The Des Moines Register posted a devastating cartoon against Clinton today on its FRONT PAGE! This could frame the race in the last month exactly in the way Clinton does not want it to be framed.

yeah, that was a pretty rough cartoon indeed.

Does anyone think that Hillary's campaign has been behind most of these smear emails?

Because I do.

I agree with pacc: the Clinton campaign appears to have responded appropriately to an unfortunate situation.

Of course, it makes their recent "dirty tricks" complaint against Obama for the alleged argumentative phone calls look extremely silly, which it was.

Good Riddance! Good thing to see the campaign act both vigorously and appropriately.

1) It's not a smear to call somebody a Muslim.

2) It IS hateful bigotry to suggest being a Muslim prevents you from being a good American.

3) It is a lie to call Obama a Muslim.

4) This Clinton volunteer is BOTH a hateful bigot and a liar.

Excellent response. Prompt and straight to the point. That is how one deals with unauthorized but potentially damaging actions that are taken "on the behalf" of a campaign or candidate by some over-zealous supporter.

Well done!

Good for Hillary. Back to real issues. I have said that the people surrounding Hillary and other candidates are something important to consider---a president muswt have a cabinet and advisers.

It is too much to ask hillary to fire Penn, but maybe he will be demoted in influence.

From what i have seen, obama is choosing better people.

But good response from Patti.

Notice the official repsonse from the Clinton campaign doesn't knock down the false rumor, it only rejects "this kind of politics". It's "out there" and it will stay "out there." Why doesn't the Clinton camaign repeat what CNN found - the charges are a lie? Because refuting the "politics" but not the lie serves the Clinton campaign.

A stronger rejection from Patti Solis Doyle please. One that includes the facts, this rumor is a bigoted lie.

Has any major campaign from either party had a worse string of bad news over a week-to-10-day period than Clinton is in the midst of, right now?

Their response was quick and appropriate, no doubt, but as others have noted, highlights again how foolish it was to try to make noise of similary over-zealous (but much less insidious, IMO) campaign volunteers for Obama.

Even giving one's most generous interpretation of events, she looks a bit hypocritical over something she can't really control, because she complained about actions from the Obama campaign that similarly were, fromt he sound of things, beyond the control of his campaign.

Michael A,
When the primaries are over I’m pretty sure we can agree on a lot of things. ;-)

Vena,
Something tells me your vote for Hillary Clinton wasn’t exactly in the bag yesterday either.

At least HRC was honest and did the correct thing.....let's see the others do the same...I doubt it.

Anyone seen this yet:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/12/05/obama_opens_wider_lead_in_iowa_huckabee_tops_romney.html

Strategic vision's new poll has her down 7, tied with Edwards. Slip, slip, slippin' away...

kefa,

about what? Talking about Obama doing dirty tricks while her campaign was doing dirty tricks?

Geesh..

So,um, did the county chair send out a retracting email?

Even 4 wks ago, I would have said I would vote for the Democractic nominee regardless of who he or she is... I was previously inclined to support HRC... however, the past 4 wks have demonstrated to me that I'd rather have an enemy in the White House who I know is the enemy rather than a Quisling who is stabbing me the back... HRC's so-called experience seems weak compared the BO's judgment and sense of decency... simply put, HRC's and my generation is what is wrong with political America today... it is time to put us (HRC & me) six-foot under and allow the wiser, younger folk to lead us into the 21st century...

vena,
While you’re busy rolling your eyes I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your ridiculous allegations that “Hillary may have set up the whole push-polling "scandal" herself”.

I’m waiting for your facts…

Tick-tack-tick-tack

Many of the blogs I have been reading lately (David Corn and others) have been speaking of the intense hatred for Obama they have viewed within the Clinton camp. As far as I am concerned, this is not surprising. There are some nasty, nasty GOP-operative types of people around her that want to win at all cost.

Well, as a strong Obama supporter, and someone who will vote for mike Gravel before I'll vote for Hillary, I just need to weigh in on the side of calm. Both campaigns apparently have overzealous supporters. Let's kill this narrative about "dirty tricks" and dishonesty now.

That said, the usual pro-Hillary suspects were awfully quick to praise her for her conduct in this instance. The next time they give Obama the benefit of the doubt in a similar situation will be the first.

DemAC,
My statement wasn't substantiated by anything, it alluded to the the fact that at this point I wouldn't put anything past Clinton. I am allowed to say and think that, right?

It was the Clinton campaign's research that put the madrassa thing out there in the first place. You honestly think they didn't want people to run with the story? We have one particular poster right here on this comment thread that regularly goes into an ugly, racist rant about "O-bomb-a". So is it really so shocking that the Clintons have these supporters and in some fashion signal encouragement to them? The only thing different here is that they were caught with their pants down. They had no choice but to respond as they did. But don't expect any changes -- except that they'll just get more sneaky.

The Clinton anti-Obama campaign is pure racist! Hillie and her Arkie family hate blacks and her campaign hitmen will use every tactic possible to ensure that a black does not get any breaks.
These are vicious people and Obama is going to get hit again. Look for some dirt, some true, some not, on Obama (and his "friends") while he was in the Illinois State Legislature. It won't mean anywhere near as much if he were white.
Hillie's attacks are 90% racism. Compare her efforts against the millionnaire plaintiffs' attorney.

I still want EC to follow up the Clinton smear of Obama yesterday where the TPM front page headline and EC headliner [dirty tricks] bespoke of multiple instances [inferring a pattern], but the follow-up was a reduction to a singular instance of, not even one dirty trick, but about an over-argumentative volunteer.

Seems to me this is important just like the 'Obama is Muslim' story........ flash headlines themselves are insinuating and leading toward conclusions, and cannot compete with the small print followups of facts buried way down the page.

Teh real question is whether these rumors are being spread under the radar by Hillary supporters in Iowa and they are only 'fessing up when they come to light.

Michael Caine, why should I bother? From the tone of your message it's clear you're not really interested anyway. If you can't see how Obama has demonstrated himself to be a typical centrist triangulator and hypocrite, one who furthermore is more than happy to campaign disingenuously from inside tired old Republican frames and use cheap shots himself while arrogantly puffing himself as some kind of soft-focused savior of politics, nothing I say is going to open your eyes.

The bottom line is this: he's a fraud, same as Hillary. Who needs more of their kind of crap? Not America, that's for sure.

So in other words, bc, you were never going to vote for him in the first place.

You already had your mind made up (that he was "a fraud") and are not willing to provide any examples. Again, what has Obama done that makes you believe that "he is a fraud." Surely there is something that you can substantiate your feelings on.

It would be most helpful if we could find out: [a] the BACKGROUND of this "county chair"; [b] the same for the blogger who supposedly was discovered, making those "pro-Clinton" comments.

Think like Rove. You can trash both Obama AND Hillary with an easily-uncovered "pro-Clinton" operative, found to be doing inappropriate things. I'm just sayin'.

And another thing: what the hell kind of Kabuki dance has this entire process become, when we are actually discussing the serious possibility of whether or not there is a plot to install a terrorist "mole", into the race for President of the United States?

That any e-mail recipient in America even could take this semi-seriously (and not like it was something on the Sci-Fi Channel) proves conclusively that there are many citizens who are simply intellectually unqualified to possess the vote!

Anonymous: "So,um, did the county chair send out a retracting email?"

Since he was let go, from where would he send such an e-mail?

His home account?

It is up to the campaign to issue such an e-mail or to make a public statement denouncing the act, which they've done.

Nice attempt to misdirect and insert a red herring into the mix.

Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't go far enough. It doesn't do to just fire someone and say you did so because of "an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail". It's now up to the Clinton campaign to work at least as hard to refute the charge as their local campaign chair did to make the charge.

Let's see a Clinton spokesperson on TV specifically addressing this crap. She can properly blame the thing on Republicans, but we should see the Clinton campaign specifically saying "Sen. Obama did not attend a madrasa. Sen. Obama is not a secret Muslim. The people saying otherwise work for the Republican party, and have no shame".

Actually, if Hillary Clinton herself were to say this, it would actually help her in Iowa, where they have this peculiar midwestern tic that causes them to like genuine human beings and dislike jerks.

So, let's get this straight:

The e-mail by the campaign worker was "forwarded" - so he/she didn't create it himself/herself?

So, there wasn't anything the Clinton campaign at any level actually put out themselves?

You know, the Clinton camp blaming this solely on a "volunteer Clinton county chair" sounds an awful lot like Bush constantly blaming his screw-ups on the mythical "overzealous staffer."

It's one thing to "accuse" Obama of being Muslim... it's another thing entirely to accuse him of being some kind of Manchurian Candidate.

For what its worth, I think you are absolutely correct demac.

I love that the headline on TPM focusses on the fact that the staffer was fired, rather than that she did it. That is both technically inaccurate and a stilted way to put it. How about you just follow the "controversy" you "reported" on yesterday, and say "day after Clinton campaign accuses Obama of "dirty tricks," campaign official confirmed to have spread insane paranoid racist smears against Obama."

To answer the question posed here---
DRinOH wrote on December 5, 2007 2:27 PM:
"DC or some other Hillary supporter: I'm interested to hear your take on what happens to Hillary if she loses Iowa."

I think nothing happens to her if she loses Iowa.

I think the polls are reflective of the idea that she will probably take one of the top three places. NO candidate would stop, winning one of the top three places, especially if they were concurrently doing well in NH (which she is).

In addition, she has more money BY FAR than any candidate in either Party except Obama.
So, I think JE goes on but has no money, and therefore she and Obama duke it out in NH.

Assuming it's close in NH (she's leading right now, and I live in NH, and the hostage situation probably helped her, if anything), they both still have lots of money and duke it out in SC.

If it's still close, then Super Tuesday probably becomes the deciding day. I'd have to look at the polls again to see how she's trending in those states.

Bottom line, imo, Iowa is a blimp on her radar.

Question back to any Edwards supporters:

What will JE do if he loses Iowa?
I just can't imagine he can compete with BO and HRC any further if he loses Iowa. Is that the CW?

Anonymous,

I have not yet seen any evidence that the person who called the Clinton supporter in NH was a member of the Obama campaign.

And again, even if it was an Obama supporter, it was one person who made one phone call. The fact that it was even a story (or even a headline here at TPM EC) was, I think, incredibly silly.

Sen. Clinton's campaign deserves credit for acting quickly and firing this county chair volunteer, but I agree that it would also be nice if in addition to firing him they came out and stated that the stories he was spreading are all completely untrue.

Also, because I cannot get over how silly it was to bring forward a woman who received (again) ONE phone call from some random person- I am wondering if the Clinton camp did this so that they could say today "Oh you see, all campaigns have these types of loose cannons working for them." (And I don't think I am getting into tin-foil hat territory here, as such a strategy might make sense in order to preempt some embarrasing news.)

Except of course, there is (as of yet) no proof that the person who called (and was rude) to the Clinton supporter in NH was actually working for Obama. And even he was, it was ONE person making ONE phone call. Not a (known) volunteer forwarding viral e-mails to unknown numbers of Iowa residents.

Clintonians that are treating this as equal to the Obama thing of yesterday are being ridiculous. This is an identified person in the campaign, chosen as one of the 99 country chairs, spreading basically the most malicious, racist garbage that they've got.

Compare that to someone MAYBE connected with Obama allegedly "being rude" (pretty subjective) and suggesting Clinton doesn't fight for abortion rights.

The damage is done because the focus headline on TPM is going to be the headline everywhere...that Clinton just dealt with this so responsibly and "fired" the person...meanwhile, the story gets out there, and more and more people like my inlaws will be asking me why I am voting for an Islamic extremist. And that folks, is why you probably won't hear the Clinton camp specifically say that this isn't true. If they did, I'd put her back on the "I'll vote for her if she's nominated" list. Otherwise she will never get my vote regardless.

Sad. Sad that "experienced" democrats that have been dragged through this crap by the republicans seem to be going here.

It is amazing how inept and tone-deaf Clinton's campaign is when it comes to dealing with Barack Obamma. She needs the African American vote. This garbage will be on every African American blog by the end of the day. Her supporters may think; bad apple plucked from the barrel- problem solved. I am a Detroit resident, long-time Democratic voter. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I will urge everyone in my community to vote for any canditate other than Hillary Clinton. Her problems with African American voters are just beginning.

Aaron M: "Not a (known) volunteer forwarding viral e-mails to unknown numbers of Iowa residents."

Uh, it was one e-mail forwarded to one guy as far as we know at this time, according to the post (from the recipient) cited by Greg.

And it now appears that the only Clinton staffer addressed in the e-mail was CONDEMNING it.

Read the update on the post with the actual e-mail.

You are acting as if there is evidence that a Clinton staffer e-mail blasted this thing all over the place, but I have yet to see any evidence that it was sent to more than one person.

You are free to point out where it says the e-mail was sent to more than one person and to how many people it was sent, however.

Dee: 'I doubt any underhanded Clinton campaigner gets "fired" unless they are "busted".'

So, do you have proof that Obama has or would fire a campaigner who hasn't been "busted," and isn't it being "busted" when the campaign headquarters finds out about it or are you simply imposing your own fantasized version of unproven facts that find that HRC knew about it and didn't do anything until it became public?

Please provide your proof.

On either account.

The hatred mounts . . .

LOL with that.

Worked really well for Nader and Dean supporters.

bupalos: "I agree it's a blimp. A big fat blimp. A kind of hindenburg thing."

Says the individual who doesn't know that Islam is a religion, not a race, and doesn't understand the difference between racism and religious animosity.

anonymous at 5:16,

As an aside, the two situations are not equivalent because an overly argumentative campaign call is not the same thing as forwarding an e-mail accusing Obama of being a Muslim sleeper agent. That distinction has nothing to do with how many people were involved: it is an ethical distinction, one which hopefully you can see.

In any event, I am certainly not suggesting this was being done at the direction of the Clinton campaign. I find that hard to imagine (although I suppose anything is possible).

Rather, as I noted elsewhere, the question is who in the Clinton campaign knew what and when about the fact that one of their County Chairs was doing this, and what they did about it when they found out. That question has not yet been fully answered.

In answer to some of the responses to my answer about Clinton and what I think if she loses in Iowa --

DRinOH wrote on December 5, 2007 4:19 PM: "I don't think it's about money after Iowa. What Obama needs to win in South Carolina is a perception of legitimacy, which he'll get with an Iowa win, to dominate the black vote. [...]Another thing, which you've hit on, is how long it takes Edwards to drop out if he loses Iowa. The sooner he does, the sooner Obama can become the anti-Hillary candidate. He'll roll in the Carolinas if Edwards is out by then.

My response:
It's not about money at all. Clinton and Obama didn't collect all that money to leave after wherever the first Third Place they experience is. I think Iowa would definitely give Obama momentum, but it really depends a lot on how much he wins by. If it's a squeaker, I think it could even hurt, in a way. I'm a Clinton supporter, but my strategy if I were his would be to come in second by about one percentage point behind Edwards. (NOT going to happen, imo)
For Clinton, again, unless she's third (or lower) and it's an enormous gap in Iowa, I don't think Clinton cares. She has planned, like she did running in NY, for the long haul. To be honest, I don't think Clinton started out thinking she'd be tied for first in Iowa, nevermind ever win it. It just started looking do-able, and I think she had the money and just went for it. I think she assumed Edwards would take it and when he wasn't taking it, she was enticed. I think her biggest concern is that Edwards is losing Iowa.

And, I think you're making a bit of a big deal over Obama and the black vote in NC. I think the contest between BO and HRC is fascinating because she appeals to blacks and he appeals to women. But we can agree to disagree on that one.
Also, just as a side note, I also think the "anti-Hillary" vote is a bit of a myth. If Democrats aren't going to vote for Clinton, so be it. But I don't think you realize the number of moderates that would probably vote for a Republican rather than all of the other Democrats. Not saying there's no Democrats who are anti-Clinton. Just saying some of the reasons she doesn't appeal to the netroots is exactly why she DOES appeal to moderates who won't otherwise vote Democrat. Again, we can agree to disagree. Just our own opinions.
------
DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 4:30 PM:
"Jan, The thing is, the results in earlier states usually have an effect of one sort or the other on the results in later states."

My response:
Well, assuming that is true (and I'm not sure it is) this year is different.
All candidates are going to run until they run out of money. Right now, every Democrat has to raise about 3X more than they have SO FAR, just to be where BO and HRC are right now, even if they don't collect another dime.
If Edwards wins Iowa, yes, he will gain some momentum. However, imo, he seems not to have closed the deal in the place where he planned his start. Not a good sign, if JE were my candidate.
If Obama wins Iowa, he will defintely have momentum. But if HRC is close behind, it will simply make him viable. He will not win NH simply by winning IA. Clinton will win NH simply by winning Iowa.
Not to go too much farther, but I think if BO wins Iowa and loses NH, it's not good either. I still believe clinton can go through to Super Tuesday by just staying close. If she doesn't actually WIN one by Super Tuesday, then I think Super Tuesday might possibly be a fascinating day in our political lives. :-)
----

bupalos wrote on December 5, 2007 4:53 PM: (quoting me) "Bottom line, imo, Iowa is a blimp on her radar."
Then: "I agree it's a blimp. A big fat blimp. A kind of hindenburg thing. Because if and when she goes down in Iowa, and THE major rationale that a whole lot of people in other states currently have for checking her name in polling lists is gone--the inevitablility thing--she will take a big hit."

My response:
Your comment is uninformed.
For all the talk of Clinton "losing support" in Iowa (by uninformed bloggers), she's holding her own.

Edwards has gone down considerably and Obama has come up measurably.

Hillary Clinton supporters are not weak-kneed voters. I think what you see as her support IS her support. None of us are going away.

What will tell is if other candidates GAIN the undecideds. We don't know that yet.
If all the candidates gain evenly across the board though, as it stands right now, Clinton wins the primary.
My advice, if you want to help us be informed citizens, is to learn what information polls actually give you, instead of just making up your own crap regarding what the polls indicate about the "MAJOR" (your CAPS) rationale of Clinton supporters.
You wouldn't know the major rationale of Clinton supporters if someone screamed it right in your face out loud for the next year.

Anonymous,

You are correct that the original story above notes only that the Clinton County Chair "passed along" this inflammatory e-mail, and that the person who had received it had spoken-up.

I wrote "unknown number of Iowa residents" because 1) I did not know how many received the e-mail from this person and 2) I read "passed-along" and "chain e-mail" (from the Clinton campaign statement) and assumed it was sent to more than one person (as chain e-mails are usually forwarded to more than one e-mail address).

I also thought that, after reading Greg's first update to his post, that the person identified as receiving the e-mail was only ONE of the recipients (and not THE only one).

But yes, looking at Greg's post alone (and not having read the Politico piece to which DTM refers) I should not have assumed that it was sent to more than one person. And for that I apologize.

(Though my point remains regarding the silliness of accusing the Obama campaign of similar activities, when there is absolutely no proof that his campaign had anything to do with the reportedly rude phone call in NH.)

There is no proof that Clinton's campaign had anything to do with this e-mail.

As noted, it does not appear to come from a
campaign e-mail address (why hide the address if it does? there are no privacy implications with a campaign e-mail address), it is not identified in any way with support for Clinton nor does the sender identify herself with the Clinton campaign.

Campaigns are not responsible for the actions of their supporters, volunteers, or even paid workers that are done using their own personal or work computers and their own personal funds from their own personal or work e-mail addresses, beyond appropriately condemning those actions and seeing that the person no longer works for them, which was done.

End of story unless you have evidence that the campaign itself had anything to do with this which you don't.

anonymous at 6:46,

I agree. Assuming the campaign did not direct these activities (which seems very likely to me), the only remaining question is when did they know it was going on, and did they at that point do what you suggest (condemn the action and fire the person).

Again, the only reason this is not a dead issue is that it is possible the campaign found out what was going on as much as 15 days ago, but did not do anything about it until the story was broken on Daily Kos. I only say "possible", however, and hopefully this is quickly cleared up.

DTM: "It is an ethical distinction, and I remain hopeful you can see the difference."

No, I don't.

Lying is lying.

Falsely accusing someone of something laughable such as being a Muslim sleeper and falsely accusing a pro-choice candidate of secretly being anti-choice are both lying.

Whether something is effective is directly related to whether it is likely to be believed.

A laughable and unconvincing allegation, both in the law and in reason, invites no liability, legal, ethical, moral, or otherwise.

Besides, Obama supporters directly, and Obama through implication, have essentially called Clinton a "Republican sleeper" which is at least as unethical as calling Obama a "Muslim sleeper" to committed liberals who believe the current crop of Republicans are war criminals or abettors of war criminals, their own brand of terrorists.

pacc said "Senator Clinton's campaign acted promptly and properly."

What a laugh. Senator Clinton's campaign did what Bush would do, deny responsiblity and fire a scapegoat.

Hillary's campaign looks more like Rove and Bush every day.

"Senator Clinton's campaign did what Bush would do, deny [responsibility] and fire a scapegoat."

Prove it.

Anonymous,

While I think we are going around in circles on this, let me just write on more follow-up.

In regards to my earlier post in which I stated that you had accused the Obama campaign of unethical behavior- I inferred that based on the last sentence of your 6:30pm post, in which you stated (after arguing that the call in NH was "far worse" than the e-mail in Iowa):

"So, yes, they are ethically dissimilar, but in just the opposite way you say."

I took that to mean that the actions (and the campaigns that were "reportedly" behind them) were ethically dissimilar, but that the call (supposedly associated with the Obama campaign) was more unethical than the e-mail forwarded by a Clinton worker.

If you are saying that I misread that and that was not what you meant to say, then I apologize for misinterpreting that statement.

Regarding your evidence (or denial of "no" evidence) for the Obama campaign being behind the call.....I could pick up the phone right now and call someone and state that I work for Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case.

And it was the Clinton campaign which (to their credit) got ahead of this story, admitted the person worked for them, and immediately fired the worker. I agree (and stated this earlier) that Sen. Clinton cannot be held responsible for what one of her campaign workers has done. I NEVER stated that the Clinton campaign was responsible for IMMEDIATELY denouncing the worker (or his actions), because they had (again, to their credit) done so, on their own. So while you do not (appear to) believe that her campaign is responsible for denouncing this particular action, her campaign evidently did- and I believe (if only for appearances and political considerations) this was a smart thing to do.

And seeing as they did acknowledge that the man worked for their campaign and fired him for his actions, I thought it would also be nice if they could say, "and btw, the information in the e-mail, which has also received a lot of attention, is all completely false."

Again, I am not saying that the Clinton team was responsible for the e-mail or that they instructed this person to send it (because I sincerely DO NOT believe that).

Actually, after re-reading Peter Daou's statement on the whole affair, part of which reads:

"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail."

I think that by calling the e-mail "outrageous" and "offensive" he (and hence, the campaign) is essentially stating that it holds no truth.

So, all in all, I think the Clinton team handled this incident appropriately.

(However, I still think their accusation that the Obama campaign was involved in "dirty tricks" based in part on one phone call from someone claiming to be working for Obama, is silly and unsubstantiated.)

Why didn't the Hillary campaign flatly deny the content in the email? They only condemned the tactic not the content. I believe the Hillary campaign wants this story out there and lingering in the minds of voters. Much like the Wash Post story recently that gave credence to the rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim. It is sickening. I don't know how these people can sleep at night knowing how they have lied about and misrepresented this honorable man.

I honestly don't see the problem here. If in fact Obama is a Muslim, then I think the American people have a right to know so they can make an educated choice. The only people that are really getting outraged about this are Obama supporters. They wouldn't be getting so upset if they were doing well in the polls.

Vote For Hillary Online

Jan,

First as an aside on polls: I'd be the first to agree that polls are just one part of understanding the dynamics of a political campaign, and the headline numbers are often less useful than the in depth data.

I would just note that I think everyone gets into trouble when they try to pick good polls versus bad polls (or reputable versus crappy, or so on). As long as there is a lot of polling avaiable (as is now true in at least Iowa and NH), I think the best approach is to just lump them all together in the way that RCP or pollster does, and focus on the aggregate not the individual polls. Otherwise, we all leave ourselves vulnerable to cherry-picking and self-deception. And incidentally, sticking to the aggregate also has the effect of encouraging one to not get too excited or too depressed about the latest poll at any given moment.

Anyway, having agreed polls are just one part of understanding the dynamics of a political campaign, we are left with the question of what we can discuss in a forum like this. The one nice thing about polls is that when they are published, we can all look at the same numbers and discuss what they mean. All the other sorts of relevant information cannot be found in such neat numerical summaries, and usually the available information is very much subject to interpretation.

So, that is my long-winded way of saying that I am not going to try to argue with you about what is currently happening in New Hampshire outside of the polls. Nor am I going to try to predict what will happen in New Hampshire as a result of various Iowa scenarios. Rather, I am going to stick with a "we shall see" attitude, because I really think that is the best we can do at this stage (wait and see).

NO MORE DRAMA VOTE OBAMA!