Not for nothing, but last time I checked Clinton was running well ahead in most of the early states too. Iowa is really the only place that's even been looking like a race so far.

I am happy that Obama is bringing the policy issues to Hillary. We need to learn what HRC's positions are.

Obama is ahead in total fundraising dollars by a whopping $12M dollars, the people are clamoring for an alternative to HRC's conventional politics and triangulating. Obama also leads in the number of total donors, unprecedented for an organization that did not exist at the beginning of the year.

Hillary may be trying to wrap this up, but the polls are no measurement of her standing...they are completely fabricated and besides most Americans understand that she needs votes. So, she needs to hold her horses.

Let's see if Hillary knows how to chat or only waffle, bob and weave.

One of the key points in this argument from the Obama campaign seems to have gone right past Hillary supporter "American". Obama has pretty much only been running in Iowa and just getting going in NH. Yet, all we hear are these national poll data. Is it because Hillary supporters are afraid of what's happening where the race is actually engaged?

elrapierwit wrote:

..."the polls are no measurement of [Clinton's] standing...they are completely fabricated...

From what I have been reading over the past year, many (if not most) of the O-Bomb-A cheerleaders on this and other sites subscribe to the same sort of irrational, paranoia as you. Your idea that the polls are "completely fabricated" is just so wacko, you have to wonder. Just remember, when your candidate loses (and he will), you're not allowed to riot.

I like Obama, Edwards and most of the Demcocatic field of presidential candidates. I do not believe, support or would ever vote for Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... period.

With Her Higness Hillary annointed for the Demcoratic nomination, it is time for THINKING Democrats and independents to support a third party candidate. The Democratic party and the Republican party are poised to give us two STATUS QUO candidates. Increasingly it is clearm, FOR REAL CHANAGE the nation MUST electe some one other than Hillary.

Please, please Democrats, dominante a responsible voice and clear forice for change ...Not Hillry

hadenough, you keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel good. Iowa is a tie within the moe in most polls. I actually live in Iowa, so I'll excuse you for being ignorant of the caucusing process but Obama's strength comes also from his being more people's second choice and also from his much superior organization.

What I don't get is how many of Hillary's supporters on line seem to support her just because she's most likely to win. Are you guys that desperate for affirmation? It's a long race and no one is kidding themselves that it's uphill for Obama, but no one said change was easy.

TC at LV, your take on Berger is not supported by the facts. By all accounts Berger is an incompetent buffoon who made a very serious clerical error with classified documents then panicked and tried to cover his tracks. I have no idea why she's taken him on as an adviser given his incompetence and poor judgment, but track record of good judgment doesn't seem that important to her. However, the idea that he was covering something up is a right-wing smear though. It's the kind of thing we're going to hear incessantly if Hillary gets the nomination.

The inevitability mantra from the Hillary supporters energizes me so please continue it.

It is time for voters--no matter what their political affiliation--to vote for change in the primary. It is also a vote for the concept that we are a government of the people--a concept WDC political leaders and pundits are struggling with.

Our voice--Dem, Ind, Rep--has to be heard in this primary. The leaders of both parties apparently have lost their way and we're gonna have to provide a roadmap. Obama can do that. Get the crooks out; shore up the nukes; deal with global warming in a sensible fashion; and get the foreign policy out of the imperilistic rut it's stuck in.

Hadenough:

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "I" is. I don't recall "I" meaning "my administration" or Obama saying he'd met with Dinner Jacket, but why let a little thing like denotation/connotation and veracity get in the way of the Coronation?

And I think I'll pass on Taylor Marsh, seems like she doesn't know the meaning of the word "I" either.

Clearly our children isn't learning....

First, campaigns are about providing the public with the opportunity to know and understand the differences between the candidates. There has been very little of that sort of thing going on in terms of either the Clinton or Obama campaigns until now.

To date, the campaign has taken the path most beneficial to Hillary and the Obama campaign, for reasons unknown, allowed it despite their almost obscene warchest. For whatever reason, Obama's campaign has finally realized that people won't just see him and believe in the magic. If he intends on winning the nomination he will have to fight for it and he'll have to fight her directly. There's no question that the megamillions Obama's camp has collected and will continue to collect allow him to savage Her Ladyship if they choose to do so. Hillary's team would be astoundingly foolish if they weren't worried about the money he has to fuel a major insurgency against her. Desperately will they attempt to keep the inevitability storyline going, but the chance of that lasting is not very good knowing of Obama's substantial resources and also the not insignificant sums the others have raised. Edwards' campaign has raised more at this point than any but Howard Dean's campaign at this point in 04. The field is really awash in funds. It hasn't seemed that way because of the nearly otherworldly amounts Clinton and Obama have raised.

Given the potential firepower Obama can roll out, the campaign now moves into the phase we have all been waiting for. Obama will simply have to go after Her Majesty. He has no choice if he wants to win and... he does. No, he won't have to take any cheap shots, he can do it all on the most legitimate sorts of issues such as her ongoing support for the illegal, immoral war, her support for the attack Iraq resolution, her refusal to take a stand on a myriad of issues, her adoption of the Romney Health Care plan and so on. Hillary's KoolAid Club will cry foul and will talk nonstop about how unfair it is for her to be attacked but what else can they do? She refuses to explain her vague answers to specific questions because she is nothing but a "centrist" aka Republican Lite.

At some point, the Hillary camp will respond and attempt to destroy Obama. Chances are that both will be badly wounded and amidst all the smoke, fire, and commotion there will be a very large opening for one of the other candidates to emerge or perhaps more than one, as sudden but real contenders.

This is going to be interesting to watch.

Finally he's using the oodles of Cash he's been given. What took him so long to start pumping out critcal adverts?

Its becoming clear that the Republican nominee will be Romney. Its a 2 man race with Giuliani and Romney goes ahead every where he advertises. The other Republicans have given up on Iowa. He's a much debater than Clinton; doesn't have her mannerisms and looks "optimistic" as opposed to her "fighting" shtik.

Against Clinton, I would bet on Romney. Democrats would be stuck with another candidate who won't compete outside the states Kerry targeted and Romney has potential to pick off Kerry states. We're in for another Republican president; just be thankful its not lunatic warmonger McCain. Romney by 8% over Clinton.

Gene

Would you care to point to a single poll in any state that Kerry carried, that doesn't show Hillary leading Romney by at least 10 points in a head-to-head matchup?

Find just one. There's a poll tracker at the top right from the headline of this post.

"Keith wrote on October 12, 2007 9:19 PM:
Hadenough:

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "I" is."

Hey keith your comment makes perfect sense. No really, it does. Its not just jibberish. No really, its not.

"Jeremy wrote on October 12, 2007 9:39 PM:
hadenough, Does Hillary agree with Obama that we need to break with the Bush policy of preconditions for talking to countries or not?"

I guess that would depend on what day of the week it is and which handler is clarifying obama's remarks. And if you were really serious you'd know what Hillary has said. fox news managed to figure it out. Anyway here is the link again:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php

No I didn't bother following the link. What did it say. Maybe something like obama is in third place just like I typed in?

You obamavangelists are amazing.

But the pollster aggregate you linked to has Obama in second place in Iowa...

Colonpowwow,

The koolaid is really good isn't it? Wait till you come down and find out about the real world. It's a trip.

Dear Hillary,

Thank you for all the great things you did as First Lady. Now get out of my life.

Sincerely,

80% of the United States.

Jeremy wrote on October 12, 2007 9:39 PM:
"hadenough, Does Hillary agree with Obama that we need to break with the Bush policy of preconditions for talking to countries or not? How about a straight answer."

I'm not hadenough, but I can give you the straight answer.

Let me just say this first:
From reading these posts, some of you are never going to vote for Clinton. Fine.
Those of us who support her, PROUDLY support her.
You need to get over it.
I probably could have been talked into Obama at some point. No way now.
I will not be voting for anyone but Clinton, because I'm just sick of having to defend the frontrunner to her own Party.
Democrats are dumb.

Here's your straight answer, although I will bet a thousand dollars it doesn't shut up the Clinton Haters:

EVERY SINGLE TIME Clinton has been asked about diplomacy, she has said that the US will speak with any nation, any time, with no pre-conditions.

The ONLY TIME she has veered from that answer is when she was asked a SPECIFIC question in July at a debate.

The question was whether SHE would meet with the President of Iraq within her first year in office.
She said no.

This has nothing to do with "pre-conditions."

This has to do with:
(1)a pledge [she would *NOT* pledge...];
(2)POTUS-to-President of Iran level meetings;
(3)within her first year in office.

I'm done caring if any of you vote for Hillary Clinton. But your harping over what you "think" was said vs. what was actually said is blatantly uninformed.

And, I guarantee, this absolutely STRAIGHT answer will NOT satisfy those of you who already hate Hillary Clinton.
So be it.

Bill "Just shut up!" o'leeb

"The koolaid is really good isn't it? Wait till you come down and find out about the real world. It's a trip."

Ooo. Ouch!

I'd write more but my band is headlining at a three-day hippie fest near Bloomington, Indiana, called "Woodhousestock 07".

Talk about tripping! ;-)

Obama said that he would engage them in his first year as POTUS, without precondition. That would be a mistake. Hillary's approach of letting stuff happen at low level before involving the POTUS is the way do do it. But in all honesty, I do not think that Obama would have sat down with Mahmoud in Tehran, Kim in Pyongyang or Hugo in Caracas before low level people had done the leg work.

But that's exactly what Obama did say. The question was over whether he'd be willing to meet with these leaders in his first year, not whether he'd promise to meet with them before initial diplomatic ground work was done.

He said he would be willing to do so in the debate, then when the discussion extended beyond the debate, said he'd obviously have low-level work done in advance of a presidential meeting, but that doesn't stop his willingness from that meeting eventually happening.

Clinton subtly changed the meaning of the question by turning this into some sort of a promise or pledge which really is a distortion of the question that was asked and the question Obama answered.

The two initial answers ("we should be willing to meet with rouge leaders" vs. "we should do a lot of diplomatic groundwork before a meeting of that level takes place") weren't mutually exclusive, and I imagine both candidates are in agreement.

Clinton did insist after the debate (despite what Jan is remembering) that she wouldn't arrange such a high-level meeting without some pre-conditions, for fear of that meeting being used for propaganda purposes, at which time a real difference between the two came out as Obama does not share that same concern and doesn't view the negotiations themselves as a negotiating tool.

Jan,

I don't "hate" Hillary. Unlike you apparently, I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and not vote for the nominee if my guy doesn't win. Hillary and her supporters need to grow up and stop acting like everyone is out to get them. Such a bunker mentality is not going to win support in the general.

Back to the substance. They were asked if they would be willing to meet personally. Obama said he would, then went on to talk about initiating diplomatic efforts first. He's consistently said that he'll break with the Bush policy. Hillary replied that she wouldn't promise, altough she wasn't asked that and Obama didn't promise, then went off the deep end with some bizarre comments about how she was afraid of being used for propaganda.

Now she's saying she doesn't mean "I" by "I". Fine. Even granting that, everything she's said so far indicates to me that she would be willing to meet with these leaders after initiating diplomatic efforts. But that's just what Obama said at the Youtube debate, so I'm still confused. Are you saying that she is absolutely unwilling to meet with them? She could clear up a lot of the confusion she has caused by just admitting she over-reacted.

I personally think Obama's been a lot clearer and stronger in his message on diplomacy. I think I understand now that Hillary is a lot closer to Obama than to Bush, but that wasn't clear at first from the way she lashed out at Obama. In any case, if you disagree please try not to be such a spaz about it.

It seems to me that if anyone was expecting a coronation, it was Barack Obama.

Oh, lord, this diplomatic initiative conversation is twisted up. Here's the difference between the two candidates said.

Hillary said that she would be willing to open a diplomatic track with Iran, and meet without preconditions.

Obama, in the CNN YouTube debate, agreed that he, personally, would be willing to commit to meet with Ahmajinedad (whatever) personally within the first year of his administration without preconditions.

Nothing about opening a diplomatic track suggests the president is going to be sitting down at the table - in fact, it suggests just the opposite. Obama, quite naively, agreed that he would be willing to meet personally and without preconditions. The answer was stupid enough that after a week of the press discussing whether he was to naive to president (evidence it was a bad answer from the get go), he gave the bellicose speech that incited riots in Pakistan and earned him the honor of being burned in effigy alongside Tom Tancredo.

It was a dumb answer that probably should have disqualified him from the nomination in most people's minds. I find it bizarre in the extreme that his ham-fisted campaign is bringing up the event that knocked his popularity down several points.

Obama's not going anywhere. With the kind of enthusiasm, press attention and money he has, if he really had the capability of winning, he'd be in first place now.

The last two times he criticized Hillary his poll numbers fell. I wonder if they will this time too?

And Corinne - yes, you're right. Obama was expecting a coronation. That's what so damn creepy about the guy and his supporters. It's one big narcissistic clusterfuck as far as I can tell.

Why is it you have to lie all the time lorelynn? Again, Hillary and her supporters seem to have the misguided notion that mimicing Bush and the Republican Noise Machine is the same as defeating them. It isn't. It just makes you no different from them.

As has been repeated over and over again, the question wasn't about pledging to meet them, it was about being open to meeting them.

Lorelynn,

You wrote:

"Hillary said that she would be willing to open a diplomatic track with Iran, and meet without preconditions.

Obama, in the CNN YouTube debate, agreed that he, personally, would be willing to commit to meet with Ahmajinedad (whatever) personally within the first year of his administration without preconditions. "

Please get your facts straight. Obama did not agree he would be willing to meet with any specific leader, in that debate. No leader or country was named in the question. It was Hillary who threw out names of countries and leaders in her rebuttal and retort when she resorted to obfuscating the question by twisting it to what she would 'not promise' even though that was not asked of her.

Go watch the YouTube debate again. This time pay attention to the question and to Obama's answer as well as to what Hillary said.

Obama gave an answer that any strong leader of a strong nation would give. He did not equivocate he did not hestitate out of some fear to negotiate as if this country was too weak to withstand feeble propaganistic attempts by rogue nations.

Hillary however practically wet her pants and her knees were knocking at the very idea that once again she might be used for propaganda like when she kissed Arafat's wife. Hillary is terrified to lead with courage and conviction because she has a track record of poor judgment. She lacks the principle character to lead with confidence and courage with the convictions that made America a superpower. She cowers instead in abject horror that someone might use her stance against her. So, she equivocates and weasels. Her mind was paralayzed with fear because the debate question began by mentioning Israel and that triggered a red flag danger signal to Hilary which is why she answered about 'not promising'..she completely twisted the substance of the answer so as to affirm AIPAC supporters. She was having a deja vu 'kissing Arafat wife traumatic stress syndrome' and blew the question. Having blown the question she went on the attack and made it a huge issue by bringing out Albright her foreign policy big dog the next day to continue the attack. Yes, that Hillary is a fighter. The problem is that Hillary is also follower and there is not one single issue her supporters can point to where she successfully advocated for any policy or issue that was controversial. Hillary lacks the will and guts to lead. She is speaking out against Iran now because AIPAC supported that Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Hillary is a fighter and brawler not a leader. Notice, whenever Obama challenges her on the issue..she fights and attacks and never once addresses the substance of the issue. She NEVER answers the question, which is why this thread is filled with posts of people arguing about what she 'actually meant' vs. 'what she said'. When she speaks she equivocates leaving wiggle room to contort the answer whichever way the polls show is prevailing. The polls show that Obama won the foreign policy dustup. So here Hillary comes again, this time trying to blur the lines of distinction.

This country needs a leader not a fighter. We especially do not need a fighter that has never won anything for the good of the country, who has not prevailed on policy or clear communicting her stance on the issues. That oft-repeated mantra of her being able to beat the vaunted right wing machine is a myth. Not one single supporter can point to anything Hillary has done to beat that machine. Hillary has not once beat the right wing machine what she has done is survive not thrive as an political individual as she has FAILED to successfully pass any legislation or policies that were beneficial to Americans. She is too busy brawling to realize she has no outcomes that..she wins battles only to lose the war over and over and over.

I am not interested in Hillary's self promotion and fighting prowess as a substitute for political success at the expense of this country having universal healthcare, social security and the diplomatic ablity to negotiate forcefully to secure the peace globally so our sons and daughters to not have to lose their lives due to her incredibly poor judgment to vote once again to give this President the power to go to war in yet another country.

There is nothing you nor any other Hillary supporter can show where this woman has done anything of a productive nature for the common good of this country. I don't need her fighting ability that helps her politically. I want our nation to THRIVE not survive constant political attacks for her to reign politically at our expense.

I need and want a leader for this nation and Hillary simply is not it.

elrapierwit, I think your post makes a fundamental point. Hillary talks about her experience in completely abstract terms. She never talks about how it has informed her judgment on the most important decisions she's made. She never talks about how her experience has yielded concrete accomplishments. When Obama talks about his experience it is much more concrete. He talks about how it informs his judgment, and he talks about how he has actually achieved change on gridlocked issues, as he has done in both Springfield and DC.

In many ways Clinton has won the first phase of this campaign by using an abstract notion of experience to frame Obama. Now, voters will get to hear Obama's concrete rebuttal. So far, the Clinton strategy for dealing with that rebuttal looks like "nyah, nyah, nyah, we're winning". It reminds me of when the visitor gets on a role in the third quarter and the home crowd chants "scoreboard, scoreboard". A major open question about whether Obama can win the next round is whether the media buys into the abstract narrative or actually goes into the concrete details to help voters make an evidence-based judgment. Time will tell.

Obama did not agree he would be willing to meet with any specific leader, in that debate. No leader or country was named in the question.

I'm not so sure that's actually true. The exact question was this:

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama said that, yes, he would be willing to meet with these leaders in his first year. He didn't pledge he would, or promise, and he didn't indicate he would do so without first initiating lower-level diplomatic discussions; he simply noted he'd be open to such a meeting with these leaders. (Whether the "you" in the question (and the "I" in his response) was comparable to the "I" meaning "my administration" Hillary utilized the other day is open to debate.)

But indicating an openness to an Anward Sadat-esque meeting is not an outlandish stance, or a naive stance, and shouldn't "have disqualified him from the nomination" as strangely stated above.

It also doesn't indicate some sort of "complete lack of credibility." Obama has the support and admiration of a number of important foreign policy hands (Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski) and has a number of significant foreign policy accomplishments in the Senate, having worked closely with Richard Lugar, about as big a foreign-policy bigwig you can get. The guy's credibility is intact.

The way in which an administration will conduct high-level diplomacy is certainly an important issue to debate and discuss, but Obama's openness to high-level meetings with rogue leaders is in no way patently absurd and/or out of line.

Thanks Dave for the correction.
I recalled that he did not name any leaders. Hillary did all the name calling, saying who she would not meet with Chavez...etc.

Thanks again for the clarification. My error.

Jeremy,

You're confused because you're listening to idiots. The president opening up a diplomatic track without preconditions is a totally reasonable and responsible thing to do. The State Department hooks up with the other nation's diplomatic office, and everybody begins to figure out what the issues are. Good deal. Let the State Department begin the talks without preconditions. Figure out what issues can be resolved. Bring the president in to seal the deal.

But a presidential candiate agreeing that he would be willing personally to meet without preconditions within the first year of his administration is neither productive nor savvy.

The fact that Obama supporters find this confusing is probably all the evidence we need that neither he nor his supporters are firing on all cylinders.

BTW, this is a terrible issue for Obama. He fucked up. Badly. No amount of obfuscation is going to hide what is on YouTube for the world to see. Obama's statement was to his willingness to personally meet with people. Clinton's statements were to the need to open up a diplomatic dialogue. Two different things. The entire world can see that except for Obama supporters. Weird. I have had enough of the narcissistic otherworldliness - I sure as hell don't want a Democratic president who thinks he can create his own reality. I've had enough of that shit.

El Rapier Wit -

Obama hasn't done much. He's been in the Senate for three years. He hasn't done much while he was there. I don't give a flying fuck, and neither does the rest of America, about his six years as PTA president or whatever it is you're going on about. And rare acumen? LOL He gave a fairly standard assessment of what the risks were. There's was nothing insightful or groundbreaking in his assessment. In fact, it's not far off one I posted on DU years ago, and i did it before Obama began blathering. Nice to know I have "rare acumen".

You just can't get around it. It's nice that he was law professor - Hillary was a law professor as well. It's nice he was community organizer - Hillary did some of that too. It's nice he worked on children's health insurance - the SCHIP program exists to a large degree because of Hillary's work on the healthcare front and the support she provided to Kennedy. And it goes on from there. There is no life experience he has, that she doesn't have as well - save being editor of a law review decades ago. There is, however, a huge level of both professional and life experience she has, that he doesn't. That's what you guys can't get around.

He himself said he had no idea how he would vote had been in the Senate. I haven't seen any particular level of integrity coming out of the guy, so I don't know how he would have voted either. History suggests there's a possibility he wouldn't have shown up to vote. He does miss three times as many votes as Clinton does - ultimately, he just isn't willing to work as hard as she is.

Both times Obama criticized Clinton his poll numbers fell. I doubt they can fall much more. Obama whines and the nation turns a deaf ear. Obama thunders and we snicker. You may see the second coming of Bobby Kennedy but I see a dull-witted, somewhat uncouth, cynical politician who cannot actually manage to appeal to many people over 30. He's going to get clobbered in this election, and leave with very high unfavorables. It'll be interesting to see if he has the intestinal fortitude for the long trip back to credibility. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't run for the Senate again, and elects to become a lobbyist. There's something he'd actually be good at.

What the zombie followers of Lady Triangula don't seem to understand is this: People simply don't like Hillary Clinton.

Many don't like her because they're sexist, or hate the persona that the right wing has hung upon her; others of us don't like her in large part because that persona isn't real and because she's nearly as sanctimonious and imperious as the Current Occupant.

Millions in the middle perceive, clearly or dimly, that she practices the same vapid, substance-free politics as the Bushes. Check out how every Hillary spokeshill includes the phrase "strength and experience" in every one of their poll-tested statements, and hearken back to 2000 when every Bush spokeshill similarly deployed "compassionate conservatism" and/or "reformer with results."

Like Shrubya, Lady T has an authoritarian personality, brooks no dissent or disagreement, and takes an extremely expansive view of executive branch power. Certainly, she's vastly more intelligent, probably more competent (faint praise), and more likely to appoint a mix of cronies and people with expertise and management skills, rather than all cronies.

But we should want better, and frankly after decades of Bush/Clinton rule, we need much better.

More to the point from the perspective of Democrats, if Sen. Clinton is the nominee, there will be a third-party candidate with the basic profile of Bloomberg (socially progressive, fiscally moderate, mildly hawkish on foreign policy). And that candidate will draw more from the left/center coalition than the right, and you'll wind up with President Mitt.

The only thing I can remember Lady Triangula doing in the Senate was killing our best chance at reauthorizing welfare reform a few years ago, when a "tripartisan" (it included Jeffords) group of Senators came up with a possibly acceptable plan that Sen. Clinton shot down in favor of harsher measures--presumably using the same keen and "principled" political judgment that impelled her to support the AUMF.

As it happened, DeLay got to stealth-reauthorize welfare reform in the Omnibus Budget Agreement of February 2006, and the policy is now more draconian and reactionary than it was before. You go, girl!

Like I have said multiple times:

"Hillary Clinton cannot be nominated. She can only be coronated."

It's as simple as that.

Queen Hillary can't be nominated, she can only be coronated.

Even if she is the nominee, she was coronated.

Hillary is everywhere. She's in running well in all the states, she campaigning everywhere, she's in the lead and she's picking up support.

Hillary's running a great campaign, but that's a different question from whether or not she'd make the best president.

Bloomberg:

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Richard Durbin predicted that Barack Obama will use a victory in the Iowa caucuses as a ``springboard'' to win the Democratic presidential nomination...[However,] Durbin, 62, said Obama was wrong to upbraid Clinton for her Sept. 26 vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a nonbinding resolution that Durbin also supported.

While Clinton leads Obama by more than 20 points in national polls, a Sept. 29 Newsweek poll shows [Obama] ahead with 28 percent to Clinton's 24 percent among likely Democratic caucus voters in Iowa. Other polls show Clinton slightly ahead in Iowa.

Obama is running ``second to Senator Clinton, who has run a masterful campaign, "yet he brings to the race something we've never seen in presidential politics in almost 40 years," Durbin said. "He not only has more contributors than any other presidential candidate by a factor of two or three, he also has raised as much money as the former first lady and senator from New York."

Durbin said Obama is in a "strong position" to win the presidential nomination and "Iowa is gong to be the springboard for that. On the ground, he has the best operation in Iowa by far," Durbin said.

anon pedant wrote on October 13, 2007 4:11 PM: Guys ... there's no such verb as "coronate." Try "crown." Thank you. Back to my pedantic hole...

Not our fight, not our hole. But tell that to Hahvahd:

Coronated (a.) Having or wearing a crown.
Coronated (a.) Having the coronal feathers lengthened or otherwise distinguished; -- said of birds.
Coronated (a.) Girt about the spire with a row of tubercles or spines; -- said of spiral shells.
Coronated (a.) Having a crest or a crownlike appendage.

Or The Columbia Guide to Standard American English on irregular common back-formations:

coronate (v.) is a Nonstandard back-formation from the noun coronation, perhaps coined first as a jocular nonce word. The Standard verb is to crown or to be crowned, and the usual idiom is to have a coronation.

In other political news this week-end (since TPM is not covering anythiing today!), are Democrats on the verge of losing a House seat this Tuesday in blue Massachusetts?

Its over! its all over everyone! Barack has won it all.
A poll on people with cell phones gave Obama 68%. WOW! Hey bring it on.

We have won, we have won, thank god Americans have seen it all.

Let the parade begin its all over! national polls are wrong again this coming election.

ERW, do you have any links for HRC's failure to pass the bar? That strikes me as very unlikely, and she must have passed at some time given her practice in Arkansas. Also, I'm deeply puzzled by your reference to a profound difference between law professors and constitutional law scholars. Care to explain? Most ConLaw scholars I know ARE law professors. There are plenty of legit differences between Obama and HRC, but trying to distinguish between them on the basis of their lawyerly merits really seems like a stretch too far.

hadenough,

Another poster covered this issue, so I will just note that currently pollster's chart for Iowa has Clinton at 27.3%, Obama at 22.6%, and Edwards at 21.6%.

Again, though, the more important point is that history teaches us that polls this far out (and indeed anything but a few days out) are not strongly predictive of the final outcome.

Atty,

My point is that if you know and understand constitutional law, it was a violation of the constitution to vote to abdicate Congresses' authority to wage war when Hillary voted for the AUMF.

Obama said at the time of the vote, that it would give carte blanche authority to the President to wage war.

Which means that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Obama underSTOOD that as a constitutional scholar, he knew what the vote meant. Hillary claims she voted for diplomacy...see the difference?

While a law professor can teach different areas of law, the point was that Obama is a scholar and teacher of Constitutional Law. So whatever Hillary taught, and that has yet to be verified, she clearly does not understand the US Constitution nor the power granted each branch of government within it such that when it comes to taking this country to war; she abdicated her duty to uphold the US Constitution as a US Senator with that vote.

The assertion that she failed to understand our constitution and system of laws governing our democracy point is further buttressed by noting she failed the bar despite graduating from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, Yale. But then you see DC has one of the most rigorous bar exams in the nation....and was stated as a direct counterpoint to Anon, flippancy of "so what if Obama was President of Harvard's Law Review decades ago". I wanted to make the distinction of what those achievements meant, in terms of real world decision making..i.e. judgment

You see, Hillary despite being a 'professor of law' does not know or understand the law...she could not pass the bar and she voted for the AUMF which was UNConstitutional and further demonstrates her lack of understanding of the law and poor judgment.

The experience Hillary has cannot be relied on. Right now, she claims not to understand Iran, perhaps that is because her foreign policy advisors don't understand Iran after all they were the same experts who supported going to war with Iraq...when Barack Obama knew that it was a dumb war, knew that it was the wrong battlefield and knew that it would result in a civil war and being bogged down with undeterminded consequences, for an undeterminded length of time and at undeterminded costs.

Obama knew that without the advice of the so called experts Hillary is relying on and who today do not know enough about Iran to inform her on that. Hillary Clinton as the nominee would be deja vu Iraq all over again as she is listening to the same experienced experts that have been demonstrated to be exceptionally wrong and resulted in the biggest foreign policy debacle in the history of America.

So distinguishing between Obama and HRClinton on the basis of who knows the law is extremely important. We need a President who understands the Constitution and when it is time to make a call who will abides by it as a governing document. Hillary did not even do that as a Senator.

We do not need another 'unitary executive' like Bush who has little regard for the Constitution which is what HRClinton would be. Her AUMF vote demonstrates that, right along with her Kyl-Lieberman vote which shows she doesn't learn from mistakes.

While elrapierwit and DonnaG go on riffing on the Peggy Noonan talking points article for Week Two now - you know Obama's experience vs. Hillary's non-experience - all the polls continue to show that the Democratic voters and the entire nation aren't buying it - everybody knows she's the most experienced candidate, both personally and professionally. So keep up the good work, it really seems to be gaining traction.

Anyhow, as if it makes any difference to the two of you while you're experiencing snore-gasms together over debunking some Hilary law school professor credential made up by some poster here - here's just one fact that wasn't even made up.

While she didn't make or edit Law Review, she was, indeed, the very first student ever chosen by her classmates at Wesleyan to give a commencement speech at their graduation. No leadership potential shown in any way with that fact - move along.

I guess since Obama was never chosen to give a commencement speech, that Hillary is a zillion times more of a prestigious student than anybody, and especially Barry.

Honestly, you two nit(wit)pickers just crack me up sometimes.

everybody knows she's the most experienced candidate, both personally and professionally.

Hillary Clinton has a lot of experience in Washington, Politics and Law (mainly in a non-elected capacity), but it's the lack of accomplishments throughout those experiences that do not give me faith she will make an effective president.

That long list of experiences everybody knows about includes two just about unforgivable offenses--voting to authorize the Iraq War and loosing Universal Health care for nearly a generation due to inexcusable mismanagement.

Nothing she has accomplished thus far gives me faith in her abilities to lead.

NCSteve

Can I add a couple more things to your list of "fairly (sorta?) distinguished" career accomplishments as a lawyer?

At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor.

While at Rose Law firm, she served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop.

Finally, I'd just like to mention the fairly (sorta) impressive fact that she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession.

I should have said, "everybody in America but Dave and the small and shrinking minority of Democrats who support Obama and Edwards know she's the most experienced . . ."

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Don't be a jerk, we're talking about real issues. The constant sarcasm is a waste of time and an insult to the process.

I don't doubt Hillary's record of experience, but she doesn't have the record of accomplishment necessary to prove to me her abilities as a leader.

Being ahead in the polls doesn't really prove anything substantive. In late 2002 more Americans supported the Iraq war than currently support Hillary Clinton for President. That doesn't mean they were right.

Not wanting to be a "sarcastic jerk," let me respectfully disagree on the real issue of your post. Being ahead in every relevant poll carries the substantive point of Hillary being the most likely to win.

I see this argument a lot and I really don't understand it. What does Hillary being the most likely to win, or having the highest national poll numbers, have to do with her being the best candidate for President? Isn't that what were supposed to be determining throughout the primary?

Hillary has run a great campaign with very few mistakes, scoring well in polls despite what many predicted to be troublesome negatives. The problem is, GWBush did the same thing in 2004, and that doesn't mean he went on to have a great presidential term (clearly).

Running a great campaign and being the most likely to win in no way indicates you'll be the best president. I don't look at poll numbers and see evidence of Clinton's abilities as potential president.

Do you?

colonpowwow has effectively admitted in the past that he or she is not interested in a serious discussion, so I am not sure why anyone is bothering conversing with him or her.

But I would just note, once again, that polls at this point simply are not strongly predictive of final outcomes (as many who have enjoyed Clinton's position in the past have found out). That doesn't make them meaningless, but that does imply they mean something different than what people tend to suggest. Indeed, roughly speaking, at this stage they are more indicative of who people think is likely to win, rather than of who is actually likely to win. And that may sound like a subtle distinction, but it is a crucial one, because history teaches that the polls can change rapidly once the actual events come near.

DTM said:

"colonpowwow has effectively admitted in the past that he or she is not interested in a serious discussion . . . "

Well, thanks so much for addressing me and thus engaging me in your serious discussion.

Now in response to the serious part of your post:

Re your last paragraph which I would characterize as a most subtle distinction is search of a deal-making difference, try applying Ockham's Razor to the polls, add the margin of error, and you'll likely come to the same conclusion that most objective poll readers do.

Dave said:

"Why are you so fixated on her inevitability rather than her abilities?"

The fact of her so-called invincibility is a (cynical if you wish) tribute to her abilities within the political arena that exists in 2007. Surely that connection isn't hard to make. She has the political clout to get things done in Washington and that, along with a mandate from the voters, will make her the strongest and best president.

Sorry about the "closed mind" comment. I was wrong and I apologize.

Colonpowpow writes:
"At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor.
While at Rose Law firm, she served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop.
Finally, I'd just like to mention the fairly (sorta) impressive fact that she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession."

Colon while you respectfully pointed to these appointments and seats on Boards I would like to stress that when it comes to experience and personal achievements these simply do not measure up. You cannot earn these posts and appointments on merit and accomplishment they are political appointments...anyone who has the right political connections gets them. Which accounts for Hillary being as young as she was when Carter appointed her...that was nothing but sheer political leverage. These appointments also underscore how Hillary has not ever been in a leadership role. She is a politician. It also accounts for why she is unable to speak with truth and conviction due to constantly weaseling and positioning herself for whom or what political interest she owes a favor to. She has been a lifetime politician living off the tax dollars of working class citizens since she left Yale.

This is in contrast to someone who has spent their entire lives dedicated to the common good of average citizens. Who did not sell out to the corporate money machine. That is the huge difference in their experience and in particular their personal accomplishments.

Hillary's is nothing but political gravy. Courtesy of Bill just like her standing in the polls. If she had not been First Lady no one would even know who she was and for certain her resume compared to Barack and John Edwards is extremely light on personal achievement. This is shown by her inability to pass the DC law boards. She is not an accomplished lawyer at all. Even her standing as partner in the Rose Law firm was due to her bringing in clients who wanted and sought Bill's patronage not due to her own talents. That's why she does not rate as someone who would make a good President.

Dave is right especially when he counters your position about Hillary's standing in the polls. Even James Caraville says the polls are meaningless at this point. What you seem to gloss over is that the entire Presidential nomination is a state by state process. None of the candidates are campaigning nationally, they are engaged in individual state primary campaigning. So for Hillary to be leading in the polls says absolutely zilch about her ability to win. No one is even familiar with the other candidates to a degree to select them whereas they all are familiar with Hillary due to her stint as First Lady. Her lead in the national polls is name recognition only. The same goes for any state where the candidates are not actively campaigning. It is easy to be in the lead if you are the only dog in the race known nationally.

In short, it is a specious argument for you to assert that leading in national polls is indicative of electability or even greater probability of winning ..it simply isn't.

Atty,

Help me understand what you mean by Hillary's subsequent legal career displaces concern for her inability to pass the DC bar dispite, as you noted, being a graduate of the most prestigious legal institution in the country?

What is it about her legal career that you deem impressive sufficient to minimize her inability to pass the bar and her actions and votes indicative of a failure to understand the US Constitution?

My thinking is that these are key points which underscore how Hillary is a politician above all else. Her legal career is dubious, she made money and became partner due to Bill. Just as she sat on corporate boards due to her political connections and today is able to rack up Democratic endorsements for the exact same reason.

I am uncertain what makes you believe that Hillary is accomplished in any sense, when it comes to a legal career. Looking at her professional record I find that assertion lacks merit.

Particularly, in contrast to Edwards and Obama who basically both have established their legal stature by personal achievement and hard work as oppose to being politically connected. Edwards is an outstanding trial lawyer and we see that skill often in debates when he makes clear contrasts between his and Hillary's positions.

I think it is unfair to both Obama and Edwards for Hillary to even be considered as their peers professionally when she has done nothing but capitalize off of being Mrs. Clinton professionally her entire career. Hillary is the quintessential affirmative action candidate if there ever was one. She has no elected political experience at leading or advocating successfully for any policies or issues. She lacks the know how that comes from working with others to come to a common agreement. When I look at Hillary's career what I see is a woman who has consistently used political connections and power to move ahead vs. her own talents. Hillary is an individual who confuses political power with leadership.

As long as she has the political clout she will clobber anyone she can into submission but she is not a leader able to galvanize people into action, nor build or mold consensus when dealing with divergent views. Hillary is a powermongerer and she is a warmongerer, in addition she is female and has demonstrated consistently that means where she stands on issues is capricious and at her whim based on the polls.

Nothing in her background indicates that she will be a good President or that she has the executive skill to manage the massive complex organization of the executive branch. Hillary in fact is frightening given her lack of achievement. Her stauchest supporters cannot point to any thing she has done in a leadership role. Even her biggest failure at leadership to drive universal health care was a political assignment based on her being Mrs. Clinton. This women has earned very little professional on professional merit.

If she should become the nominee or President (heaven forbid) she will most likely go down in history as the most uncompromising President ever in US history...she will be second only to GWBush whose incompetence was intentional. Hillary's will be about power and wielding it globally and domestically to tie America up in war inperpetuity.

elrapierwit:

A couple of followups, if you'd be so kind.

I noted that Hillary CHAIRED the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.

You answered that this underscores how Hillary has never been in a leadership role.

Please explain.

You state that board appointments to national children's organizations are "political appointments."

Serving on a couple of boards myself (including an analagous one, a food pantry that serves a lot of children in my community), I know that board members are generally recruited by other board members on the basis of merit or usefulness (a financial person for a financial opening etc.). For example, I work for a food brokerage and I'm a noted fundraiser as well, so I was recruited by a local judge who sits on the board when an opening arose.

Politcal appointment as you claim or merit-based recruitment as is my experience?

Thanks.

This is why I have such a hard time "discussing" facts with Hillary-haters. If factual information doesn't mesh with their preconceived notion about her, they pull some disclaimer out of their orifice and dismiss it or mischaracterize it.

stlounick

I don't often agree with you, especially on Hillary-related things, but your post is well-stated. (It still doesn't address why some on here insist on mischaracterizing or denigrating Hillary's considerable accommplishments and experience, but anyway . . . )

Obama is a fine man with considerable accomplishments and experience himself. After I heard him speak when he was running for Illinois Senator, I knew that he was a leader and would someday make an excellent president. If he happens to come from behind and defeat my candidate, I will work like the devil with my local Democratic Party office to see that he's elected.

This time around though, I happen to prefer Hillary for what I also think are excellent and sound reasons.

Obama in 2016!

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Cass Sunstein (one of the top professors at Chicago, or anywhere for that matter) reported on the Chicago Law faculty blog that the faculty had asked Obama several times to join them full time.

DTM

thanks for that feedback on the designation of Senior Lecturer. It was helpful.

Colonpowwow

Maybe the best way to do this is to ask why you believe chairing a commission on "Women in the Profession" IS a leadership role?

I am interested in an individual who has worked for the common good when it comes to policies that impact American lives, such as healthcare, education, employment, labor relations, civil rights.etc.

Leadership to me means that person took a stand and advocated for that issue, succesfully. Now, by virtue of Hillary's national stint as First Lady that should have been relatively easy to do. Similar to how Bill now has the Global Initiative project. Hillary has not stood up and made a stand for anything,though. What is her 'signature issue/project''? We should all have that right on the tip of our tongues if there was such a thing. She had the political stature to take on a leadership role, galvanize others into action, create colloborative working teams and bring people to work together to accomplish a task SUCCESSFULLY.

What can you as her supporter point to in that vein?

For instance, Hillary had the chance to stand up and oppose the war. She would have received far more media attention and acclaim than Barack if she had stood up against the war in Iraq in 2002. Hillary had the ability to make it an issue and take a leadership role in the Senate. Why did she fail to do so? Could it be because of the polls at the time? Leaders stand up for what is right not what is popular, you see.

On two of the most crucial issues of our times Hillary has failed to lead. She failed when it came to the war and healthcare. With healthcare the polls were with her. Even so, Hillary was unable to achieve anything for the American people. Hillary, instead set the issue back for an entire decade. So, what her track record says is that if the polls are not with her..she will not stand up and advocate for what is right and if the polls are with her then she lacks the executive and collaborative skills to achieve anything collectively where there are divergent views. All of which are attributes of people who lack good judgment and fail to build trust and confidence in the majority so that they will follow you. i.e. not a leader

Hillary now says that she is once again voting for diplomacy by giving Bush the power to wage war with Iran with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...afterall...that amendment makes the troop strength in Iraq dependent upon what is going on in Iran. Which means that America cannot pull down troops in Iraq as long as we are involved in any conflict with Iran.

Bush has already said he is not leaving Iraq, so what is his best route to ensuring more troops for Iraq? Based on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment it is to create conflict in Iran as the SENATE has approved that pre-condition as a fundamental basis for maintaing troops in Iraq.

Hillary voted for this...she claims it was 'robust diplomacy' I see continued lack of leadership and poor judgment. Same mistakes being repeated.

Even Biden and Dodd did not vote for this amendment.

So, I ask you colonpowpow, when, how and on what issue has Hillary been a leader?

BTW, Hillary has a track record of simply saying and doing whatever is the dominant view according to polls. When she ran for her first term as Senator in NY, right after Gore loss, and the issue was the electoral college...one of Hillary's primary campaign pledges was that she would introduce an amendment to abolish the electoral college as soon as she was elected Senator. Of course, the electoral college was a real hot button at the time as Gore had won the popular vote.

Now, I ask you colonpowpow, can you find anywhere during her first term where the newly elected junior Senator from NY EVER introduced any legislation, bill or policy to amend the constitution and abolish the electoral college?

Hillary talks a good game but she does not walk the walk. Hillary fights well too and she can spin an issue faster than a weather vane in a hurricane but when it comes to actually accomplishing something and leading on the issues. Hillary comes up short time and time again. I do not want an ex-President for First Lady and I do not want a fighter as President. I want a leader and someone with the ability to motivate the citizens of this country to stand up and take their country back as our democracy allows us to.

Bottomline...leadership is about people being willing to follow you. In order for people to follow you they have to know where you stand, that you will support them in the trenches and that they can have trust you and have confidence in your judgment. Those are the traits that leaders possess and that is why people are willing to follow them. Clarity on the issues, constancy and consistency plus being right the first time all add up to good judgment and strong leadership.i.e. the judgment to lead

Can you as a strong supporter point to where Hillary has demonstrated strong leadership and achieved the goals?.