Re your headline:

"Hillary Still Ahead" is implicit in "Tightening NH Race."

Tacking that phrase on the end comes off as whiny and defensive -- the words of someone who is protesting just a little too much.

Of course, the message of the headline is that even Clinton's strongest supporters have to concede that she is losing ground in New Hampshire.

And the subtext of the nose-thumbing addenda -- for what else is "Hillary Still Ahead" but an editorial "NYEH NYEH nyeh NYEH NYEH"? -- is the nascent fear in Clinton's ranks that her own chances of having to concede this whole thing in a few months just went up significantly.

I understand it's easy and/or fun to claim Hillary Clinton is being pushed on the country by the corporate media. Unfortunately, there is only one candidate on either side of the aisle who that can legitimately be said about and it's not Hillary Clinton.

Normally, this would not be a big deal, but so many here like to talk about the so-called "reality-based community". We shouldn't pick and chose which reality we want to accept. And when the facts prove us wrong, we shouldn't stick by our false preconceived notions. It's almost impossible to conclude in any reasonable way that the media or blogs in general are trying to end the election. As the chart above so clearly demonstrates, it's as if they are trying to force this election to be closer than it otherwise would be.

What chart above? The poll results?

By eliminating coverage of candidates, you're making it a better horse race? Elections aren't horse races. They are about what the country should do for the next 4 years, as decided by the people, not big media and their owners. To only discuss the evasive answers of 'front-runners' and ignore the often brilliant ideas of the other candidates is to damn this country to the mediocre servants of the rich.

Moving up? What are you guys playing fantasy elections? Wait for the votes.

Any Democrat will beat any Republican, right now. As long as they don't prematurely surrender. Why chose a Republican in Democratic clothing like Clinton?

Gore is a Republican just like Bush. Yep. Those folks were so, so right.

gqmartinez,

First, as of the time you linked it, pollster had not yet included the latest Marist and UNH polls in its NH regression.

Second, compared to the prior versions of the same polls, we get:

Marist: Clinton -5, Obama +5, Edwards +2

UNH: Clinton -8, Obama +1, Edwards +3

Rasmussen: Clinton -4, Obama +2, Edwards +1

So it is true that on average, not all of Clinton's losses have been Obama's gains (which makes sense, since Obama is not in fact every Clinton voter's second choice). But Obama is actually up more on average in these polls than Edwards, so I don't quite understand why you think he has been the greater beneficiary.

In the end, though, I actually don't think any of this matters much, because these polls are likely to get more volatile, and the polls in NH in particular are likely to be affected by the results in Iowa. I was just setting the record straight (Obama in fact has been steadily gaining in NH, a trend which actually started well before now).

nyla wrote on November 11, 2007 8:23 PM:
"Any Democrat will beat any Republican, right now. As long as they don't prematurely surrender. Why chose a Republican in Democratic clothing like Clinton?"

So, which Republican would you point to who shares Hillary's 95%-plus progressive rating re their Senate voting record from the ADA? The only candidate I know who shares this rating is Obama.

To see who is actually the Republican in Democratic clothing, why don't we look at some head-to-head Senate voting records. Then come back and say again who's the "Republican in Democratic clothing."

Again, here are the comparisons for the times when Hillary and Edwards disagreed on their votes when they were in the Senate together. Please read and come back and say again who's the "Republican-Lite" candidate.

Although they mostly voted together in concert with most other Democrats, there were some times that they disagreed on certain issues – especially some issues related to helping working families, education, and campaign reform. Let’s look at nearly all of those times – sorry this makes for a long post.

From the Senate voting record:

Senator Edwards voted YES on the 2000 Bankruptcy Act (along with the Republican majority). Senator Hillary Clinton had not been elected yet, but it’s a bill that Bill Clinton vetoed as being “too harsh on America’s poor and middle class families.” It was a precursor to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act (that Edwards also voted YES on).

On the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have exempted those made bankrupt due to excessive medical bills, Senator Edwards voted NO along with all Senate Republicans. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and, of course, Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s Amendment to 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have recalculated the definition of monthly income to the advantage of poor and middle class families, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s 2001 campaign reform Amendment closing the loopholes for allowing for 527 group political TV ads. Ironically, since passage would have prevented the Swift Boaters in 2004, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES on this Amendment.

On Senator Kerry’s amendment that would have provided 2:1 matching funds to Senate campaigns of up to $200, encouraging small donors like most of us are and increasing our contribution power, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES.

Senator Bingaman offered an amendment that would have banned phony negative “attack ads” by requiring that vehicles that ran such ads would have to allow response time. Senator Edwards voted to table this amendment along with nearly every Republican. Senator Clinton voted along with most other liberal Democrats to further this amendment. (It was tabled, that is, killed).

On the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.

On Senator Bob Graham’s amendment to this tax cut bill which would have decreased the lower marginal rates for poor and middle class taxpayers, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and 29 other Democrats.

Senator Feinstein motioned to send the tax cut bill back to the Finance Committee with orders to spread the Estate Tax exemption cuts more fairly. Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone.

Senator Wellstone presented an Amendment to No Child Left Behind to prevent it from being an “unfunded mandate.” Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with 30 other liberal Democrats.

Of course we know the famous Iraq War authorization vote where both Hillary and John agreed with and voted with the Republicans (and many other Democrats for that matter). I just thought you might be interested in a few of the votes where they disagreed on the record – not just from the sidelines where Edwards likes to sit and carp.

The cliché is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These are the facts from the Senate voting records.

John Edwards and his supporters claim that he is the progressive and that Hillary represents the status quo or is just a milder version of a Republican. Read these facts about their head-to-head voting records and be enlightened as to who stood most often with the Republicans and who voted most often with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s really no contest. Hillary has a 95%-plus lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.

The (non)response so far from a few Edwards supporters who have attempted to “refute the facts” (as Sean Hannity might put it), is that these were meaningless votes by a do-nothing Congress that would have been vetoed anyway, or the like. Sorry – not a good non-answer-answer. If this legislation was “meaningless,” the question gets even bigger, that is, why did Edwards consistently vote with the Republicans against Hillary and the rest of the liberal Democrats on all of these progressive proposals?

Again, now that John Edwards stands safely outside the Senate record, he finds it easy to take potshots at Senator Hillary. Oh well, that’s not really so hard to understand - seeing how he opposed her (and most other liberal progressive Dems) quite often when he was the Senator from North Carolina.