Hillary's campaign is running into stormy weather. The first shocker was the response to her Iraq vote. The second shocker was Obama's actual first quarter results. The new shocker is that Obama's second quarter results will put an end to the "rock star" and "one trick pony" descriptions of Obama.

Now it's on to the updated version of "two for the price of one". Vote Hillary and get Bill's experience. It's not being baldly stated; it's more subtle this time. But that's the message.

We'll see if that one flies in the third quarter.

I realize that Bill is pretty popular, and, as a former President, something needs to be done with him, but I just think the HillBilly campaign is going to backfire. They tried to two for one approach before, and it backfired spectacularly. Senator Clinton should run on her own merits, and not use her spouse to buck up her credentials.

Obama's fundraising numbers are pretty eye-catching, yes, so why is he so far behind in so many polls? What's going on here?

Senator Clinton should run on her own merits

Can't. Has none.

Obama's fundraising numbers are pretty eye-catching, yes, so why is he so far behind in so many polls?

I think the better question is why did he slip so badly.

As odd as it seems to us political junkies, Obama remains little known to many. The public is always even afflicted with advanced Alzheimer's. Most cannot remember that Edwards was once a rather popular vice presidential candidate.

What is most important right now is movement rather than standing and both Obama and Edwards are slipping backwards.

In Obama's case, I believe it is mostly about Iraq.

Edwards is increasingly labeled a cipher by the usual suspects. An early win might save him but he remains a distant longshot I fear.

Obama on the other hand has the ability to right things if he will only do it.

JMO.

Best, Terry

To claim Hillary has NO merits is, frankly, kinda dumb. Even the most rabid right-wingers will acknowledge her intelligence. And last time I checked, intelligence still has some merit in politics, although not necessarily in punditry.

Clinton/Obama anyone?

He was asked that very question by Letterman, and Obama's response was a definitive "No" --about as definitive as I've ever heard from a politician.

Hillary is more than happy for you to take her own experience and magically add Bill's to it. I don't think "rub off" experience is worth much. If it was, then perhaps Hillary's vote on the Iraq War Resolution would have been different. Or perhaps not.

To have responded with anything less then a definitive "No" would have effectively ended his campaign. Would you donate money to a presidential candidate who admitted that he would be okay with runner-up? I wouldn't. And I assume that most of his 250,000 donors are betting on him to win, not place.

"In Obama's case, I believe it is mostly about Iraq."

Why do you think so?

It seems that Obama's opposition to the invasion would be a major strength for his campaign.

Yesterday's news gets stale in a hurry.

Let me be as clear as I know how.

While Obama was opposed to the invasion, he is not so clearly opposed to the occupation.

The polls are reflecting a disgust with the failure of congress to act. Obama has in my view lost considerable support because of his quibbling over ending the occupation.

I will frankly admit that there is bias of my own in that view. I want us out. Period.

So why have Edwards and others not gotten more traction from their desire to "cut and run?" Richardson has even made a Pat Paulsen-like pledge to end the occupation nearly immediately after being elected.

Do I have to be consistent? :-)

The only excuse I can offer is that Edwards is being treated like a cipher by the MSM.

Yeah, I know it's a pitifully weak argument but when you have nothing else what can you do?

Best, Terry

I fail to understand, Terry, that if Iraq is the "important issue" why Hillary's numbers haven't tanked into the sewer level.

You are looking for logic where there is none.

I not only agree with your assessment that Hillary's name recognition is her main asset at this point in the polls but stated it myself previously.

But that doesn't explain slippage by Obama and Edwards. I propose that is what is giving Hillary added strength in the polls rather than approval. Hillary's disapproval rating remains very high and may even be increasing.

So why isn't Hillary being hurt by being a hawk?

I think it is more the case that people don't see the doves. I am having trouble seeing them myself.

Best, Terry

It is easy to see how Obama can be doing so well with donations, but so poorly in the polls. The donations came from a quarter of a million people, which is a lot of people, but not nearly enough to elect him. People who support Obama nearly all do so with great enthusiasm and resolve, so they donate as much as they can to him. But, that is just money, not votes.

I think something else that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that Obama consistently performs beter among independants, and so Obama has a larger base of people open to donating to him. But of course this larger base of support is not reflected in polls which only sample Democrats, where Hilary has a greater 'market share'.

...have you called Hillary's Senate office and told them why you'll never vote for her ? Don't sit around whining over your keyboards and let the 'inevitability' of Hillary become a reality !!

What exactly is it that you think calling her office will accomplish? It's not like she's going to drop out of the race.

I'm gonna have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. You're making a fundamentally flawed assumption, which is that all the people who mention Hillary as their top candidate are locked into Hillary. That's not necessarily the case at all. For example, a recent NH poll showed Hilary killing in the state, but if you read all the poll results, it also showed that only 10% of NH voters said they definitely knew who they were going to vote for. The rest were people who were leaning one way or another or, more likely, defaulting to the perceived front-runner.

Or take the latest CBS news poll. As mysterpollster points out

Among 336 Democratic primary voters, when presented a three-way choice 48% prefer Hillary Clinton, 24% Barack Obama, 11% John Edwards, 8% would rather see someone else nominated and the rest (9%) are completely undecided or unsure

Great sign for Hillary, right? Well, they didn't ask whether or not the primary voters definitely knew who they were voting for...but they did ask if they felt strongly about any particular candidate.

ARE YOU ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT ANY 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? Hillary Clinton 28% Barack Obama 22 %

No other Dem candidate registered at all.

With a statistical MOE at 3 for the entire poll and even bigger for the subgroups (for which this question would apply), that's a statistical tie. Now, note: Obama's #s are almost identical to his #s in a 3-way national primary, whereas Hillary polls much worse on this metric than she does in national primary question. Why? For the same reason why she cleans up in a NH poll where only 1 out of 10 voters know for sure who they are voting for: in the absence of certainty, they default to the most familiar name, the perceived front-runner, the candidate they know the best, Hillary.

Which is why polls right now are meaningless, and much less informative then trends in polling, favorable/unfavorable ratings, available funds in the war chest, the quality of the ground organization in the early primary states, etc etc etc.

EDIT:
CBS Poll

I'll try to find that NH poll too...

Bush's presidency argues in favor of the importance of intellect.

And just exactly who is it that would never confuse Hillary with an intellectual? You? The stupidity of your "Hillary has no merits" comment would disqualify you from judging anyone's intellectual abilities.

And sure, I'll add to the list: experience and competence. Of course you will claim she has neither but, once again, your ridiculous claim that she has NO merits points to your lack of objecivity when discussing Hillary.

And IQ only gets demerits from those who would turn over the presidency to the candidate they'd most like to have a beer with. Among thinking people, IQ counts.

The independents idea is a good one. I know that locally there are a lot of independents, and several Republicans supporting Obama. Unless those people register as Democrats they are not likely to get to vote in our primary, but some of them get upset when this is pointed out to them.

The name recognition aspect is certainly true too. Those of us who have been supporting Obama since he first announced his candidacy tend to assume everyone else knows who he is, but that isn't necessarily true. (And, I, too have been supporting him both with contributions and campaigning locally, but have ceased both activities for various reasons.)

If nothing else, this election will be anything but dull and cut and dried.

Hoppy in Sacramento

There's simply no ceiling yet for Obama, so I think you are flat wrong on your 25%. There's just too many voters who say they have never heard of him and if they have simply have no opinion. Hillary's numbers are set and have been for years--Obama's are not.

Candidates chose a vice president who they believe will add votes to their total. Clinton, being a Democrat, can count on getting a big majority of the African American vote, no matter who her VP is. So, Obama will add some AA votes, but probably not a lot. My guess is that Clinton will chose a Southerner or possibly Richardson (to appeal more to the Hispanic American voters). I think Obama is aware of this too. Clinton and Obama seem to get along very well as Senate colleagues, so there would be good reasons to select him, but those reasons are not the ones that count.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Terry, I too want the occupation of Iraq brought to an end. I'm simply not so sure how best to go about it.

One thing that I think needs a bit of thought is the extent to which the current Iraqi government is saturated with Bushisms that are simply unworkable in Iraq. Baldly, how much is this government a puppet government? Sadly, I'm beginning to conclude that it is more puppet than not.

Would we not have to attempt a fix--perhaps having an American Muslim meeting directly with Sadr and Sistani? I don't have answers but I do think we owe the Iraqi people an effort of a different sort than Bush and his co-horts have made.

While Obama's fundraising numbers may seem like they indicate a surge for him, it's actually the ratio between his fundraising numbers and his overall poll numbers that is most telling -- and that ratio certainly is pretty disappointing.

Look, I think it's hard to argue that Obama's problem nowadays is with his name recognition. In fact, his numbers have only declined in recent months, right? If name recognition were the key, wouldn't they be going UP instead? Do fewer people know about him now than did a few months back? How do you possibly make out this argument? Isn't it far more plausible that large numbers of people have finally taken a gander at him, and are rather underwhelmed by what they see? What reason does anybody have to believe that he hasn't plateaued in his support?

And the bottom line is that the ratio of recent fundraising dollars to voters who favor him is considerably LOWER than that of Clinton. How do you turn that fact into a positive for Obama, especially since he's not even making up the slightest amount of ground against her?

Look, I think it's hard to argue that Obama's problem nowadays is with his name recognition. In fact, his numbers have only declined in recent months, right? If name recognition were the key, wouldn't they be going UP instead? Do fewer people know about him now than did a few months back?

Think just maybe it could have something to do with Iraq?

I agree with those that say Obama is still not all that well known but his quibbling on Iraq just can't be helpful. The fellow that boasted about not wanting to invade now is not eager to leave.

Best, Terry

I don't disagree with your assessment, Terry. I do think we're listening to Bushists when it comes to whether or not the Iraqi government is a puppet government--like the corrupt and incompetent South Vietnam government was. And I assess Bush completely differently than you do.

I think if we do get enough Republicans to defund this war this fall (veto-proof is needed), then Bush will make some token withdrawal, if that. I completely expect him to basically ignore Congress--to the point of illegally moving funds around or doing such things as withholding military pay. Bush will have troops (as many as he can scrounge together) in Iraq until the very last second of his presidency.

There is no magic Democratic formula to stop this train wreck. The Republicans own it and its theirs to stop before 2009.

I don't need the pandering from Democratic candidates on this issue. But I will hold to task anyone who supported this mess (Richardson) or actually voted for it (Clinton) and insist that this colossal failure of judgment means they do not deserve the Presidency.

I'll remind you that Obama had it right--just as Pelosi did. I'll remind you that when Obama said that Bush was playing chicken with the troops, the netroots pilloried not Bush but Obama. I happen to think Obama was right on that. Bush thinks he is Truman with Korea and he will hang onto his war until his very last second in office. None of the Democratic pandering will change that one iota.

Small donations is a numbers game . . . And it activates folk with hands and feet and time . . .
PLUS the folk are the folk he stands for and they need to stand for him.

Come election day it will the folk who vote who will carry the day (Well, unless Diebold has its way.).

The independents idea is a good one. I know that locally there are a lot of independents, and several Republicans supporting Obama. Unless those people register as Democrats they are not likely to get to vote in our primary, but some of them get upset when this is pointed out to them.

I'm not sure by "our" primary if you mean Democratic or Californian. If the former, you should realize that in Virginia you can vote in the Democratic primary even if you are not a registered Democrat. (I'm not a registered anything, and I vote in the primaries.)

I assess Bush completely differently than you do.

You do huh?

I think Bush is an incompetent, ignorant, contemptible, immoral, lazy lowlife who has cost us thousands of lives, hatred and contempt from most of the world, trained hordes of terrorists, and done great damage to America's economy and citizens.

If you think I am all wrong about that, then I guess we just see things differently. :-)

I think if we do get enough Republicans to defund this war this fall (veto-proof is needed)

Is it possible this is where we disagree?

I think all that is needed is to not approve funding for this war. Such needs no veto-proof majority in the Senate at all but a simple refusal of either body of Congress to approve funding.

I completely expect [Bush] to basically ignore Congress--to the point of illegally moving funds around or doing such things as withholding military pay.

I wouldn't argue for a minute against Bush having complete contempt for the rule of law but I don't believe he could get away with it. Obviously we have some difference of opinion here.

There is no magic Democratic formula to stop this train wreck. The Republicans own it and its theirs to stop before 2009.

I disagree.

This country belongs to all of us. The voters obviously were unhappy with the war in the last election and are now indicating their displeasure with Congress even more than Bush. What should be done is a matter of opinion but I don't believe we have a king in the White House though Bush seems to think so.

I don't need the pandering from Democratic candidates on this issue. But I will hold to task anyone who supported this mess (Richardson) or actually voted for it (Clinton) and insist that this colossal failure of judgment means they do not deserve the Presidency.

I'll remind you that Obama had it right--just as Pelosi did. I'll remind you that when Obama said that Bush was playing chicken with the troops, the netroots pilloried not Bush but Obama. I happen to think Obama was right on that. Bush thinks he is Truman with Korea and he will hang onto his war until his very last second in office. None of the Democratic pandering will change that one iota.

I want to be pandered to. :-)

BTW I am far from a fan of Richardson but sure like his blunt statement that he would pull out of Iraq completely soon after being elected.

Best, Terry

Just look above, Edwards appears to have Wisconsin . . .

Focusing on polls, this far out will make us all crazy. Several polling agencies contact my wife and I all the FRAGING time. Once they know you”ll pick-up the phone or answer your e-mail they will call you again and again if your demographics match.

This dance will be decided in the ballot box (Diebold issues aside).

A big part of the anti-Clinton press is the corporate press. Although Clinton is the corporate choice on the Democratic side . . . Corporations prefer a Republican over a Democrat everyday of the week.

Good observations and rational thinking. The only polls that will matter have the word BALLOT painted on the front of them.

(Disclosure: Edwards contributor)

I think the "ABC vote" doesn't exist.

I can absolutely guarantee you one does.

Best, Terry

I agree with Terry. The ABC bloc does exist.

You're a decent person, Terry. You still believe there's some decency in Bush when it comes to Iraq. I don't. I believe Pelosi when she said in a recent PBS interview that Bush was oblivious when it came to facts on the ground in Iraq.

The tactic of not passing a funding bill makes one fatal assumption--that Bush will just start withdrawing troops in order to get the money restored. I think Bush will move money around illegally, starve the military budget to move money to Iraq, etc. Bush will bank on negative PR to get the money restored by Congress. He will tell any lie to accomplish that.

I think we fight on in spite of my assessment. But I'm a realist and I don't expect anything but token withdrawal trickles from Bush with foot-dragging all the way, until Bush's last second in office.

Tragic state of affairs.

Hillary's competence? Give me a break. She has the highly polished veneer of competence, but has proved incompetent with regard to the two most important things she is associated with: health care and her vote on, and subsequent cheerleading for, the Iraq war. She thus far has not been directly called to the carpet by the other candidates for the complete disconnect between her standard stump statement that "if I had been President in 2003, I would not have invaded Iraq" and her actions and statements between the time of her October 2002 war vote and the time of the March 2003 invasion. Even if you accept her spin on her "authorization" vote in October, the rest of her story -- that she somehow became skeptical of going to war once the inspectors were in -- is a complete fabrication and will be exposed as such in due course. In the critical two weeks before Bush invaded, Hillary did not call for caution but in her only recorded statement, she parroted the Bush line and then issued an execrable press release the day of the ultimatum expressing full support for Bush. During that same period, Jay Rockefeller, by contrast, raised serious concerns about the WMD case in the wake of Mohamed El Baradei's early March statement that Saddam did not have a viable nuclear program. Hillary's conduct, in short, was egregious during that critical period.

As for the debates, they have shown her to be the most competent of all the candidates at ... getting out the right set of words in the one-minute bites designed to hit the right chord with Democratic partisans. Obama has not proved to be a poor performer at the debates but merely a bit less crisp than Hillary and a bit less skilled at tickling the erogenous zones of the Dem activists. So how does a crisper debate performance equate with greater competence to be President? Romney is always the crispest at Repub debates, but how many think that would correlate strongly with competence as President?

Finally, the format of the debates up to now has let Hillary get away with not being frontally challenged. Take even her big "star" moment at the last debate -- the applause line about how "if Aids were the greatest killer of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged outcry!" Was I the only person who, despite following fairly closely Hillary's public pronouncements over the last several years, has never heard her make the issue of African American women dying of Aids one of her top priorities, much less gone to the Senate Floor to make an "outraged outcry"? Pretty soon she will not be able to get away with this stuff, because as the election approaches she'll face closer scrutiny.

My guess and my hope is that Obama will start a "contrast" phase of his candidacy right after Labor Day, and that he will start calling Hillary out on some of her statements.

I, like a lot of Obama supporters, am antsy, because his actions make one fear that he thinks he can topple the de facto "incumbent" -- Hillary -- without directly taking on the incumbent. I've never seen a challenger candidacy succeed like that. At the same time, it is ridiculously early, even with many primaries being moved up to February. In past years, mid-March was when the race was expected to be over; this year it's about six weeks before that, so it really is still quite early even adjusting for that fact. If Obama has a deliberate strategy of first building himself up (and his warchest for ads and ground staff) before directly taking on Hillary -- and isn't simply afraid to take on Hillary -- there is still much hope that the dynamic of the campaign can be turned around.

That's PRECISELY the problem, asher.

The most rabid right-wingers, especially those with a regular voice in the MSM, just LOVE her. Talk her up to no end about how she's the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.

Wny? Because they think they can clobber her with independents in a general election.

Look at her polling among indies, you can see where they might have a point.

Any Democratic candidate Tom DeLay endorses (and wouldn't you know it, he just loves himself some Hillary), I'm running far, far, away in the opposite direction.

You still believe there's some decency in Bush when it comes to Iraq. I don't.I believe Pelosi when she said in a recent PBS interview that Bush was oblivious when it came to facts on the ground in Iraq.

The tactic of not passing a funding bill makes one fatal assumption--that Bush will just start withdrawing troops in order to get the money restored. I think Bush will move money around illegally, starve the military budget to move money to Iraq, etc. Bush will bank on negative PR to get the money restored by Congress. He will tell any lie to accomplish that.

I don't think even Nancy Pelosi believes that Bush could move money around illegally to continue the war despite defunding by Congress.

There was talk during the last days of Nixon's presidency of steps being taken behind the scenes to prevent a president, who spent much of that time in a drunken stupor, from ordering a nuclear attack on Russia.

As Jim Webb has most notably indicated there is a very real threat of Bush bombing and shelling Iran. Cheney and his allies seem to be calling for just that "nuclear" option.

With a loon in the White House, who thinks he talks with God, little is impossible. Bush has shown complete contempt for law and even common decency.

I remain unconvinced that giving such a person more blank checks is a great idea.

Take care, my friend. At least we want the same sort of thing. We differ only what we see as the best course.

Best, Terry

Name recognition is an issue. 15% of Dems report not knowing who Obama is, and if you expand to include people who've heard of him but don't know much about him, you're looking at nearly 1 in 3. And As I said above, unlike the non-representative political-junkie set that inhabits this site, many/most primary voters have no idea who they're voting for yet. Hell, I don't know a single other person that votes in the primaries that's been paying much attention at all. The campaigns are just now starting to actually campaign.

Meanwhile, voters in Iowa and NH and around the country...they know who John Edwards is. They know who Hillary Clinton is. Hillary was a national public figure for near a decade. Edwards came through and campaigned in those states just 4 years ago. Compared to them, Obama is a relative unknown.

No doubt that right now, before real campaigning starts, Hillary has a nice advantage. She's the default choice. But the primary winner will most likely be whoever does the best in the coming months and has the best organizations in not just Iowa and NH but also the Feb 5th states as well. And chances are, that'll be Hill and Obama, since they've got the funds on hand to really set that stuff up, and Obama especially has the manpower behind him too.

Setting up to be quite the race.

Thanks for clarifying.

So why have Edwards and others not gotten more traction from their desire to "cut and run?" Richardson has even made a Pat Paulsen-like pledge to end the occupation nearly immediately after being elected.

Because the media is godawful? Because the Republicans have awakened to the fact that their constituents want to cut'n'run too? Because it's easier to write about immigration battles? Because it's easier to analyze Fred Thompson's aftershave and Rudy Giuliani's "born hunter"-ness? Because people don't really want to think about Iraq because it's so depressing? Because reporters are still conditioned to frame things in a wingnut kind of way?

Who knows?

And that's a good point about Obama not being so clear about ending the occupation.

I think you are probably right about that.

My guess is that Obama would be hurt most should Edwards drop out - that Hillary would get the lion's share of the Edwards voters. It isn't logical but who says it has to be?

Best, Terry