Truth or Dare- A Debate Post Mortem

The Annenburg Institute always provides some hard edged analysis of the political scene. Here is what they have to say about last night's debate:



Cleveland Clinkers
February 27, 2008
Clinton and Obama hit sour notes in the Cleveland debate.
Summary
The Clinton-Obama showdown debate in Cleveland produced several false, twisted or dubious claims, most of which we’ve heard and debunked before.

* Both Obama and Clinton claimed their health care plans would cut costs more than the other’s, and that experts back them up on that. But experts we talked to said the plans are too similar to predict which would save more, and two experts said neither plan can save nearly as much as the candidates claim.

* Both Obama and Clinton twisted the other’s words about support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, again. In fact, the candidates have practically identical positions. They both said during the debate that they would threaten to withdraw from NAFTA unless Mexico and Canada agree to new and tougher terms.

* Clinton said Obama once "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan," a distortion of his statement that he'd unilaterally "take out" al Qaeda leadership there if Pakistan wouldn't act. And that's just what the U.S. did earlier this month, according to news reports quoting official sources.

* Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon."

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

Desktop users

Mobile users



This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email% . It was sent from: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Forward to a Friend

Cook's Tour

Charlie Cook also takes a look ahead to November. He is always an interesting read. Try it out here.

Tactical Practical

Ron Brownstein does some numbers crunching and comes to this conclusion regarding Hillary: instead of a new house, it looks like curtains. His look ahead at an Obama- McCain fight provides some interesting contrasts between the candidates.Read it here.

Debating Debates

I’ll leave it to the paid pundits to determine who won last night's debate between Hillary and Barack. This morning I ask myself this question: what constitutes ”winning”?

Are the candidates trying to hit each other over the head with facts so that some independent judge can render a final score, just like in high school?

Are the candidates simply trying to project an image of being “presidential”, of being calm, controlled, in command and unflustered in the face of an opponent’s attack?

Are the candidates trying to reach voters to sway them to come over to their side? If they are, how many people are watching? Why are they watching? Are they watching a debate to see if one candidate commits a fatal gaffe, like Gerald Ford claiming Poland was not behind the Iron Curtain? Is it a political version of NASCAR, just waiting for the inevitable blood?

Any thoughts?

Hillary's Hissy-Fit

Watching the debate. Hillary just went off on Brian Williams for seeming to always getting the first question. She sounded positively paranoid and fearful. She referenced last week's Saturday Night Live skit that had the media as positively ga-ga over Obama. I've got to admit that she sounds like chalk on a blackboard while Obama sounds so smooth. Reminds me of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, where people who listened to the debate over the radio thought Nixon had won , while television viewers said Kennedy won. In truth, television, as a medium of political communication, won that debate and forever changed American politics.

Michael Writes....

I am glad you have found your voice again. I have missed your
bloggings.

While I honestly believe McCain is the best candidate (given the
current choices), I do not believe a Republican can get elected.
While I believe, there is a large contingent in this country that are
not willing to vote for a black man or a woman of any hue, I do not
believe it is a large enough block of voters to overcome the backlash
that has built up over the last eight years. I think Nader's roll as
spoiler is overrated. He is even less of a political force (and a
bigger farce) than he was the last time. Any impact Ralph has will
be lost in the noise.

I almost believe it doesn't matter who the candidates are. I believe
the American people will vote against the party that currently holds
the Presidency. It will be for the following three reasons:

1) The ineffective management of the victory in Iraq (unable to
deliver on our promise of building a free and democratic country in
the middle east)
2) The current downturn in the economy and the debacle of sub-prime
mortgages
3) The Dems was robbed the last two times (I do not personally
subscribe to this last reason, but that is the great popular feeling
especially among blacks and latinos

Again, I am glad you are back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael,

Thanks for your most kind comments.

Unlike some other bloggers who are compelled to add something to their sites each time they sneeze, I don't want to write unless I have something to say. The political noise was overwhelming for a while and I just wanted to back off and sort things out. The lack of pressure is one of the great advantages of writing my own blog. I remember those days from many years ago when I had a deadline every half hour and take my word for it, this is a lot better; the pay may be lousy but I like management.

On politics, please note that I have very few problems with Sen. McCain. I think he has the potential to be what I call an "Eisenhower Republican", an old fashioned, pragmatic conservative who is not controlled by the right wing nuts of the Republican party. McCain has made some major blunders, such as being part of the Keating Five. For a guy who likes to proclaim his high ethical standards, this is fodder for the opposition.

His self-touted credentials as a political maverick don't really hold up. Let's look at one egregious example. In the North Carolina primary in 2004, McCain was subjected to one of the worst political smears which was conducted by the Bush men, a claim that McCain had fathered a black child when the fact was he adopted a sicklyBangladeshi orphan. Subsequently, after McCain dropped out of the race, he hugged Bush during a campaign appearance. Well,it was a lot more than a hug. It sort of reminded me of Sammy Davis Jr.'s Steppin Fetchit portrayal during his visit to Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.

If you consider my basic premise that most voters are more concerned about which candidate gives them the "warm fuzzies" versus an analysis of a candidates positions, then McCain is in trouble in a match-up with Obama. McCain is a crusty old coot and he will not look good or sound good on a stage next to Obama.

But a week is an eternity in politics and so much can happen. Will the war in Iraq blow up again? Will the Fed continue to prop up the economy to give a Republican candidate a fighting chance? Will any more photos surface of Barack Obama looking silly in native dress? (He reminded me of Michael Dukakis riding that tank.) Politicians can withstand almost any assault, but they can not afford to be laughed at.


Thanks again for your kind comments.

TRM

Leftist Paranoia

A friend told me today not to discount the theory that GE, through its subsidiary NBC, booked Ralph Nader on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday for nefarious reason. He claimed GE wanted to give Nader more publicity so that he could get publicity for his campaign, thereby eroding support for either Democratic candidate, thus ensuring a Republican victory in November.

Uhhh, interesting.

With Friends Like These....

Louis Farrakhan says Barack Obama is the next great black hope. I'm sure the Obama people will go to court to obtain an order of protection to make sure that Farrakhan comes no closer to Barack than a global hemisphere.

Then this story made me ill.Really just churned my stomach.

On the other hand, a NYTIMES/CBS poll shows Obama as most likely the candidate with the better chance to beat McCain. Men strongly back Obama. Women had been supporting Hillary, but that support seems to be eroding.

As I previously noted, I believe that a significant number of people polled might say that they could, or would, vote for either Obama or Hillary in a general election; I have to polling proof to support my gut feeling , but I do believe that many people, despite what they tell pollsters at this point, will not vote for either a black man or a white woman.So at this moment, I say that, barring anything unusual happening from now until the election, Obama doesn't have as much support as he might think.

Bang! Zoom! To the Moon, Alice! Not Now, Ralph!

Well, well, well. MSNBC reports Ralph Nader is going to announce another run for the presidency.I make this out to be very, very, very, bad news for the Democrats.

Prior to today's announcement, I saw a very close race between John McCain and either Democrat, Hillary or Barack, with McCain barely beating Hillary and a coin-flip against Barack. With Ralph in the race, he surely will take back his whack-pack of voters who would otherwise vote for the Democrat candidate. In a close race, the Democrat has fewer votes, and a greater chance of losing. This is what happened in 2000, when many people still blame Nader for siphoning off enough potential Gore voters to tilt the balance in favor of Bush. it might happen again. John McClain , your prayers have been answered!

I suggest that all dictionaries publish a photo of Nader right next to their definition of "megalomaniac".

Election Choices?

Let me get this straight. Our election choices will boil down to either:

a. one of the most polarizing and cynical political figures;

b. an empty suit who makes great speeches but who has a questionable political history;

c. a "maverick" who has been involved in political scandal.

And my friends thought I was crazy for voting for John Edwards even though he had dropped out of the race!

Sheesh!

FROM NYC LIB

Do you really think the Repubs hold onto all the states Bush won in 2004? Only Ohio needs to flip; let alone that FL, NM, CO, IA and MO are all in play. And, which state do you project falls from 2004 blue to red in 2008?

February 3, 2008 5:44 PM

TARGET: OBAMA

Nice that Barack Obama gets a free pass from all the media on the substantive elements of his proposals. The only one I've seen to call him out on his health care idea is Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.

Today's Times has a little exploration on a legislative item for which Barack takes some major league credit. It turns out that the self-congratulations are unearned.

Too bad Edwards pulled the plug on his campaign before getting a chance on super duper whoop de doo Tuesday. I suspect that his campaign coffers were drained to the point where he would have been unable to mount any significant advertising effort.

The poor liberals are confused. My friend, NY LIB, doesn't know whom to vote for (just for the record, he voted for Nader in '00, because he claimed Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", both were big time pols in the pockets of big business. With his vote, and others who thought like him, he ensured the election of "Tweedledumbest"!). So NY LIB believes Obama lies too much and isn't progressive enough, and Hillary is "Republican Lite" (Hey, the left really loves that term. If you are not in total agreement with their "progressive" agenda- another term I absolutely loathe- or if you are capable of compromising, then you are "Republican Lite". don't deal with the issue, just denounce those who disagree as being in the enemy camp. Great Stalinist tactic!


What's a liberal to do? (Uh oh! Ralph is considering running again! HELP!)

LOOKING FORWARD

The Democratic Party is about to take an historic step by nominating either a woman or a black man as it presidential candidate. The times they are a'changin'.. but watch out, cause they may not be a'changin' that much.

I have a very liberal friend who believes that this election will be a slam-dunk for the Democrats and, like most extremists of either party, he refuses to listen to any counter-argument.

I've taken a look at the possibilities and the strongest candidate the Republicans have is John McCain. Let's examine why.

The president is chosen by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. That being said, the Democratic candidate has to win significantly more votes in delegate rich states that went for George Bush in 2004, and Florida and Ohio are the prime targets. The Democratic candidate will have to pull at least all the votes that John Kerry did, and since I don't believe the Messiah has yet come, a certain number of those voters will not vote for either a woman or a black man, despite what they might tell pollsters. So I see a certain slippage there. Further, I don't believe that anyone stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004 will suddenly become enlightened enough to vote for either Obama or Hillary.

Hillary is a polarizing figure. She will not show a net gain in the women's vote (if such a thing exists) because while some love her, an equal number despise her. Other people do not want to see a reprise of the emotional melodrama that was the first Clinton administration.

Obama will gain many voters for his historic position, but likewise he will lose some Kerry votes simply because he is black. And don't think the Republicans will let the electorate forget that his middle name is Hussein, thereby stirring up anti-Muslim fears.

On the other hand, if McCain becomes the Republican candidate, many possibilities open for him. It really is mind-boggling. The right hates McCain. The left hates McCain. That means that a lot of people who really matter in a general election, the centrists of both parties, have someone to vote for. Did you see where Ann Coulter says she will vote for HIllary rather than McCain because Hilllary is more conservative than McCain is? How about the article in yesterday's New York Times that indicated many right wingers were forcing themselves to re-examine their opposition to McCain because he will be the only one they might be able to vote for.

McCain will be a formidable candidate. He has many characteristics that appeal to a lot of voters: naval aviator, war hero, two term congressman, three term senator. He has credentials as an old line Republican but he also has a history of pragmatism. He worked with liberal Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He wanted a more liberal immigration policy. He believes that global warming must be combated. He is against torture of prisoners suspected of terrorism while he believes the war must be prosecuted fully. He is an old fashioned tax cutter.

Against this the Democrats will have a one-term senator whose main claim to fame is his race and his opposition to the Iraq war and the Hillary show.

Dems, you will have a battle on your hands.

TAKING STOCK

It's been a while since my last post, so let's take a look back and see how well I did as a prognosticator.

I predicted Al Gore would not run for election, despite so many Democrats proclaiming him the savior of the party. He didn't. Chalk one up for me.

I predicted that John McCain's candidacy was dead in the water. My bad!

I predicted that the voters would reject Rudy Giuliani once they got to know him. That's another one for me.

So I figure I'm batting .666. Thats a Hall of Fame batting average if ever there was one.

POLITICAL FUN

Channel 5 Fox News in New York has posted the political equivalent of Match.com here

This 20 question survey leads you through a few hot button issues and purports to pick out the presidential candidate who most closely matches your views.

All I'll say is that it matched my views most closely with with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, followed by Hillary and John Edwards.

Have Fun!

By The Way....

One of the great things about being a blogger is that I can write whenever I want, and whatever I want. I have no bosses. I have no advertiser that I need to placate. Best of all, I have no deadlines! Once upon a time, I had a deadline every half hour. Not fun.

I haven't written for a while because... I had nothing new I wanted to say and my old posts still held up.

But time marches and the interminable political season meander on, and we find the candidates playing their version of "Gotcha", a game more appropriate to a junior high school class election. On the other hand, who is really listening to what they have to say? The election really is a case of impressions.

So let's go to the polls!

Hillary is in the process of manufacturing square bricks. The impression she wanted the primary electorate to have, that her campaign is a fore-ordained reality, an unstoppable juggernaut, "La Machine", has dissolved as Obama and Edwards are all in a statistical tie in Iowa. In light of the polls results, Hillary has "elevated them guns a little lower" and declared that she doesn't expect a blow out in order to make the best of the fact that she is not going to blast the opposition. It's called making lemonade from lemons. But no politician wants to be in a real race and you had better believe that her campaign cultivated the juggernaut image in order to drive out opposition and thereby preserve resources for a general election. However, reality has caught up with her carefully crafted image and people realize that she is as real as a three dollar bill.

My friend, the Votemaster lines up almost all the latest polls and together with this site we can see the trends. Whether you look at the last three polls, or whether you follow one pollster over time, Hillary is in a statistical dead heat, with roughly 25% of those polled in her corner. Obama and Edwards are drawing the same approximate level of support. On the other hand, I propose that you look at the poll results this way: Only 25% of those polled like Hillary, and 75% of those surveyed prefer someone else!

Next up in the primary schedule is New Hampshire, where some polls are showing Obama with as much as 31% of the primary vote. On the other hand, some polls show Hillary with the same level of support. Regardless, what once was a solid base for Hillary in New Hampshire has now turned very soft indeed. Edwards trails badly there.

In South Carolina, Hillary and Obama are neck-and-neck at around 40% according to one poll. Then again, another recent poll by CNN has Hillary ahead 42% to 34% over Obama.

It is clear that Hillary is vulnerable in Iowa, and the winner there will have tremendous momentum, especially in the form of media coverage, going into the New Hampshire primary. After all, everyone wants to back a winner and jump onto a bandwagon.

The big question is John Edwards. Edwards has spent years in Iowa building up an organization and making local contacts. If he fails to win there his candidacy is dead. If he manages a win, can he he seen as he person who can unite that 75% of the party who do not want Hillary? Well, the Obama candidacy is so unusual,and, yes, race matters, that the Illinois senator's supporters may very well be locked in. But there may be around 15%-20% of primary voters who will give up their backing of second tier candidates such as Richardson, Biden and Dodd (Kucinich voters are so left wing that they wont budge), and find in Edwards the person to eventually defeat both Hillary and Obama, and then go on to win a general election. I'm guessing that that is the hope of the Edwards campaign.

The Republicans pose an entirely different set of problems and more about them later. But before everyone gets too excited about Huckabee, let me leave you with this theological question: Are we about to see the Resurrection of John McCain?

Horserace Update

Here is the latest and greatest from the CBS News/NYTIMES POLL. seems things might not be so smooth in Iowa for Hillary. Check the link from this site.which lead you here.

Bottom line: This poll indicates that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are in a statistical dead heat in Iowa.

Remember , national polls mean nothing at this point.

FEARLESS PREDICTION

The next President of the United States will be...........a man.

I'm not saying who it will be, and I'm not even saying whether it will be a Democrat or a Republican. What I am saying is that there is still a chance that Hillary will NOT be the Democratic Party nominee. Her howling about "the boys piling on" during the last debate shows that she is not capable of dealing with situations where she is not totally in control and in favorable conditions. I'd love to hear her complain about the Russians or Chinese "piling on" if she were President. Maybe she would get all weepy over Osama bin Ladin "piling on". Add her current performance, her lack of vision and ideas, and her projection of total phoniness to the strong negative reactions that she has always engendered across this country and you get the basis for my prediction. If she is the Democratic nominee, the Republican candidate will win.

Hillary is a loser.

Gore.. What is it Good For?

Well, Al Gore is waiting to a. get his Nobel Peace Prize and then, b. become the anointed saviour of the Democratic Party. If you saw the NYTIMES today you read about the growing movement to draft Gore to be the Dems' candidate. People really fear a Hillary candidacy. Her polling negatives are so high and people just don't like her. They prefer not to hold their noses when they vote in the primaries.

Hey, let's play a game... can you define your favorite candidates positions on three key issues? Try education, free trade, and health care. Bet you can't. While you scramble to their web sites to find out, chew on these recent poll numbers from Iowa:

Democratic Polls

Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted by Selzer & Company
10/2/2007
N=399
Hillary Clinton 29%
John Edwards 23%
Barack Obama 22%
Bill Richardson 8%
Joe Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 11%

Hillary has a 6 point lead over Obama. With a sample size of 399, the margin of error is about 5%.. see

Survey
Sample Margin
Size of Error

2,000 2

1,500 3

1,000 3

900 3

800 3

700 4

600 4

500 4

400 5

300 6

200 7

100 10

50 14

*Assumes
a 95% level
of confidence

Basically , there is a statistical dead heat between Hillary , Edwards and Obama in this poll of October 2, which was conducted by the Des Moines Register. This is not something Hillary's people want you to know. They prefer you to think her candidacy is an unstoppable juggernaut. It isn't. At this point a "surprise" is possible, but it won't be a surprise to the readers of this space.

VEEP?

I was discussing possible vice presidential candidates with a colleague. He thought Ricahrdson would be a good vie presidential candidate. Great balance for Hillary- male, Hispanic, Southwestern, governor,experienced. I said that Richardson will not take the number 2 position on a Hillary-headed ticket. I further predicted that neither Obama nor Edwards would accept the number 2 slot under Hillary. He thought I was nuts. We shall see, but you read it here first.

And now, a brief message from our sponsors.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

I haven't posted to this blog for a while. Why? because nothing interesting has been happening, but let's take a brief overview of the cabbages among us and see if pigs fly.

In government, the Bush administration continues its Bataan Death March towards its ultimate end. So sad to see the village idiot vetoing the S-CHIP legislation by saying it will give this country socialized medicine, while just a few years ago idiot crowed about his prescription drug plan. No action by the Democrats about Dweeb of the week Alberto Gonzales. No action about the war. No action on anything. All they do is try to score political points off each other like candidates for a junior high school class presidency (maybe the sophomore class).

In politics, both parties exude unlimited boredom. The pundits have already anointed Queen Hillary. They may be in for a shock. The punditocracy is looking at two elements, the results of national polls and amount of money collected by the candidates. By these measures, Hillary is doing superbly as she garners impressive poll numbers and an even more impressive amount of benjamins. However, the nominating process is not a one-day national event. Instead, it consists of a series of hurdles that the candidates must conquer, with the Iowa caucuses being the first, followed by the New Hampshire primary.

As for Iowa, it looks as though the pundits may be calling the race a bit too early as David Yepsen of the DesMoines Register reports that Barack Obama still has a lot of pull as he plays his "Kennedy Kard".

:: Tue 10.2.2007 6:11 PM

Barack Obama cloaked himself in John Kennedy’s legacy Tuesday as he sought to retake the initiative in the Democratic presidential campaign.

Invoking Kennedy imagery is a delicate thing for any politician to do but Obama succeeded in pulling it off.

The Illinois senator used the fifth anniversary of an anti-war speech he gave in Chicago to draw contrasts with his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton. He brought former Kennedy speech writer and aide Ted Sorensen to Iowa to introduce him for the speech in Des Moines and again in Coralville.

Sorensen invoked parallels with the Cuban missile crisis decisions made by the young President Kennedy.

Obama is playing the Kennedy card because national polls show him trailing Clinton in the national contest. National observers are saying Obama’s not gaining traction and that Clinton is starting to lock up the nomination.

That’s not the shape of the race in Iowa, where polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards locked in a statistical tie for first place among likely Democratic caucus-goers. Obama’s spent more time than Clinton in the lead-off state, has plenty of money to deploy here and has built a formidable organization to go up against his two rivals.

Two hurdles confront Obama in Iowa. The first is the criticism he isn’t strong enough in his opposition to the war. The second is that he’s inexperienced. He used Tuesday’s speech to counter both and tweak Clinton and Edwards.

“The war in Iraq should never have been fought,” he said adding the American people were failed by a Congress “that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let’s be clear: Without that vote, there would be no war.”

Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama said “and now we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and not expect him to cash it?”

In other digs at the two, Obama said:

*Americans “should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?”

*Also, “the American people get to decide: are we going to turn back the clock, or turn the page.”

*And “the first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning.”

*Also, “we’ll reject torture, without exception or equivocation.”

*And “I wouldn’t be here, if time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation.”

That “torch” phrase was made famous by Kennedy. Sorensen, who wrote many of the late president’s speeches, told the Des Moines audience Kennedy was also criticized for lacking experience when he ran in 1960.

“What the country wants in a president is judgment,” Sorensen said.

He called Obama “the only serious candidate for the Democratic nomination” who opposed the war from the start. Like Kennedy, Obama has spent years of his life living abroad and so understands the importance of world opinion to U.S. policy objectives.

But not all of Obama’s speech was aimed at Clinton and Edwards. Bill Richardson is crowding him by appealing to anti-war activists with a promise to get all the troops out of Iraq.

Obama said clearly Tuesday he would “get all our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months” of taking office. The only ones left will be those guarding diplomats or “carrying out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda.”

That may not appease the most rabid anti-war activists who like Richardson for his get-everybody-out stance, but at least it clears up an questions the left may have about what Obama intends to do with the combat forces.

For those who might have missed something very important, let me put it into large type for you:

Iowa, where polls show Clinton, Obama and John Edwards locked in a statistical tie for first place among likely Democratic caucus-goers.

here are some recent poll results:

American Research Group
9/28/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 30%
Barack Obama 24%
John Edwards 19%
Bill Richardson 10%
Joe Biden 3%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 13%
Source


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
9/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Barack Obama 28%
Hillary Clinton 24%
John Edwards 22%
Bill Richardson 10%
Joe Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 9%
Source


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
9/27/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 21%
Bill Richardson 6%
Joe Biden 3%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 12%
Source


Strategic Vision
9/22/2007
Iowa
w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton 24%
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 21%
Bill Richardson 13%
Joe Biden 4%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Unsure 14%
Source


Lets, see, Obama leads in one polls, ties in another and trails in a third. Yup, mighty conclusive evidence for a Hillary run-away.

Hillary seems to have a big lead in New Hampshire, but how firm will those numbers prove to be if Obama has a significant performance in Iowa? So many people dislike Hillary that her support will dry up like a creek in an Oklahoma summer if voters perceive another candidate can win the nomination and then the general election. Just look back a few years and study the candidacy of Howard Dean. He was going to blow everyone else away, until he himself blew up in Iowa.

Hmm, what else? Oh, yeah, there is a war going on in Iraq. Iraq, a country in name only. Nice to see that the legislature is back in session. Seems to be about as effective as that legislature in Washington. Does anyone believe ANY story that comes out of Iraq? Will American soldiers continue to die for the crime of launching an unnecessary war which was committed by the bush administration? Is that our national penance?

By the way, Move.On really screwed the pooch with their "General Betray Us" advertisement in the New York Times. They managed to deftly switch the issue from one of resolving this nasty mess, to one where they defamed General Petreaus. Nice going Eli Pariser!

Oh, yeah, one more thing: the press is in a tizzy because Barack Obama isn't wearing an American flag lapel pin. Sheesh! Maybe someone should point out that the lapel flag thing was started by none other than Richard Nixon, in his not-too-subtle appeal to law 'n' order.


Ennui marches on!