things to build!"), she delivered a spirited "analysis" of last Thursday's debate. "This time what happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas!" she said. "I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't. He didn't make that decision. I think it takes strength and experience to make the tough decisions."

Still, as the applause died down and I asked Waller what he thought, I was surprised by his response. "I'm impressed," he said. "She was better than I expected. Sounds a lot smarter than I expected, actually. I heard what I wanted to hear: heath care, taking care of our military guys, the middle class. " He was smiling. Wait, are you, like, a supporter now? I asked. "I am. I'm leaning more this way." But what about the "human" thing? Did that give you a sense of warmth? "It's not a problem for me any more. I got a good feeling."

Nice work, Hillary. It just goes to show: anti-Clinton sentiment might be broad (recall those 49 percent unfavorable ratings), but it's not always deep. Especially if, after a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," all it takes to win over a guy like Jerry Waller is a standard 20-minute speech, delivered live in person."

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/19/hrc-tcb-in-vegas-a-conversion-story.aspx

NY Times: Clinton and Clark Campaign in Iowa

2007-11-19T12:03:00.000-06:00

"DES MOINES – File this under the Department of Getting Ahead of Ourselves: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is campaigning in Iowa this morning with a political ally, Gen. Wesley K. Clark (ret.), and on first blush it’s pretty easy to see a future political ticket there.

For one thing (superficiality alert!), there’s height.

Mrs. Clinton is said to stand at 5’8’’ (some observers put her an inch or two less); if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, one school of thought is that she would be better off with a running mate who did not tower over her and create a jarring contrast for the cameras.

Mr. Clark, the former NATO commander during Bill Clinton’s administration, appears only slightly taller than Mrs. Clinton, and they had good stage presence together as they table-hopped together at the Drake Diner this morning in search of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers.

There are more important things in a running mate, of course, than height, and Mrs. Clinton is far from becoming her party’s standard-bearer. But like Barack Obama, who would be the first black Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton, as a woman, would probably calculate her vice-presidential pick in a different way than the white males who led the ticket in the past.

General Clark, for his part, talked up Mrs. Clinton as a strong commander-in-chief during his asides with patrons at the diner. He told a tableful of middle-aged men that “she knows what she believes” and “she knows where she stands,” while Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Clark, “he was leading our forces in Kosovo and Bosnia when we got rid of a dictator.”

There were only a few tables of folks at the diner this morning, so Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clark soon found themselves sat at the counter for coffee, fruit, and chitchat for the benefit of the television cameras. They were joined by Christie Vilsack, the former first lady of Iowa – whose husband, former Gov. Tom Vilsack, is also mentioned as a possible running mate for Mrs. Clinton."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/clinton-and-clark-campaign-in-iowa/

Novak Admits Smear Column Is Even Weaker Than It First Appear

2007-11-19T11:27:00.001-06:00

"Novak disclosed that his source for the story was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the alleged dirt. Got that? So Novak was not privy to the dirt itself, nor did he talk to Clinton's people. Rather, he heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else. Another secondary source, Novak went on to say, claimed to have heard the same thing. Fact-checking = completed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/novak-admits-smear-column_n_73274.html

YouTube: Obama Yells at Woman Voter

2007-11-19T10:29:00.000-06:00

Chicago Sun-Times: Lynn Sweet: Obama, Clinton clash over Novak item. The dish on dirt.

2007-11-18T20:08:00.000-06:00

Sweet column: Obama, Clinton clash over Novak item. The dish on dirt.

LAS VEGAS -- Triggered by an item in Bob Novak's Sunday column suggesting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dirt on Sen. Barack Obama but won't use it, Obama's campaign Saturday accused Clinton's team of using "Swift boat" tactics against him.

Clinton's camp swung back, denying they were spreading rumors about Obama or that they planted information with Novak, wondering why Obama would want to fall into a "Republican trap" to "pit Democrats against Democrats."

Starting an unusual series of heated exchanges between the two front-running presidential campaigns was a three paragraph item in Novak's Sunday Chicago Sun-Times column that says "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."

Obama sent out an e-mail calling on the Clinton campaign to renounce the item, which he said was "heavy on innuendo and insinuation," adding, "The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old 'Swift boat' politics.

The 2004 White House campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was savaged by TV ads undermining his military career, funded by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

A reason the Obama campaign went on the offensive -- or that any campaign might -- could be to protect itself from material that could surface later.

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson, in Las Vegas where Clinton was stumping, said "a Democratic candidate should be smart enough not to fall into a trap that he has set to pit Democrats against Democrats . . . if you don't know how to avoid that in a primary, you are going to be in a world of hurt in a general election."

Carson said they had no idea what Novak, whom he called a "Republican-leaning columnist" was referring to.

"Let's think about this rationally for a second. Do you really think Bob Novak will be the repository of information from the Clinton campaign?" Carson said.

Novak, asked to react, said neither he nor his source, who he said was a Democrat, have any more information. Novak said his source passed along what he was told "by people inside the Clinton campaign. It was not specified what it was, and it was said to a Democratic source. Clinton would not reveal it because she is such a good person."

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, in a second communique from the campaign, demanded that the Clinton team say if "they have 'scandalous' information" they are not releasing. "Yes or no?"

"No and no," Carson said.

Plouffe replied that Obama's team will take the Clinton campaign "at their word ... But what we don't accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks."

Prodding along negative stories is commonplace in hotly contested races. Obama's presidential campaign "scored a significant hit" against Clinton "by helping to place" a story about tainted Democratic donor Norman Hsu, according to an article about Obama in the December issue of the Atlantic.

The story, titled "Teacher and Apprentice" by associate editor Marc Ambinder, describes how Obama campaign staffers were "frustrated" because the press was not covering Clinton "in the way they expected it would."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_clinton_cla.html

NY Times: For Clinton, More Time and More Advertising

2007-11-17T16:31:00.000-06:00

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: November 18, 2007

DES MOINES, Nov. 17 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.

In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.

“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”

The intense attention is the latest indication of the Clinton campaign’s worry about establishing dominance in Iowa — the opening contest in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — to match the strength she has shown in national polls. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have waged spirited campaigns here, taking advantage of what polls suggest is unease with Mrs. Clinton among many voters.

The maneuvering here is critical, because Mrs. Clinton’s aides, along with many Democrats not associated with her campaign, believe that her momentum will be difficult to slow if she wins here; polls suggest that she is strong in New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign has been flying in operatives from across the country to bolster the effort here.

Complicating the matter even more, the campaigns of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut also have the potential to sway the race. If candidates do not reach a 15-percent threshold in each of the 1,784 precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, their supporters make a second choice, a procedure that Mrs. Clinton’s aides fear could favor Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama.

In the final seven weeks of the race, all campaigns are increasing their efforts here, placing new advertisements and investing more resources. To fight the new push by the Clinton campaign, rivals also are planning to spend nearly all their time in Iowa in December.

While the Obama and Edwards campaigns have been gradually building for months toward this moment, the Clinton campaign has bolstered its activity here in recent weeks, hiring 100 new workers to concentrate on a person-to-person drive to explain the quirky process of the caucuses, with a goal of having 50,000 in-home visits concluded by Christmas.

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, suggesting that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

“No one is going to give Hillary Clinton this nomination,” said Terry McAuliffe, the national chairman of her campaign, who has traveled to Iowa nearly once a week for months. “She’s going to have to earn it.”

By this week, the Clinton campaign had completed opening 34 offices across the state, arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.

The campaign also began running radio advertisements and significantly increased its television commercials, spending $360,000 last week compared with $260,000 two weeks ago.

At the same time, Mr. Clinton is playing an increasingly larger role in Iowa. After never competing in the Iowa caucuses during his own presidential races, Mr. Clinton has sought to learn the nuts and bolts of the system and has studied regions where he believes his appearances could be most helpful.

Mr. Clinton was sent last week to the western Iowa towns of Onawa and Glenwood, where he created a stir and drew a large crowd of local Democrats.

“Clearly they weren’t all there because they support Hillary,” said Kenneth Mertes, the Democratic chairman in Monona County. “But he is a very persuasive speaker and can sway the voters who come to see him just out of curiosity.”

A New York Times/CBS News poll this month found that 38 percent of Iowa voters who are likely to participate in the caucuses said the former president’s involvement in the race would make them more likely to support Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But 55 percent said it would make no difference in deciding which Democrat to support.

Mr. Clinton is expected to concentrate on rural areas and smaller cities, where campaign aides believe that Mrs. Clinton needs a boost. (A sign on the office door of Teresa Vilmain, the state director of the Clinton campaign, says: “Hillary is needed in rural Iowa.”) Already, Mr. Clinton has helped recruit precinct captains and has worked to persuade small clutches of undecided voters, but aides say his involvement will increase significantly after Thanksgiving.

With new anxieties about Iowa and a sense of heightened importance in the vote’s outcome, the Clinton campaign sent several senior strategists here, including Karen Hicks, who is known as one of the party’s top get-out-the-vote specialists. To compete with the strong organizations of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama, the Clinton campaign held a job fair in Washington to recruit many of the 100 new workers, but it remains an open question whether the late influx of young aides will be able to build the relationships with Iowa voters that other campaigns have been working on for months.

The Clinton campaign’s efforts to bolster its organization here come in the wake of a challenging period in the state, with aides conceding to planting questions in Iowa audiences and struggling to explain whether a tip was left for a waitress who served Mrs. Clinton during a recent visit. Three weeks ago, Patti Solis Doyle, the national campaign manager, traveled here to appraise Mrs. Clinton’s efforts. A strategy was devised to have the Clintons — and many high-profile surrogates — blanket the state in December.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska is expected to endorse her candidacy and travel through the state on her behalf in the coming weeks. Former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, a presidential candidate four years ago, is also scheduled to spend time in Iowa and urge his former supporters to sign on with Mrs. Clinton.

And when Mrs. Clinton returns to Iowa on Monday, aides said, she will begin concentrating on smaller audiences and intimate sessions with voters in outlying areas of the state. One stop on the itinerary, for example, is Tama, population 2,700.

“At the beginning, she didn’t understand the whole notion of relationship building,” said Mr. Vilsack, who often travels the state with Mrs. Clinton and introduces her to voters. “She now gets it. She now understands the psyche of this process.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Fact Hub: Obama Campaign Tactics

2007-11-17T14:45:00.000-06:00

Obama Campaign Tactics

Today, Sen. Barack Obama echoed Republican talking points by repeating a totally false claim by Republican Bob Novak about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.

It might be a good time for Sen. Obama to take a look at the tactics of his own campaign.

The Obama campaign pedaled an opposition research document, titled Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab), attacking Hillary for her ties to the Indian-American community:

Senator Barack Obama disavowed the document his campaign aimed at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, saying today that it was "stupid and caustic." The headline of one of the documents, which referred to Mrs. Clinton as 'D-Punjab,' touched off a furor among Indian-American groups that called on Mr. Obama to apologize for the remarks. [New York Times, 6/18/07]
The Obama campaign made a false attack on Bill Clinton:

More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06. [The Politico, 6/15/07]
The Obama campaign took credit for placing stories attacking Hillary regarding Norman Hsu:

In August, Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years earlier and still faced an outstanding warrant... (Hsu had also contributed to Obama.) [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2007]
The Obama campaign was 'digging for damaging facts' at the Clinton library:

How far is the money being spread? The Obama campaign spent $27 at the Arkansas state archives and $9.30 at the Clinton library, digging for damaging facts on Clinton. Asked what Team Obama found, spokeswoman Jen Psaki conceded, "Not much." [New York Daily News, 10/17/07]
The Obama campaign's communications director compiled a list of opposition research stories on Hillary that he was pitching to reporters:

I couldn’t help but notice some of what he had scrawled on a whiteboard hanging on his wall:

HC Bio > NY Post
HC Travel (AP?)
Tax Returns (Balz?)
Darfur investments (HF)
JE 527

HC is, of course, Hillary Clinton...These were obviously notes about stories the campaign was pushing or anticipating...'"

Talk Left: Final Thoughts: Who Won The Nevada Debate?

2007-11-17T13:04:00.001-06:00

Final Thoughts: Who Won The Nevada Debate?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:10:00 AM EST

Headlines after the debate: Clinton Sparkles in Vegas Debate (Guardian); Hillary Makes a Recovery in Las Vegas Debate (CNN); Hillary Shows She Can Take a Punch in Vegas Debate (San Francisco Chronicle); Clinton Calls and Raises in Vegas Debate (CBS News); Hillary Takes Aggressive Tack Against Rivals (International Herald Tribune); Clinton Swings Back Against Rivals (Boston Globe); Hillary Hits Back (Washington Post). After Rough Few Weeks, Hillary Clinton Gives Strong Debate Performance (ABC News).

Obama falters Over Illegal Immigrants (New York Sun); MSNBC: "Richardson, btw, had one of his better performances, possibly his best. Dodd didn't get a lot of time but when he did speak, he seemed to be on message."

My thoughts on the debate:

Winners: Hillary, Dodd, Richardson.

Waffler: Obama playing slip and slide on drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Four chances and wouldn't answer the question.

Least likely to have gained new support: Edwards. But he gave a great answer in response to a question from the audience on racial profiling. Said when he is President, there will be no racial profiling, no illegal spying, no Guantanamo, no torture.

Biden: Displayed a sense of humor, it still doesn't make up for his bad position on issues, particularly on crime. Sample comment: People are afraid their kids are going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school.

More --and a poll -- below the Fold

Kucinich: A little too angry tonight, but deserves praise for taking on Wolf for calling the undocumented "illegal." Best line on why he was the only one who voted against the Patriot Act: "Because I read it."

Favorite political line: Hillary saying she understands they're attacking her not because she's a woman but because she's ahead.

Favorite issue answer: Bill Richardson on drivers' licenses for the undocumented, "I've done it." "We should stop demonizing immigrants."

Who do you think won? Reminder: There are no losers because every one of these Democrats are better than the alternatives Republicans are offering.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/16/1625/4522

New Hampshire Union Leader: Bill Clinton urges youth to support Hillary

2007-11-17T13:02:00.001-06:00

By DAN TUOHY
New Hampshire Union Leader

MANCHESTER – The Comeback Kid was back in Manchester last night to urge young Democrats to fight for their party and support his wife's presidential bid.

Former President Bill Clinton, the candidate once grilled on MTV about his choice of underwear, called on the younger generation to not only "rock the vote" but also get plugged in and make a difference in their community.

"I'm glad to be here with you because you have the most at stake in this election," Clinton said as he kicked off a convention of the National Young Democrats at the Radisson Hotel Manchester.

The Clinton courtship paid immediate dividends. Gray Chynoweth, president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton before he introduced the former President.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party is trying to use the three-day summit to build a large grassroots army of volunteers. Chairman Raymond Buckley said the goal is to protect last year's political victories and deliver the state to the Democratic presidential nominee on Nov. 4, 2008.

The convention continues today with workshops and training sessions. Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis is leading a presentation on grassroots organizing. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is among those scheduled to deliver speeches. As many as 700 Democratic activists are estimated to be in Manchester over the three days. The Stonewall Democrats and Eastern Region members of the Democratic National Committee are also participating.

Bill Clinton is not the only spouse speaking to the Young Democrats this weekend -- Elizabeth Edwards is scheduled to speak at noon today -- but there was no second-guessing his star attraction. Clinton, who campaigned earlier in the day in the North Country, rifled through dozens of subjects, some obscure and some universal, from tribal greetings in South Africa to the need for alternative energy.

Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the Radisson in Manchester last night. (DAVID LANE)

"On climate change, there's another 'inconvenient truth' that has to be told," Clinton said, in a salute to Al Gore's documentary by the same name. "We ain't never going to get it done if we make it like swallowing castor oil."

His message was that people have to work together to effect change, regardless of political or cultural differences. Clinton said that, too, is a reason to support his wife: her ability to build consensus.

Clinton cited his 1992 campaign -- when he toughed out a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary and declared himself the Comeback Kid -- as an example of rejecting cynicism and the importance of focusing on the daily trials and tribulations of ordinary people. He noted critics in the media had made fun of him when he said, " I feel your pain."

As he wrapped up his 45-minute address last night, Clinton said he saw a little bit of himself in the fresh-faced crowd.

"I know you're here because you can feel other people's pain," he said.

Conference highlights
The Democrats' conference will include presentations by some of the country's top political experts.

"This conference will bring hundreds of diverse Democrats from around the country to New Hampshire to celebrate the importance of the New Hampshire Primary," said Buckley.

Today begins with an 8 a.m. welcome breakfast at the Radisson Hotel Armory featuring Lynch and 2nd District U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes. Also speaking will be Buckley and Chris Pappas, vice chair of the state party; Klye Bailey, vice chair of the YDA's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus; and Chris Anderson, executive vice president of YDA.

The morning sessions from 9:15 to 11:30 a.m. will include: grassroots organizing, led by Dukakis; becoming a delegate to the national convention, led by Phil McNamara, DNC director of party affairs; and delegate selection and VAN (Voter Activating Network, an online voter data base) training, led by Parag Mehta, DNC director of training.

At noon, a luncheon will be held in the Armory with speakers representing several presidential candidates. Elizabeth Edwards will appear for her husband, John, while Washington U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee will speak for Hillary Clinton and Connecticut U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney will stand in for Chris Dodd.

The afternoon sessions from 1:15 to 2:30 p.m. will include Mehta speaking on "The Plan," which is the party's political ground game for 2008, and Rick Boyland, a Stonewall Democrats board member, who will speak on "Pride in the Party."

From 2:30 to 5 p.m., conference participants will have the opportunity to volunteer for a Presidential candidate's campaign or for a U.S. Senate candidate's campaign.

This evening, the AFL-CIO Labor Reception will be held from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at The Shaskeen, 909 Elm St.

The YDA's Women's Caucus Reception, dubbed "Wonder Women: A Salute to Outstanding Activists and Candidates," will be held from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in the Presidential Suite in the Radisson. Special guests are state Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, and state House Speaker Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth.

Tomorrow begins with a continental breakfast in the Armory at 8:30 a.m. with speakers Stew Acuff, national director of organizing for the AFL-CIO, and Pennsylvania U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy representing Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

A workshop from 9:30 to 11 a.m. on the importance of including new media techniques in today's ever-increasing, virtual world will be led by Donnie Fowler, CEO and founder of Cherry Tree Mobile.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Bill+Clinton+urges+youth+to+support+Hillary&articleId=d53e6e01-ce54-49d9-901e-7e9e608b6548

Washington Post: With Strong Debate, Clinton Quiets Talk of a Slide

2007-11-17T12:02:00.001-06:00

Spotlight Moves to Whether Rivals Can Slow Her Momentum Toward Nomination

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; A05

LAS VEGAS, Nov. 16 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's strong performance in Thursday's Democratic debate here will blunt talk that she is on a downward slide and shift the focus to whether Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards can stop her march to the nomination, party strategists said Friday.

"In some ways the hiccup of two weeks ago, or the misstep of two weeks ago, was good for the Clinton campaign, in that it brought the Clinton campaign back to earth and back to reality," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, referring to her rocky outing in a debate in Philadelphia late last month. "It was a campaign that probably started looking to the general election a little too early, that didn't take the voters' questions about Hillary Clinton to heart enough."

Steve Elmendorf, who ran the presidential campaign in 2004 for then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, said Clinton's aggressiveness Thursday was a reminder to her rivals that she would not allow them to attack her indefinitely without responding. "She sent a very strong signal to the other candidates that there are no free shots here," he said. "She is ahead, and if they attack her, she'll hit back. Everybody has vulnerabilities."

Clinton (N.Y.) won the battle of Las Vegas by aggressively turning the tables on her rivals, challenging them where they are vulnerable and forcing them to answer questions they weren't ready to answer. She once again demonstrated her skill as a debater -- and Obama (Ill.) showed that he is not as strong in debates as he is in other forums.

The reactions from inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns signaled that between now and Iowa, there will be an intensifying debate over who should lead the party. Clinton advisers were ecstatic about the performance, which they felt successfully shifted the story line away from the candidate's earlier problems. Gone was talk about "piling on," which had marked their response to the Philadelphia debate, even though her rivals were as critical of her Thursday night as they had been earlier.

"She gave a commanding performance," said Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director. "I think this was the most important debate since the first one, and it was important for her to be dominating, and she was."

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, disputed the high marks given to Clinton. "I think the questions and the narratives that surrounded the candidates going into this debate are mostly present going out of this debate," he said. "I think you could see this in a number of answers. I don't think she made any progress on providing clear or consistent answers to a number of questions she was asked last night."

Advisers to Edwards (N.C.) discounted reviews of their candidate's performance and said he continues to be a force, especially because of his strength in Iowa.

"Now more than ever it is clear that voters have a real choice in this election between John Edwards's bold vision of real change and Senator Clinton's flagging defense of the status quo and a broken system," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for Edwards.

Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who is neutral in the race, said she thinks the debate had two effects: to heighten the importance of a December debate in Iowa and to give a sense of a race that is narrowing to a contest between Clinton and Obama.

"Edwards seems to defy gravity" in Iowa, she said. "He's always had a group of people there who just really like him, but this debate kind of set out the fault lines between the front-runners for those Iowa debates, which are [always] incredibly important but even more so now."

Garin described the race as a contest between old and new, with Obama finally making his case as effectively as Clinton has been making hers.

"Obama has gotten much better and much sharper in framing that choice for voters over the course of the last four weeks," he said. "There's a lot more clarity and sharpness in the way he is defining the choice between new and old for voters and saying why it matters in a way that qualifies him more to be president."

But Clinton has been equally adept, he said, at leveraging her two principal strengths: her experience and the perception of Democratic voters that she cares about them and about policies that would make their lives better.

Obama showed again Thursday that debates are not his best forum. He excelled on stage at last Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa but endured several difficult moments Thursday night, particularly on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

After hammering Clinton for two weeks about her lack of clarity on that topic, he had trouble providing a yes-or-no answer Thursday, finally saying that he favored them. Clinton's war room erupted in cheers over his misstep, one campaign official said.

Edwards has chosen to wage a more classic outsider campaign, focused strictly on Clinton. In Iowa he remains a threat, but there is a question of whether he will be able to keep pace in the final weeks given the huge financial disadvantage he may face against both Clinton and Obama.

After two lively debates, Clinton's vulnerabilities are more clearly evident and Obama and Edwards have shown they are ready to maintain pressure on her. But both need to stop Clinton in Iowa to change the trajectory of the Democratic race.

"I think there are two candidates for whom the race comes down to a one-day sale," Garin said. "Iowa is not a make-or-break event for Senator Clinton, but it probably is for the other two."

Clinton was not flawless Thursday. Her answer on trade issues left questions her opponents will attempt to exploit -- Edwards's campaign jumped quickly on this Friday morning -- and she still has not made clear exactly what she thinks about payroll taxes and Social Security. Obama, Edwards and some of Clinton's other rivals are likely to try to focus continued attention on character questions such as whether she is candid or calculated, honest or evasive -- areas that polls show could be genuine vulnerabilities.

But in general, Thursday's debate was far better for Clinton than for her rivals. After Philadelphia the question was how she would respond. That's the question now facing Obama and Edwards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601879_pf.html

Politico: Diamonds and Pearls for Hillary

2007-11-16T00:19:00.000-06:00

By: Roger Simon

LAS VEGAS — "The (rhymes with rich) is back.

In a Democratic debate here Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was not the passive, parsing, punching bag that she was at the last debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.

She gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her, stubbed their toes.

John Edwards got booed when he attacked her for taking money from Washington lobbyists — a charge he has made many times before — and seemed both surprised and irritated.

But when it came to a real stumble, Clinton left that to her chief opponent, Barack Obama.

He tried the same duck-and-cover tactic that Clinton failed at in the last debate and on the same subject: driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Obama if he supported giving out such licenses, Obama replied: “When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.”

But Blitzer was not going to settle for a non-answer answer and said: “Do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?”

Obama replied: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.”

This led to laughter in the debate hall and it was not the good kind of laughter.

“No, no, no, no, look,” Obama said, trying to stumble his way out of his own answer, but Blitzer was properly relentless.

“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer,” Blitzer said and the audience laughed again.

And, again, it was not the kind of laughter that Obama wanted to hear.

Finally, Blitzer said: “Senator Obama, yes or no?”

Obama was pinned. “Yes,” he replied.

Clinton neither parsed nor obfuscated — this time. When asked if she would also support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, she replied with a firm, “No.”

She said nothing more. She didn’t need to.

At the beginning of the debate she said “my pantsuit is asbestos tonight,” but she hardly needed it to be.

This was a night for her opponents to feel the heat and, once again, the worst damage was inflicted by the journalists on the stage and not the other debaters.

At one point, Obama said he would sit down and talk to the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran.

“Hillary and I had a disagreement on this,” he said. “I said I would meet with not just our friends but also with our enemies.”

But Blitzer pointed out that Obama had missed a key Senate vote on Iran.

“This is true and it was a mistake,” Obama said. “This is one of the hazards of running for president.”

No, debates are one of the hazards of running for president.

Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year.

“I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.

“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.”

A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only six percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”

Then he lashed out with his strongest language of the evening. “You know,” he said, “this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, where we start playing with numbers.”

But Hillary had scored exactly the way she wanted to: by raising the electability issue.

It is no secret the Republicans intend to come at the Democratic nominate on the issues of immigration and raising taxes.

And Obama has now given them plenty of ammunition on both.

The last question of the evening came from a young woman who laughingly asked Clinton: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?”

“Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice,” Clinton said with a wicked smile. “I want both.”

And her opponents laid both at her feet Thursday night."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6926.html

Des Moines Register: Yepsen: That's Why The Lady Is The Champ

2007-11-15T23:10:00.000-06:00

"Give Thursday’s debate to Hillary Clinton.

After two bad weeks in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, she recovered her footing and pushed back sharply at her opponents in a debate Thursday night.

The event, televised by CNN, was held in Las Vegas and was seen as an important milestone in the campaign. Clinton’s flawed performance in the previous debate and a series of campaign miscues in the weeks that followed indicated the national front-runner was stumbling. The evening gave her rivals a chance to trip her up some more.

They blew it. Barack Obama had only an average night, and on a couple of questions he seemed flummoxed. On the question of driver’s licenses for immigrants here illegally, his answer was as nuanced and fuzzy as Clinton’s was a couple of weeks ago. Moderator Wolf Blitzer underscored Obama’s fumbling by reminding him the question “is sort of available for a yes or no answer.”

By contrast, Clinton gave the answer she should have in the last debate: “No.”

Also, Obama got booed when he accused Clinton of using logic worthy of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. (That did seem a little canned. His handlers need to provide him some fresh material.) He also needs a more cogent answer for what he proposes to do with all the nation’s nuclear waste until someone invents that new processing technology he wants.

John Edwards should have stayed home. Clinton took the wind out of his sails early in the evening by implying he was “throwing mud.” He never seemed to bounce back from that slap, and he also got hooted when he talked about her as a corporate Democrat. Edwards also had a poor night because for the first time, the differences between his votes as a U.S. senator and his talk now came into clear focus. He voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste disposal site. Those votes are at odds with the populist rhetoric he serves up today, and it will undermine the credibility of his message.

Ironically, Edwards’ poor performance may be bad news for Clinton in Iowa. That’s because Clinton, Edwards and Obama are in a statistical tie for first among caucus-going Democrats here. If either Obama or Edwards should fade in Iowa, his supporters may move to the other candidate, making that man the leading anti-Clinton candidate.

And that could give him enough votes to eke out a plurality win over her on caucus night. (Memo to Clinton: Don’t be too hard on poor Johnny. You need to keep him in this race in Iowa.)

Observers can also give lots of points to two of the second-tier candidates, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. They turned in articulate, presidential-style performances during the evening.

It was clearly Dodd’s best debate of the campaign, especially when he rebuked his foes, primarily Edwards, for the “shrillness” of the campaign. Richardson, too, will get credit from voters for his call to “stop this mudslinging.”

Dodd and Richardson also showed political courage at various points in the evening — Dodd for his support for free trade, something not popular with many unions, and Richardson for supporting driver’s licenses for workers here illegally.

Joseph Biden seemed uneven. He’s excellent when he’s talking about foreign policy and judicial appointments — and bad when he tries too hard to be funny or gets angry. Dennis Kucinich says things a lot of Democrats believe, but he can’t be taken seriously because he’s not running a credible campaign."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3a9f32a81e-dd8d-42e6-a448-2fb362161155&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com

WSJ: ‘Yes or No’ Questions Not So Easy, Eh?

2007-11-15T23:06:00.000-06:00

Susan Davis reports from Las Vegas on the presidential debate.

"They should have seen it coming. “Assuming there isn’t going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates. That’s essentially the question that tripped up Sen. Hillary Clinton at the debate two weeks ago.

But as their responses show, it’s no easy task to sum up a top domestic concern in a single word.

Sen. Barack Obama: “I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t… No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.” (72 words)

Sen. John Edwards: “No, but I don’t accept the proposition that we’re not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. What I do support, and what I will do as president of the United States, is move this country toward comprehensive immigration reform. And anyone who’s on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver’s license.” (57 words)

Sen. Chris Dodd: “Well, it’s important to put it in context. It’s obviously, look, clarity is important here. The American people, in a debate like this, want clarity here. Certainly, the whole idea of getting immigration reform is something I strongly support. But I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here — I understand why they want to come, but coming illegally creates serious problems — four to 500,000. No, my belief is that giving a — as I’ve said in the very beginning here, I think driver’s licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented.” (110 words)

Obama, Round II: “Yes. I’ll tell you, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn’t pose the question that, somehow, we can’t achieve that. I believe that the American people desperately want it; that’s what I’m going to be fighting for as president.” (45 words)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren’t any illegal human beings. That’s No. 1. No. 2, they are undocumented. I believe that the best way to do it — thank you. I believe the best way to deal with this is cancel NAFTA and renegotiate the trade agreement with Mexico. You give people a path to legalization, and then they can be legal and have their driver’s license. That’s the way to work it. You know what? You give people a path to legalization and you work to make sure that you don’t criminalize their status any further. Again, I take exception to the way you framed that question.” (115 words)

Gov. Bill Richardson: “Well, my answer is yes, and I did it. You know why? Because the Congress — and I notice Barack mentioned the president — but the Congress also failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. And we need to have it in this country. I did it four years ago. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My law-enforcement people said it’s a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33% of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it’s 11%. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It’s a matter of public safety. States have to act when the federal government and the Congress doesn’t act. The answer is comprehensive immigration. The answer is secure the borders, a stronger relationship with Mexico. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. And a path to legalization. That is the solution.” (161 words)

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden were the only two to respond with a one-word answer. “No,” they both said. (1 word)"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/15/yes-or-no-questions-not-so-easy-eh/trackback/

Politico: Hillary fights back in Las Vegas

2007-11-15T22:57:00.000-06:00

LAS VEGAS – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton responded to weeks of increasing criticism from her rivals at a debate here Thursday night with a rhetorical show of force of her own. She accused former North Carolina Senator John Edwards of "throwing mud" and said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being too modest in his plans for healthcare and too aggressive in aiming to raise Social Security taxes.

Clinton was cheered – and her rivals' criticisms were, at times, booed — by an unusually raucous crowd made up of students, labor union members, and Democratic activists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

"I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook," Clinton said.

Edwards and Obama tried to continue a strategy that had seemed to dent Clinton’s poll standing in recent weeks – the complaint that she avoids clear stands on key issues. “What the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions, and that is not what we have seen from Senator Clinton on a host of issues," Obama said.

But after an unusually tense opening 10 minutes, Clinton’s two chief challengers seemed to lose momentum.

Asked whether she was guilty of playing the "gender card," Clinton had one of the evening’s top applause lines. “They're not attacking me because I'm a woman,” she said. “They're attacking me because I'm ahead."

Nevada's new, high-profile role in the Democratic nominating process was intended in part to involve more Hispanic voters in choosing a presidential nominee. The debate was introduced by CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, a critic of immigration who is reportedly considering running for president himself. And it came after Clinton and Edwards had moved away from a pro-immigrant stance on an issue that tripped up Clinton in another debate two weeks ago in Philadelphia.

On Thursday night, it was Obama who seemed to stumble on the question of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, a marginal issue that has been abandoned even by most immigrant-rights groups. While he had voiced straightforward support for issuing licenses – a state level issue – he made clear that as president, he would not impose license rules on the states.

"Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?" asked the moderator, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, echoing the question that had tripped Clinton up in Philadelphia.

"I am not proposing that that's what we do," Obama replied, weighing the sides of the issue until Blitzer cut him off."

"This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer," Blitzer said, and Obama – alone among the leading candidates — later answered, "Yes."

Edwards, who didn't raise his hand in Philadelphia when asked if he opposed a New York plan to offer licenses to illegal immigrants, said Thursday he did oppose the plan. Clinton, who had until recently refused to state her position, also said she opposed it.

The debate's opening minutes also saw Clinton pick a fight on comfortable turf: healthcare policy.

"When it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that," she said of Obama, after he criticized her on other subjects.

She was referring to the fact that her plan, like Edwards', requires that all citizens buy health coverage, while Obama's relies on subsidies to allow poor people to afford healthcare.

"The only difference between Senator Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated, forced them to get health care," Obama replied. "What I see are people who would love to have health care.

They desperately want it. But the problem is they can't afford it."

Edwards, meanwhile, seemed to back off some of his campaign’s criticism of Clinton after she fired her own shots in his direction. Besides the charge of “mudslinging,” Clinton criticized Edwards’ record on health care, saying that in his 2004 campaign, he didn’t support universal coverage.

In particular, Edwards eased away from the direct charge that Clinton had been "disingenuously playing the victim card" after the last debate.

"There's nothing personal about this. I think there are very good people running in the Democratic Party for president, and we need to have a strong candidate in this presidential race," he said, responding indirectly to the question of whether Clinton has played the "gender card."

Outside the hall, meanwhile, the immigration issue lurked in the form of Dobbs, who wrote on CNN's website last week that he expects another candidate to emerge, and has hinted that he could be that man.

"I believe next November's surprise will be the election of a man or woman of great character, vision and accomplishment, a candidate who has not yet entered the race," Dobbs wrote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6925.html

The Reviews Are In: 'Her Most Commanding Performance,' 'Knocked Obama and Edwards Back'

2007-11-15T22:41:00.001-06:00

DAVID GERGEN - HILLARY CLINTON SHOWED SHE IS 'PASSIONATE ABOUT WANTING TO BE PRESIDENT.' "You've got to be hungry for this, and Hillary Clinton is clearly hungry. She's passionate about wanting to be president. You don't have a sense that he [Obama] wakes up every day saying I'm going to take this away from her and I'm going to be president. You just don't have that sense of inner fire, that fire in the belly that we like to talk about in politics." [CNN, 11/15/07]

TIME'S MARK HALPERIN GAVE HILLARY THE BEST GRADE OF ALL THE CANDIDATES. [Time's The Page, 11/15/07 ]

THE ATLANTIC'S MARC AMBINDER: HILLARY 'GAVE HER MOST COMMANDING PERFORMANCE TO DATE': "Tonight's debate will probably stop the talk of a huge momentum swing away from Hillary Clinton... Clinton had the most at stake tonight, and she arguably gave her most commanding performance to date." [The Atlantic, 11/15/07 ]

NBC NEWS' CHUCK TODD - 'THIS DEBATE WAS ABOUT CLINTON EFFECTIVELY FIGHTING BACK': [First Read, MSNBC, 11/15/07 ]

TALKING POINTS MEMO'S JOSH MARSHALL - HILLARY 'CAME OUT AGGRESSIVELY, AND BASICALLY KNOCKED OBAMA AND EDWARDS BACK:' "She came out aggressively, and basically knocked Obama and Edwards back." [Talking Points Memo, 11/15/07 ]

AMERICAN PROSPECT'S GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA - 'SHE'S BACK': "Clinton is back in business, and she's feeling fine." [Tapped, American Prospect, 11/15/07 ]

CNN POLITICAL ANALYST JC WATTS - 'I THINK SHE DID VERY WELL' [CNN, 11/15/07]

HOTLINE'S JENNIFER SKALKA: 'CLINTON HITS THIS ONE OUT OF THE PROVERBIAL PARK:' "Clinton hits this one out of the proverbial park. No doubt. ... 'I'm not exploiting anything at all. I'm not playing, as some people say, the gender card here in Las Vegas. I'm just trying to play the winning card.' 'They're attacking me because I'm ahead.'" [Hotline Blog, 11/15/07 ]

ABC NEWS' RAELYN JOHNSON - 'I'M HARD PRESSED TO THINK HOW SHE COULD HAVE ANSWERED THAT BETTER.' "Again Campbell Brown gets to ask Clinton the tough question -- the gender card...I'm hard-pressed to think how she could have answered that better." [ABC Political Radar, 11/15/07 ]

NY Times: Clinton Takes Aggressive Tack Against Her Leading Rivals

2007-11-15T21:58:00.000-06:00

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton struck a notably more aggressive posture in the face of attacks from her Democratic rivals at a debate last night, challenging their positions on issues like health care and warning former Senator John Edwards in particular against 'throwing mud.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/us/politics/16debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Winning Card

2007-11-15T21:56:00.001-06:00

Washington Post: The Fix: Hillary Hits Back

2007-11-15T21:54:00.000-06:00

"After months of laughing off attacks from her Democratic rivals, Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) struck back against jabs by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) during tonight's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

The fireworks began early on when Obama rapped Clinton on her past equivocation on whether or not illegal immigrants should be granted drivers' licenses.

"What the American people are looking for right now are straight answers to tough questions," said Obama. "And that's not what we have been getting from Senator Clinton."

Clinton responded swiftly, questioning Obama on his commitment to reform and bold change vis-a-vis his health care plan.

"When it came time to step up and decide whether he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that," Clinton said. She added that while her plan mandated coverage for everyone, Obama's would not -- a point Obama vehemently disputed.

Edwards took the next shot, accusing Clinton of double talk on issues ranging from combat troops in Iraq to Social Security to eliminating corruption in Washington. "The issue is whether we can have a president who can restore trust," he said.

Clinton, clearly irritated, said that she had been "personally attacked" by Edwards. "I don't mind taking hits on my record," Clinton added. "When someone starts throwing mud we can at least hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."

And, as quickly as the heated exchanges had started, they ended. The audience seemed to recoil from the negativity, and the candidates -- for the most part -- sensed it. Obama largely steered clear of any more direct attacks on Clinton (although he did try to nail Clinton down on her specific plan for Social Security toward the debate's end). Edwards learned more slowly; as the first hour of the debate drew to a close, he sought to draw a polite but firm contrast with Clinton on issues only to be roundly booed by the audience.

In addition to more deftly parrying attacks from her opponents than in the previous debate, Clinton was also more prepared on questions that had tripped her up in recent weeks. Asked whether she supported offering drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton offered a succinct "no" -- a major change from her confusing and at times rambling answer from the debate on Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

It was Obama in this debate who was tripped up by the question. Asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer whether he supported the idea, Obama said "I am not proposing that that's what we do." Pressed by Blitzer -- "this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer," Blitzer said -- Obama said he did support offering licenses to illegal immigrants. Obama's advisers insisted his answer was consistent but the unfolding of the question and answer did not play well for the Illinois Senator.

The rest of the debate played to type as each of the seven Democrats offered their policies on a wide range of issues including U.S. policy toward Iran and Iraq; the future of energy policy; the need for bipartisanship; and the failures of the Bush Administration.

That's our quick take from tonight's festivities. Make sure to check back tomorrow for our winners and losers from the debate. In the meantime, feel free to use the comments section to offer your own winners and losers from tonight."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/democratic_debate_wrapup.html?hpid=topnews

Politico: Now everybody's stumbled on licenses

2007-11-15T19:36:00.000-06:00

"OK, so last time Hillary voiced empathy for Spitzer's plan, but then refused to say where she was on it. Now she opposes it.

Obama had a very bad moment just now. He has, to this point, had the clearest position, but when asked, stepped back from that: "I am not proposing that that's what we do," he said, before making his way back to "yes."

And Edwards, whose answer last time -- in a show of hands -- was "yes" (he didn't explain that he conditioned that on immigration reform passing), this time gave more context and said, "no."

Why so complicated? Well, it's really not a federal issue, not something the president has a hand in. It's also something that Obama, if he's the nominee, is going to spend a whole lot of time explaining in the general election, and to step back to a position of permitting states to do it -- rather than supporting it -- may be politically wise."

The Hill: Clinton campaign: Hillary would win in a landslide if the election were tomorrow

2007-11-15T18:07:00.000-06:00

"Mark Penn, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) chief strategist, said Thursday that the Democratic front-runner would get 360 electoral votes if the election were held tomorrow and she faced former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

Penn, in a campaign memo, said the results would be similar regardless of which of the top Republican candidates Clinton would face.

Republicans took Penn's prediction in stride.

“It is good to see that the Clinton camp can maintain a sense of humor after the worst two weeks of their campaign,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Before they start drafting memos on general election strategy, someone ought to write a plan to stop Hillary Clinton’s sinking poll numbers in the early states or figure out where their candidate stands on Social Security, tax reform, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.”

Ahead of Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate, the memo is a rallying cry for Clinton supporters. The former first lady has undergone her first major crisis in the race following a shaky performance at the last debate.

However, Penn paints the race as Clinton holding steady atop the polls while her Democratic rivals have to resort to “aggressive personal attacks.”

“The voters are looking for someone who has the strength and experience to lead, and little has changed in the last few weeks outside of the massive media coverage of the attacks,” Penn stated."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-campaign-hillary-would-win-in-a-landslide-if-the-election-were-tomorrow-2007-11-15.html

Thanks for the link Jess!

Fox News: Hillary's Secret Weapon

2007-11-15T09:32:00.000-06:00

By Susan Estrich

LOS ANGELES — Almost exactly four years ago, I was sitting in a TV studio in Los Angeles, not long before the Iowa caucus, and I announced, on television, to my Fox colleagues who were anchoring from Iowa, and to the audience watching them, that John Kerry was going to win the Iowa caucus.

This was not, to say the least, the conventional wisdom. Up to the very day of the caucus, people who were supposed to know what was going to happen before it did were saying that Howard Dean, who had been the early frontrunner, was going to win Iowa. And of course, I was saying the wise guys were wrong from a distance of 2,000 miles (not to mention a 50 degree temperature gap), having not set foot in Iowa a single time over the course of that campaign.

Within a few hours of my surprising pronouncement, I got a phone call from Brit Hume’s producer.

"Did you say that Kerry was going to win Iowa?" she asked.

I did, I said.

She said Brit wanted me on his show (either to prove that I was a genius or a fool, but at least it would be lively), but he also wanted to know exactly what my theory was as to why I was right and almost everyone else, including most of the national press on the ground in Iowa, who were still following Dean’s every move, were wrong.

Michael Whouley, I said.

Thereupon, the poor interns and assistant producers who worked at FOX were sent on a somewhat wild goose chase looking for a picture to run of a guy they’d never heard of to accompany my prediction of an Iowa upset about to be engineered by a bald guy with a thick accent who used to work for me in Boston.

Believe me, I’m often wrong about many things, but given how many of the top organizers in the Democratic Party worked for me at some point in the past, I was pretty comfortable that this wouldn’t be one of those times, and I was right.

So this year I want to give everybody a little extra notice. Instead of waiting until a week or a few days before, when good pictures may be hard to find (the one they ran of poor Michael was not the most flattering), not to mention taking the risk that I could be scooped, or that FOX won’t have time to fly me out to Iowa to be there and say "I told you so," I’m going to set the search in motion now.

Teresa Vilmain.

Go find pictures. She’s a lot prettier than Whouley. And just as talented.

And she’s running Iowa for Hillary Clinton.

She’s been running Iowa for presidental candidates for 20 years. To say she knows what she’s doing is a massive understatement. Most people who are as good as she is retire or move on after one or two or three or four cycles. When I noticed that she was back at it, doing it for Hillary, I almost missed our days together 20 years ago.

Then, we stayed at the Savery Hotel in Des Moines, which used to be the only place Democrats stayed, trying to figure out how a guy whose first trip to Iowa involved an unfortunate comparison between the well-known cranberry farming state of Massachusetts and the issues facing farmer in Iowa-- a guy who refused to run negative ads, had just endured a major scandal in his campaign that cost him his campaign manager (my predecessor) and his deputy campaign manager (the late Paul Tully, who was a mentor to both Teresa and me), who was running against two midwesterners and a bunch of full-time candidates--was going to survive in a state where candidates were expected to campaign every day and he insisted on being governor half the week.

I need third, I used to tell her. If he finishes third, we can win New Hampshire, and if we can win New Hampshire, we can win enough states on Super Tuesday to win the nomination. It was a plan, but the hook was that a disastrous finish in Iowa would undermine the confidence of voters in New Hampshire that the local boy was anything more than that, and if we lost New Hampshire we were lost.

Just third, I would say to her, at times when public polls showed us running fourth and fifth and even sixth. She was 28. I was 33. We were girls in a men’s business. Lots of people were staring, gawking, and it wasn’t because they were betting on us. Fish out of water swimming upstream. We had money, but there were strict caps in those days on what could be spent in Iowa, and I had a candidate who was not about to fudge with the cap.

Her job was to demand more and mine was to give less. At one point, she had the whole Iowa office (including the candidate’s own daughter) on strike against the national headquarters, refusing to answer our calls until we sent more money. Did I say she was determined? Did I mention she was zealous? Sometimes impossible?

Yes, all those things. But Teresa Vilmain could organize jello, and there was nowhere that she knew -- knows -- the jello and how to get it to stick together better than in Iowa. Her mother was a political organizer in Cedar Rapids. Iowa politics is in her blood. No one understands what it takes and how to do it, who counts, where the bodies are buried, and why "no" is not an acceptable answer.

My ex-husband came up with the line of the night ("This week the bronze, next week the gold"), but Teresa was the one who made sure every single human being in the state of Iowa who suported Michael Dukakis was on our list and at their caucus that Monday night.

Maybe it’s because I’ve worked for so many losing candidates (although a number of them managed to get nominated, which as is becoming clear this year, is no small feat), but I’m a firm believer that in the last analysis, it’s candidates who win and lose elections, not staff members or strategists or particular ads.

Modern campaigns aren’t monoliths; they’re too big for that, and besides, good candidates wouldn’t want it. In any major campaign, the candidate is getting advice from a number of people, representing a number of perspectives, and his job, or hers, the hardest job in the end, is deciding whose advice to follow.

Believe me, there were people who told John Kerry to fight back against the swift boat attacks and there were people who told him not to; there were people who told Al Gore to bring Bill Clinton into his campaign in a major way and people who told him not to. The best the best staff can do is make sure the candidate knows all the options and arguments and numbers and nuances, and then the fish rots from the head. Or not.

But where staff makes the biggest difference is in caucus states, where the outcome depends as much on who can turn out their supporters as who has them in the first place. The candidate’s job is to convince people to be for him, or her; the staff’s job is to figure out exactly who those people are, down to the name, address, phone number and today, e-mail address, and create a structure for keeping them committed to the point that they will actually turn out and spend a cold Monday night listening to speeches and lining up on different sides of the room to be counted, literally, in a candidate’s corner.

It’s like the old joke about the difference between the role of the chicken and the pig in creating a ham and eggs breakfast: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. Caucuses require commitment. Commitment depends on organization. And there is no one better at organizing people to turn out at Iowa caucuses than Teresa Vilmain.

If Hillary wins Iowa, she’ll win New Hampshire. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the nomination is hers, sooner not later. It’s not a little pressure. It’s a ton of it. Teresa can handle it. So can Hillary. Keep an eye on the women. And get some good pictures ready

Washington Post: Clinton's Rivals Adopt More Partisan Approac

2007-11-15T07:36:00.000-06:00

"Sen. Barack Obama began his campaign with calls for a less divisive kind of politics, but now he sounds a more partisan tone. John Edwards, after building a campaign in part around ending poverty, has begun to lacerate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the perpetuator of a corrupt status quo in Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402331.html?hpid=topnews

NY TImes: In Las Vegas, Chance for Clinton to Undo Damage

2007-11-14T23:06:00.001-06:00

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create.

Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.

Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.

“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination.

“Wow, this is dizzying,” added Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, another rival.

Mr. Edwards has also given somewhat conflicting statements on the driver’s license issue. “The differences on this are clear: Senator Clinton is opposed to giving driver’s licenses to undocumented people, Senator Obama is for it, and no one knows where Edwards is,” said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman.

The last debate began a new level of intensity in the Democratic contest. Since then, Mr. Edwards has been pummeling Mrs. Clinton on a host of domestic and foreign issues; Mr. Obama has been slicing more delicately.

But with both attracting the anti-Hillary vote, neither has emerged as the clear alternative to her, political analysts say.

Tonight’s two-hour debate, at 8 on CNN, offers opportunities for all three candidates, but Mrs. Clinton has the most repair work to do. At the last debate, both opponents and the moderator, Tim Russert, challenged her for taking vague or contradictory positions, like on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, a proposal by Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York that was widely trounced and then withdrawn yesterday.

Since then Mrs. Clinton has been buffeted on other fronts, like her Iowa operation’s planting friendly questions with audience members at her events.

Mrs. Clinton spent Tuesday and yesterday off the campaign trail to prepare for tonight, huddling with her team at campaign headquarters yesterday. Advisers said in interviews that Mrs. Clinton had not been prepared for the onslaught at the Oct. 30 debate, and would be far more ready for incoming fire in Las Vegas. She has been preparing to point out inconsistencies in Mr. Edwards’s and Mr. Obama’s positions, and to give yes-or-no answers to convey forthrightness.

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, said the two rivals had been increasingly harsh in their attacks, and predicted that the debate would show Mrs. Clinton’s experience as both a candidate and possible president.

“The last debate we saw both Senator Obama and Senator Edwards abandoning their promises to run positive campaigns, and certainly we are prepared for more of the same Thursday night,” Mr. Wolfson said.

Political analysts say Mrs. Clinton’s two rivals have not been especially ruthless — pointing out differences on Social Security or Iran, for example, rather than trying to stoke the concerns about Mrs. Clinton that some Democrats have had since the 1990s.

“Edwards and Obama are still waltzing around her rather than hitting on doubts about her that would really resonate with voters,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.

“One absolutely devastating accusation that could resonate is that she is gullible — she bought into two false story lines, one from her husband about Monica Lewinsky and one from President Bush about Iraq,” Mr. Baker added.

Linda L. Fowler, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, said she was surprised that the rivals have not even managed to dent Mrs. Clinton’s strong lead in opinion polls about which Democratic candidate is prepared to be president.

“The experience of first lady is simply not the same thing as running a complicated organization,” Ms. Fowler said.

The risk for Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals, of course, is that negative attacks on Mrs. Clinton could boomerang against the attacker, as happened to Richard A. Gephardt after he lashed into Howard Dean leading up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses.

Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, said his candidate was not focused on tearing down Mrs. Clinton, but rather on convincing voters that she was part of a political system that Americans should turn against.

David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, also said that his candidate was more determined to be an alternative to “a style of politics that’s inadequate to the time,” rather than an alternative to Mrs. Clinton herself.

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said yesterday that she could not allow her views to be defined or misconstrued by her opponents.

“The challenge for Senator Clinton is to rise above the attacks because she’s the largest figure on the stage,” said Robert Zimmerman, a public relations specialist and a leading fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton. “And the challenge for her supporters is not to be on the defensive, but to stay on the offensive against the attacks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15dems.html?ref=politics

Re: Driver's Licenses

2007-11-14T22:35:00.001-06:00

Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer shot back:

"It's unfortunate that the other campaigns are employing hot rhetoric, but there are basic differences between the candidates: Sen. Clinton would not give driver's licenses to undocumented people, Senator Obama would, and nobody seems to know what Senator Edwards believes on the issue."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/14/obama-stands-by-support-f_n_72700.html

CNN Poll: Clinton has large lead in Nevada prior to debate

2007-11-14T19:02:00.001-06:00

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has a large lead over her rivals among Nevada Democratic caucus-goers, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/14/nevada.poll/index.html

AP: Obama Says He Has No Illinois Records

2007-11-14T19:00:00.000-06:00

"RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- Barack Obama, who's been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can't step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate. He says he hasn't got any."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_RECORDS?SITE=WDUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Hillary Clinton Campaign: Caucusing is Easy

2007-11-14T18:59:00.000-06:00

Funny, great ad to get Iowans to caucus:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/iowacaucus/

NY Times: Pointed Question Puts McCain in a Tight Spot

2007-11-14T18:53:00.000-06:00

Senator John McCain was obviously discomforted by a harshly worded question at a public forum, but he did not condemn the questioner

When presidential candidates appear at public forums, passions about the field are often on vivid display. Monday, Senator John McCain received a question from a woman in Hilton Head Island, S.C., that was blunt and harsh.

"How do we beat the bitch?" the woman asked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/us/politics/14mccain.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Wolf Blitzer on Wolf Blitzer

2007-11-13T19:55:00.000-06:00

BLITZER: "I don't know. You know, I try to suspect that maybe some rival campaigns are trying to create a little mischief, try to get her embarrassed a little bit getting into the debate Thursday night, but I have no idea where it's coming from. I have no idea who generated this story, but I can tell you I have not felt any pressure whatsoever."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140002?f=h_latest

Soon to be released poll numbers...

2007-11-13T17:05:00.001-06:00

From Drudge:

CBSNEWSNYT POLL SET FOR RELEASE ON WEDNESDAY:

IOWA: HILLARY 25%; EDWARDS 23%; OBAMA 22%

NH: HILLARY 37%; OBAMA 22%; EDWARDS 9%

Chris Matthews = Douchebag

2007-11-12T23:59:00.000-06:00

Media Matters: MSNBC's Matthews cited wife of his high school band mate to explain "why Hillary likes to clap"

"In two separate segments during the November 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews returned to the subject of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) clapping, asserting: "As her friends and foes must have noticed, I get a kick out of going after Hillary's fondness for public clapping. She does it everywhere. Every time she gets in front of a crowd of supporters, she keeps clapping and clapping and clapping." Matthews teased the first segment by saying, "Up next, we get to the bottom of why Hillary Clinton is always clapping. We're going to have some fun with that, and I mean good-hearted fun." As Media Matters for America has documented, Matthews has repeatedly highlighted Clinton's clapping -- including at least three prior mentions in the past two weeks -- and has previously characterized her clapping as "Chinese."

During the first segment, Matthews asserted that, while he was "up at my old high school the other night," he "talked to Agnes Hallis, who is married to John Hallis, who used to play French horn with me in the school band." According to Matthews, Hallis gave him "a full quartet of reasons why Hillary likes to clap." Matthews continued: "Number one: It's a polite way to show she appreciates the applause from the people around her. She's responding. Number two: It's a way to jazz up the energy in the room, sort of like being a cheerleader of the crowd. She's sort of cheering them up, getting them going. Three -- I love these last two -- it's like Peter Pan: If you clap, Tinker Bell will get better. Four: that's that old kid's song, 'If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.' " Matthews went on to say: "Anyway, so, don't let my Scrooge attitude about clapping make you think anything less of this or take away any reasons why a person running for commander-in-chief shouldn't enjoy this campaign any way she chooses."

Matthews introduced the second segment by stating that he "had a little fun here on one of our blocks earlier," referring to his earlier discussion of Clinton's clapping. He then asserted that the "highlight" of Clinton's presidential campaign events is "her sort of finale, where she walks around the room and claps to everybody." Matthews then asked Financial Times U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland, "What do you make of that as a campaign method?" Freeland replied, "[W]e have to be a little bit careful ... about not picking on Hillary's mannerisms a little bit too much." Matthews then said: "Ah, those secondary characteristics are off-base. Am I being told that?" Freeland responded: "Just a little bit. I mean, there's the clapping, there was the laugh. I think there are things to pick on Hillary about, but probably the clapping wouldn't be what I'd choose." When Matthews then asked Freeland to "give me a list some day on email of ... what I'm allowed to criticize about Hillary," Freeland said: "Any policy matters; dynasty I think is OK, too."

At one point during the segment, Chicago Tribune features managing editor Jim Warren said of the Clinton clapping footage being aired by MSNBC: "[O]h my gosh, it looks like she's at Sea World in San Diego. Here comes the seal! Yikes." Matthews replied: "You're worse than I've ever been. ... Throw me a fish."

Both segments were accompanied by on-screen text reading: "Hillary's Incessant Clapping.""

Watch the clip here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100001

Media Matters: A "terrible" performance

2007-11-12T23:54:00.000-06:00

Some excerpts from what is a great article about the past few media cycles regarding HRC:
---
The dominant political story of the past week and a half has been Hillary Clinton's performance in the October 30 Democratic presidential debate. During and immediately after the debate, the general consensus was certainly not that Clinton had fallen on her face.
---
If the media's rush to declare Clinton's performance a disaster sounds familiar, it's because there are striking similarities to the last debate performance to be so universally and harshly condemned by the media: Al Gore's during the 2000 general election.
---
In real time, Russert's question about the "Clinton archives" seemed to [Time's] Cox to have been the result of RNC emails to NBC's star reporter. Later, President Clinton blasted Russert for his "breathtakingly misleading" question. The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org agreed, concluding that Russert "misled" with his question by "misquot[ing]" a letter from President Clinton. Correcting its earlier claim that Hillary Clinton's answer to Russert's question was "doubly misleading," FactCheck concluded, "Russert was wrong, and so were we. Bill Clinton ... called Russert's question 'breathtakingly misleading,' and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment."

Despite the fact that Russert's question sounded to at least one national reporter like it had come straight from the Republican National Committee, and despite the fact that it was "breathtakingly misleading," countless news reports have taken Clinton to task for her response, rather than indicating that Russert's question was false.

And -- what a coincidence! -- that's just what the RNC wanted the media to do. The Hill reported this week:

RNC officials acknowledged they've been encouraged to tap into the "stockpile" of opposition research they have amassed on Clinton more and more in recent days because of the senator's debate showing last Tuesday, combined with the upcoming Iowa caucuses and Clinton's continued leads in most polls.

[...]

Since last Tuesday, there has been a steady drumbeat of less than flattering stories promulgated by the RNC about the Clintons' role in releasing documents to the public.

[...]

Like many pundits, the RNC has seen Clinton as the presumptive nominee for much of the year, and one official in the RNC's research department said they have sought throughout the year to portray Clinton as "calculating."

Her trouble in last week's debate, quickly seized upon by her Democratic rivals, is helping paint that picture, the official said.

"She's really fallen into the framework that we've been using on her," the official said. "It's just been great for us."

[...]

After putting a strategic framework in place to define Clinton as both calculating and evasive, [Communications Director Danny] Diaz and the rest of the RNC communications team are trying to capitalize on what many saw as Clinton's first significant stumble.
---
Read the whole post here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100004

NY Times: A Not-So-Perfect Picture of Party Unity

2007-11-12T22:17:00.000-06:00

"On both sides of the ticket, the presidential nominating contest is growing increasingly combative, as voters may well witness Thursday during a debate in Las Vegas among the Democratic candidates.

So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party’s nominee.

When asked the same question last week, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not hesitate.

“I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee,” he said. With a smile, he added, “I intend it to be me.”

Neither did Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who declared: “Of course. What’s the choice, Rudy Giuliani?”

No Democratic candidate has gone after Mrs. Clinton with as much intensity as Mr. Edwards has. Not only has she been on the receiving end of his sharp words in televised debates, Mrs. Clinton has also emerged as a leading character in his stump speeches.

Between campaign appearances last week, as he rode through eastern Iowa in his campaign van, Mr. Edwards declined to answer whether he would support Mrs. Clinton.

“I’m not willing to talk about that at this point,” he said, waiting silently until the next question was asked."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/a-not-so-perfect-picture-of-party-unity/

Edwards is going no where fast...

San Diego: Still a chance to woo Hispanic voters

2007-11-12T16:28:00.000-06:00

"You've probably heard that Republican presidential candidates have blown their chance with Hispanic voters because of their hard line on immigration and other hardheadedness.

Unfortunately, too much of the conversation has been about the effect of all this on the party – about whether the GOP is condemning itself to years in the electoral wilderness by alienating an influential constituency.

What I haven't heard enough about is how this neglect hurts Hispanic voters. In politics, the surest path to irrelevance and powerlessness is to be taken for granted by one party and written off by another. That is the road Hispanics are on now, thanks to some major blunders by the Republicans running for president.

All but one of the candidates – John McCain – refused to commit to a debate on Spanish-language television in September, forcing its cancellation. In June, all but one – Duncan Hunter – blew off an invitation to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Suddenly, the issue became whether Republicans respected Hispanics enough to ask for their support. That bothered Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez, who wrote the book “Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other.” Sanchez is convinced the Hispanic vote is in play and that every candidate should be vying for it.

“With Hispanics, we don't make connections to parties,” she told me. “Hispanics make connections to individual people. Politicians have to earn our respect.”

Hispanics are big on respect, and the more they move up the ladder, the more they insist on it. So the very Hispanics who might be attracted to the GOP because of its economic policies are being turned off by its insensitivity to Hispanic issues.

A USA Today/Gallup poll found that Hispanics identify with Democrats by a margin of nearly 3 to 1. One reason is that the Democratic front-runner – Hillary Clinton – is aggressively going after the Hispanic vote by racking up the endorsements of seemingly every Latino officeholder from East Los Angeles to the South Bronx.

Polls show Clinton earning about two-thirds of the Hispanic vote among Democrats and making up ground lost by the two previous Democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. Both flunked Hispanic Outreach 101, in part because they had that deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance.

You see something similar in John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, who either don't realize they've lost the Hispanic vote or don't care.

Barack Obama is doing a bit better. He is trying to target younger Hispanics. But he discovered this constituency too late and Clinton is already on her way to cornering the market.

Then there is Bill Richardson, who made history by being the first Hispanic to run a credible campaign for the presidency but seems to be losing Hispanic support, perhaps because he is too preoccupied with trying to prove himself acceptable to non-Hispanics.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani has morphed from a champion of immigrants into a Tom Tancredo impersonator. Giuliani even promised that he could end illegal immigration within three years by securing the borders and identifying every noncitizen in the United States. To those of us who live along the border, such talk is a signal that this city slicker doesn't understand the phenomenon he is promising to tackle – and so it'll probably tackle him.

Mitt Romney's sin isn't naivete but hypocrisy. This is the guy who spouts off about how immigrants should speak English, and we should end bilingual education while his campaign sends out weekly dispatches to Hispanic journalists – in Spanish. One wonders: If Romney strips Hispanics kids of their Spanish, how will they read his press releases when they grow up?

Meanwhile, McCain has a history of appealing to Hispanics in Arizona and earned more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 U.S. Senate re-election bid. The maverick stood his ground on immigration reform and took on the dishonest arguments of those who opposed it, such as the insistence that Americans would happily do the hardest and dirtiest jobs if the wages were right. McCain dared a roomful of angry union members in the Midwest to spend the summer picking lettuce in Yuma, Ariz., for $50 an hour, much more than the minimum wage most pickers earn. There were only a few takers, who apparently know little about picking lettuce and even less about Arizona summers.

Don't tell me that Hispanic voters don't have choices in this election. They do. And it's only by exercising them and spreading their support among members of both parties that they'll stay relevant and earn the respect they crave."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20071111-9999-lz1e11navarre.html

The Fact Hub: Fact Check: Sen. Obama on Records

2007-11-12T13:37:00.000-06:00

"Today, the Obama campaign released a statement that contained a number of inaccuracies about his state senate records. First, Obama claimed that all his documents "the state considers to be public" are publicly available:

Obama is pleased that all of the records that the state considers to be public are currently available.

The records "the state considers public" are not "currently available." As the Chicago Sun Times reports today, "There is no central repository of records between state lawmakers and state agencies, and Freedom of Information Act requests must be filed to obtain documents, a process that has been taking months."

It also does not speak to the real issue -- the availability of schedules, memos and other documents that Sen. Obama produced during his time in the state senate. These are documents that Illinois' two largest newspapers have long requested but have not received a response.

Today, Obama claims that he is "not in possession" of any documents "that are not available to the general public":

We are not in possession of documents from his time in the state senate that are not available to the general public and any pertinent files were passed on to his successor in the State Senate, Kwame Raoul.

Just days ago, Obama acknowledged he had "remaining documents" and encouraged reporters to make specific requests.

Nevertheless the Obama campaign continues to spread misinformation about the Clinton White House records:

This is as opposed to the millions of documents that should be publicly available from the Clinton White House that currently are not.

The records are under the control of the National Archives, not Bill or Hillary Clinton. And Senator Obama should know it's a matter of federal law that the Archives has to review each page of every record to ensure that confidential, security, and personal privacy information is not improperly released. No one can order the Archives to ignore the law.

More misinformation:

In fact, tens of thousands of documents are currently being kept from public view by a representative of the Clintons and that is just a miniscule fraction of what is available to archivists right now.

President Clinton's representative has cleared for release over 22,000 of the approximately 26,000 pages that had been pending before him. The 3 Freedom of Information Act requests (corresponding to about 4,000 pages) still pending review do not mention Senator Clinton."

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4158

Washington Post: Fact Check: Edwards vs. Clinton on Iraq

2007-11-12T10:12:00.001-06:00

The Pinocchio Test

There are significant differences between Edwards and Clinton on Iraq, including the timing of the withdrawal and the number of residual forces left in Iraq. But Edwards has exaggerated his differences with the Democratic front-runner by misrepresenting some of the details in her withdrawal plan. His own plan could still leave a significant U.S. military role in Iraq for years to come.

Two Pinocchios.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/edwards_confronts_clinton_on_i.html

MSNBC: CLINTON UNVEILS NEW SLOGAN

2007-11-11T23:48:00.000-06:00

"DES MOINES, IA, Nov. 10 -- Hillary Clinton unveiled a new slogan -- “Turn up the heat; Turn America Around” -- at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Saturday evening, urging her fellow Democrats to attack Republicans, not one another. The new approach comes after two weeks in which the Democratic frontrunner has come under increasing attacks from her rivals in both parties and provides more evidence of a general-election versus primary-election approach.

“I’m not interested in attacking my opponents,” Clinton said. “I’m interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans. They deserve all the heat we can give them,” Clinton said, after repeating the “comfortable in the kitchen” line she’s been using the past several days.

Giant green and yellow signs blared the phrase hung from the balconies in the Veteran's Memorial Auditorium, and it was written on the placards that served as centerpieces on some of the tables in the cavernous hall. In the balcony, Clinton supporters were riled up, chanting, “Turn up the Heat” and wearing yellow and green t-shirts with “Turn up the Heat” on the front and “Turn America Around” on the back. The shirts were provided by the campaign, which estimated their crowd at 2,500 and said most of them had been out canvassing all day. The campaign said it had not provided buses to transport supporters. They drove themselves.

Obama has been using a similar slogan and chanting tack, with his “Fired Up! Ready to go!”

During her speech, Clinton listed a series of offenses committed by Republicans, from cutting Head Start funding and “turning China into our banker” to vetoing health care for children. After every few points, Clinton posed a question to the crowd and her supporters chanted her new slogan as an answer.

“When the Republicans try to turn the clock back on women’s rights, when they try to stomp out labor unions, when they try to undermine civil rights. What do we do?” Clinton said. Her supporters in the stands shouted, “Turn up the heat.”

“We’re going to turn up the heat on the Republicans and we’re going to turn America around,” Clinton said. “But we can’t do it if we’re not united and together. Not only Democrats, but Independents and even Republicans who reject this radical experiment in extremism.”

The senator made a direct appeal to Iowans to caucus for her on Jan. 3 and stressed the importance of choosing a nominee with experience. “We must nominate a nominee who’s been tested and elect a president who is ready to lead on Day One,” Clinton said. “I know what it’s going to take to win.”

She also made a point of addressing the electability issue her opponents have raised, by highlighting her ability to win in red states.

“I’m especially proud to have the support of so many Democratic leaders from the so-called red states, who know that I can win,” she said. “Leaders like Governor Beebe of Arkansas and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, who is here with me tonight. Because Democrats know, when we win Ohio, we win the White House.”

While the senator has promised to run a positive campaign, her staff has said that doesn’t mean she won’t answer to her critics. “There are some who will say they don’t know where I stand,” she said. “Well, I think you know better than that,” she said. “I stand where I have stood for 35 years. I stand with you.”

Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s fundraiser and adviser, provided more evidence of that general-election strategy and warned other candidates that going negative could hurt them in Iowa.

“We’re running our campaign for president,” McAuliffe said. “We’re going to stay positive and get our message out. I’m not worried about what the other candidates are going to do. I think if other candidates want to go negative, they do that. I think you do that at their peril here in Iowa. People don’t like that. But we’re not worried about anyone else. We’re running our campaign.

“Tonight, she’s saying she wants to talk about taking the heat to the Republicans. We’re going to focus on the Republicans. We’re going to focus on winning the White House. We’re not going to attack our fellow Democrats. That’s not what we want to do.”

On the issue of the campaign planting questions at events in Iowa, McAuliffe said he had been traveling all day and had not heard anything about voters being asked to pose certain questions to Clinton at events.

NOTES: Clinton showed up unexpectedly at a party after her speech to speak to her supporters and didn’t leave until after midnight."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/11/460623.aspx

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Venus, Mars and picking on Hillary

2007-11-11T21:42:00.001-06:00

"Suffice, then, to make this highly relevant political point: There is more at work in the minds of women regarding Hillary's candidacy than the average white guy can begin to understand. Hillary and her campaign know that, which would explain the tactical playing of the gender card. This was a raw calculation that the connection to woman would exceed the transparent hypocrisy.

That this didn't apply to, say, Elizabeth Dole, is a simple reflection that Dole wasn't a serious candidate. Women lean Democratic and take more seriously one who runs on their side -- and who has much more than the snowball's chance Dole had.

Finally, plaudits to Hillary for playing the gender card herself without actually playing it. She said they piled on her not because she was a woman, but because she was winning. She said Harry Truman said to get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. She said that, luckily, she'd spent a lot of time in the kitchen.

She distanced herself from a point even as she made it. How positively Clintonian."

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/11182201.html

US News & World Report: Hillary Hits a Pothole

2007-11-11T21:38:00.001-06:00

"The net effect is to have the media and some of the public focusing on her negatives. In a recent Zogby poll, 50 percent said they would never vote for her to be president—the highest negative rating among all the candidates.

Do these stumbles matter against her consistent record? She has a quarter century of national political experience; a grasp of policy that makes the other Democratic contenders look shallow or uninformed; a willingness to work unbelievably hard; a prodigious memory; and a formidable campaign machine, including fundraisers who have brought her an overflowing war chest. She has not just name recognition but star power. She has the support of most of her party's most important constituencies, including blue-collar workers, blacks, and a legion of women, many of whom would like her to break America's highest glass ceiling. She has the benefit of her husband's political skills—not to mention the ability to evoke the peace and prosperity of his term.

That last one is tricky, though, and gets at part of her problem. His perceived success now has helped her up the greasy pole, but she slips whenever anyone remembers the caricatures of her initial years as first lady: as a left-wing partisan who looked down on stay-at-home moms. Her loyalty to her straying husband gave some the sense that she stayed simply to pursue her political ambitions.

Once Clinton entered the Senate, she demonstrated that she is by and large an unscary centrist. In fact, even when she was first lady, she was never the radical she was caricatured to be. She supported welfare reform; she was pro-business, deeply religious—describing abortion as "a tragic choice"—and was and remains deeply committed to public service. Day in, day out, she exudes an air of confidence and clear speech, combined with the total command of facts that creates an aura of authority. All of which stands in contrast to President Bush.

The big danger for her is the growing perception that she is becoming the issue. An almost certain win on a referendum on the Bush administration's incompetence could be turned into a loss if the election became a vote on the personality and character of the Democratic candidate. Her challenge is now to refocus the debate. She has to present herself with the candor and clarity on the major issues that would entitle her to be seen as the fresh alternative and change agent to a failed administration."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2007/11/10/hillary-has-hit-a-pothole.html

Politico: Obama records requests prove fruitless

2007-11-11T21:33:00.000-06:00

"Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) dodged questions Sunday about releasing papers from his eight years as an Illinois state senator, and his campaign has not answered records requests from the state’s two largest newspapers.

Obama’s campaign has prodded Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to make available additional records of her communications during her husband’s presidency.

In the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, Obama said to Clinton: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."

On Nov. 3, the Obama campaign sent out a letter from two leaders of his Iowa campaign, pressing Clinton to release her White House schedules before the Iowa caucuses.

“Fully releasing these records is in keeping with the spirit of the process that makes the Iowa caucus so special,” the letter says.

But two Chicago newspapers have said the Obama campaign has not responded to their requests for comparable papers from his career.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about the papers from his state legislative days, from 1997 to 2004.

Obama first said, “We did not keep those records.”

He then elaborated: “Well, let’s be clear.

“In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois.

“The stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.”

On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”

Sweet wrote that he replied: "Nobody has requested specific documents.”

But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”

And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers.”

Russert pressed Obama, who has touted his service in Springfield as proof of his experience, about his records of meetings with lobbyists.

“I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now,” Obama said. “And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.”

Asked by Russert if he would commit to publishing his schedule each day, as his colleague Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), does, Obama said: “Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”

The Republican National Committee has kept up a near-daily drumbeat demanding release of the Clinton papers.

RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said of Obama’s reticence on records: “Barack Obama is a rookie senator with few accomplishments. Perhaps he’s reluctant to inform the public about his activities in Springfield because they demonstrate a lack of leadership at a state level as well.”

Obama’s campaign declined repeated requests from Politico for comment on the issue, with officials suggesting only that they had been ahead of the curve on transparency by releasing Obama’s tax return (albeit without attachments) and publishing details of the budget earmarks Obama has requested."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6821.html

NY Times: Why, Barack, why?

2007-11-11T19:27:00.000-06:00

"The great Social Security debate of 2005 was a seminal moment for American progressives. Conventional fiscal wisdom in the Beltway was that the aging population is THE big problem — when the truth is that grim long-run fiscal projections mainly reflect projected health care costs. And conventional political wisdom was that the Bush administration’s fear-mongering on the issue would work.

But a determined defense by progressives in the media, on the blogs, and in Congress beat back one spurious argument after another, while the American people made it clear that they really want a program that guarantees a basic retirement income that doesn’t depend on the Dow. And Social Security survived.

All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

Substantively, this is wrong — and the tone-deafness is hard to understand. Tim Russert doesn’t vote in Iowa."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/why-barack-why/

Hillary: "I Will Stand And Fight For You!"

2007-11-11T08:37:00.000-06:00

Washington Post: Dinner That Can Alter Fortunes

2007-11-10T21:27:00.000-06:00

DES MOINES, Nov. 9 -- The calendar shows nearly eight weeks until the Iowa caucuses, but for the Democratic presidential candidates, what happens here this weekend could foreshadow who emerges victorious in what is shaping up as the critical contest in their party's nomination battle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902305.html

Politico: Clinton takes lead among youth

2007-11-09T20:51:00.000-06:00

"Barack Obama may draw crowds on college campuses, and he may be the most popular guy on Facebook, but recent poll results challenge the common assumption that he is the candidate of the young. Rather, Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have taken the lead among 20-somethings.

A Nov. 1 survey of 400 18-to-29-year-olds showed the New York senator held a surprisingly large lead among young voters who identified themselves as Democrats. Clinton led her nearest competitors, with 54 percent, followed by her Illinois counterpart, with 24 percent, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, with 8.4 percent.

While polls have never shown Obama with a consistent lead among young Democrats, he has generally fared better among them than among Democrats as a whole. But now pundits may need to reexamine the assumption that Obama has the youth vote wrapped up.

“For quite some time, the polling has shown the 18-to-29-year-old primary vote was about even between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and just recently Clinton was pulling ahead,” said Kat Barr, director of research for Rock the Vote, one of the poll’s sponsors. “Young people are trending in ways similar to the overall electorate.”

In addition to Rock the Vote, the Nov. 1 poll was commissioned by World Wrestling Entertainment’s Smackdown Your Vote. It was performed by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute.

The Obama campaign, unsurprisingly, dismissed the poll. Hans Riemer, Obama’s national youth vote director, said it is an outlier and the result must be statistically flawed. He pointed instead to an Oct. 31 survey by the Pew Research Center as a more accurate result. It showed Clinton leading Obama 42 percent to 32 percent among Democratic-leaning voters under 30 — a 10-point margin. Clinton held a 21-point lead among voters in all age groups who lean Democratic.

Pew surveys back in March and April showed Obama beating Clinton among young Democrats and tying her among more liberal Democrats. Clinton now leads in both categories. Experts have said her popularity has grown among older Democrats for the same reasons younger voters are joining her camp.

“Young voters are not just idealistic,” said Gary Rose, a professor of political science at Sacred Heart who served as a consultant for the poll. “They are also on the practical side as to who can achieve these objectives.”

Clinton’s young supporters often argue that she has the experience to actually accomplish the major goals shared by the leading Democrats, such as withdrawal from Iraq, reforming health care and taking action on climate change.

Said Ashley Ruiz-Margenot, 20, a junior at Florida State University who plans to vote for Clinton: “I feel more comfortable with her level of experience.”

Voters of all ages also cite President Bill Clinton’s tenure as a reason for supporting the former first lady.

Uriel Tapia, 23, of Columbus Junction, Iowa, said, “Both my parents went for [Bill] Clinton two times, and they’ve said good things about him. Just as she helped out during his presidency, he would be at her side.”

Young voters also share the widespread sense that it’s long past time for a woman president. Among all younger voters in the Rock the Vote poll, Clinton got 22 percent of young women to Obama’s 11 percent. She led him by only 14.7 percent to 12.6 percent among young men.

Clinton’s campaign embraces the advantage. “Her candidacy is exciting to young women. They see the chance to shatter the final glass ceiling in electing her,” said Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker. And even Tapia, a male Clinton supporter, said, “I don’t know that this country needs another man president.”

Finally, the many polls showing Clinton ahead reinforce her lead to a certain extent. Ruiz-Margenot, for example, said, “I really like John Edwards. He’d probably get my vote if I thought he’d get the nomination. But I think he won’t.” Given a choice between Clinton and Obama, she said she thought Obama had too little experience.

Riemer, however, argued that Clinton’s current advantage essentially comes down to name recognition. He contended that in the early states where voters have gotten to know Obama, he is doing better —particularly among young voters in Iowa, where some polls show him ahead.

The Obama campaign, according to Riemer, will turn out enough young voters to win in Iowa, and then the national polls will change accordingly. “This is not about a poll two months before the election,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “This is about which campaign is best equipping young people to participate in the process, which is what we have been planning for months.”

But both the Clinton campaign and observers such as Rose questioned whether an Obama victory in Iowa will be enough to stop the Clinton juggernaut.

“I don’t think Iowa will have that catapulting effect [for Obama or Edwards],” Rose said.

“Clinton is ahead in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Feb. 5 will seal the nominee.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6805.html

New HIllary Clinton (energy) TV Ad

2007-11-09T17:39:00.001-06:00

Politico: Edwards waffles on defense spending

2007-11-09T12:23:00.000-06:00

"After castigating Sen. Hillary Clinton for “the politics of double talk,” he sports a little ambiguity himself."

In a campaign with more waffling than a Shoney’s breakfast buffet, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said there’s one thing you can count on from him: a straight answer.

“What we saw in the debate were the politics of double talk,” he told reporters last week in South Carolina, referencing last week’s Drexel University event. “I have a really simple rule — if you get asked a yes-or-no question, you shouldn't give a yes-AND-no answer."

That was a clear shot at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leader in the Democratic presidential contest. But it turns out that the “simple rule” has not always been so simple for Edwards.

His campaign was endorsed by in Des Moines Friday by Caucus for Priorities, a nonprofit group that advocates redirecting certain Pentagon spending (for what it considers obsolete, Cold War weapons systems) to social programs and deficit reduction.

The endorsement had been also been sought by Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The group, launched by Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen, describes itself as a “10,000-member strong grass-roots organization dedicated to educating the public about the inequities of our current federal budget.”

“For months, our members have attended his town hall meetings across Iowa and found him to be a leader who listens — and always gives the straight answers Americans deserve from their president,” Cohen said of Edwards in a statement.

Peggy Huppert, the group’s Iowa state director, told Politico by phone that the group chose Edwards because he is “the best messenger who has embraced our issues” and “a viable candidate who has a good shot at going all the way.”

Asked why the group did not choose Clinton, Huppert said, “Sen. Clinton declined for the most part to answer our questions. She gave narrative answers. She was just not specific or forceful enough.”

Edwards’ campaign website posted the questionnaire from the group (.pdf), which gave him a lot of opportunities for straight talk — a series of 15 yes-or-no questions. The Edwards campaign put a bright red check mark next to five of them — but left the other two-thirds blank. Those were supplemented by essay answers that rivals, who called attention to the questionnaire, argue is a lot like . . . well, double talk.

The questionnaire asked — “yes” or “no” — if Edwards would cut funding for each of the following weapons systems: the V-22 Osprey, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer, the C-130J Hercules transport plane, or the SSN-74 Virginia-class submarine.

The Edwards campaign left all 10 boxes blank.

Explaining his non-answer, he singled out the Virginia-class submarine for what sure sounds like a yes-AND-no answer: “Some of its functions … can be performed more cheaply by reconfigured Trident submarines. On the other hand, some military experts have told me that the program offers certain military advantages.”

In several cases, Edwards said he would order his secretary of defense to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the weapons systems the group highlighted.

That seems perfectly sensible and responsible. Sometimes, it turns out, a yes-and-no answer may not be as bad as it sounds.

An Edwards campaign official said: “We have nothing to add or subtract” to the Caucus for Priorities comment.

Politico.com’s Ben Smith notes that the questionnaire “does contain some clear differences between Edwards and his rivals, notably his willingness to make specific commitments on defense cuts where Clinton and Obama — while expressing support for the group's goals — stop short.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6798.html

Russert Got It WRONG

2007-11-09T11:56:00.001-06:00

From Factcheck.org:

We originally read the sentence as putting a lock on the documents. That isn’t the case, as we note in our revised section in the body of the article above. The bottleneck is at the lightly staffed Archives. It of course remains possible that Bill Clinton could yet block the release of any or all communications between himself and the First Lady, but that hasn’t happened yet It remains to be seen whether any of this material will surface before the election.

But Russert was wrong, and so were we. Bill Clinton, in Redmond, called Russert’s question “breathtakingly misleading,” and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland Backs Hillary

2007-11-09T11:54:00.001-06:00

Ohio governor endorses Clinton

Updated 12:45 p.m.

By Jim Tankersley

Hillary Clinton has scored the most coveted Democratic endorsement from arguably the most important swing state in the nation: Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio.

As the Tribune first reported this morning, Strickland, the first-year governor with sky-high approval ratings, endorsed Clinton on a noon conference call. He praised the New York senator's experience - "These are very serious times for our nation and the world, and I believe we need a serious leader who is able to bring about the change we desperately need" - and perhaps most importantly, called her the Democrat best-positioned to win his critical state next fall.

In Ohio, Strickland said, "She is the strongest candidate that our party can put forth, and she is the candidate who can win the presidency."

Strickland is a pro-gun former Methodist minister who broke a 16-year Republican hold on the governorship last year. He won huge swaths of normally red rural Ohio, which analysts call key for a Democrat seeking the state's 20 crucial electoral votes.

His support could provide a counterpunch to Clinton's rivals' claims that she is too polarizing to win a general election. A new Ohio Poll from the University of Cincinnati today pegs the governor's approval rating at 69 percent, including 65 percent among Republicans and 68 percent among independents.

Clinton, Strickland said today, is the "most effective carrier" among the Democratic contenders of the "kitchen table" or "dinner-bucket" message that helped him win the governorship by 23 percentage points in 2006.

Clinton said she was "very honored" by the endorsement and praised Strickland for passing a fiscally conservative budget this year that won wide Republican support. "Obviously, the road to the White House goes through Ohio," she said. "I'm going to be very proud and grateful to have Gov. Strickland on that road with me."

The pair go way back: They worked together on her ill-fated universal health care plan in the 1990s, when Clinton was First Lady and Strickland was a congressman from southern Ohio. Strickland has long called Clinton a personal friend.

Last year, Ohio Democrats estimated Clinton raised nearly $500,000 for Strickland and Sherrod Brown, the then-congressman who unseated Sen. Mike DeWine. Bill Clinton raised at least $225,000 more for Strickland. Strickland endured sharp personal attacks in that campaign - including opponents' claims that he encouraged child predators and knowingly employed a sex offender while in Congress - and he expressed sympathy today for the criticisms Clinton has faced on the presidential trail.

"Sen. Clinton, in the face of attacks, has remained resolute in putting forth a positive message," he said.

The senator and the governor both downplayed talk that the endorsement is a preview of the 2008 Democratic ticket. Asked if she was considering Strickland as a running mate if she wins the nomination, Clinton said she was too focused on the primary campaign to even think about it. Strickland said flatly that "I have no interest at all in the vice presidency."

Still, Clinton will waste no time trumpeting the endorsement. She plans to bring Strickland to the high-profile Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in Iowa this weekend. Strickland noted that he was last in the state to campaign for Rep. Richard Gephardt -- another Clinton supporter in this race -- in 2004.

"I got so cold in Iowa," he said with a slight laugh, "that I've yet to fully warm up."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/ohio_governor_endorses_clinton.html

Radio Iowa: Clinton predicts his wife will win by "good margin"

2007-11-08T20:20:00.001-06:00

"Former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in western Iowa today that his wife, Hillary, will win the White House in 2008 "by a pretty good margin." During a stop in Glenwood this morning, Clinton told the crowd that voters "trust" his wife to enact health care reform.

"We have a moral responsibility to cover everybody, but we've got to understand the system we've got now costs you $700 billion a year more than any other system in the world would cost if you put it in America, so we've got to bring out costs in line with other countries," Clinton said. "She's offered a plan to do that."

Hillary Clinton often reminisces in her own campaign speeches about the country's rosy economy during her husband's time in the White House. Bill Clinton was more forward-looking in his remarks, but focused on an economic message, too. "We've got to restore the economy, deal with health care, deal with education," Clinton said. "...Make this country a modern, vibrant, innovative, successful country again."

The crowd in Glenwood gave Clinton a standing ovation, but the former president said that gesture would be meaningless if his wife doesn't win the Caucuses in January."

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=212BC992-0E54-73C3-EDD4D37F338C19F2

The Fact Hub: Edwards Would Continue Combat Missions Against Al-Qaeda In Iraq But Attacks Hillary For Having The Same Position

2007-11-08T16:18:00.000-06:00

On September 7, John Edwards announced his plan to continue combat missions against al-Qaeda in Iraq:

Edwards: "Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war."

Nevertheless, since that speech, John Edwards sharply criticized Hillary for continuing to pursue al-Qaeda in Iraq:

"For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq." [Edwards, MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate, 9/26/07]

"Senator Clinton says she wants to end the war, but she also says she will keep combat missions in Iraq. Keeping combat missions in Iraq means she will extend the war. John Edwards will end the war. John Edwards' plan for Iraq is very simple: No combat troops. No combat missions. No combat, period." [Edwards campaign statement, 10/30/07]

But speaking to the Boston Globe yesterday, he confirmed his support for combat missions in Iraq:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, who has stepped up attacks on rival Hillary Clinton for her plans to continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq, said yesterday that he would also carry out "expeditions" against that insurgent group...

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4100