Why the exclamation point, Eric? You don't have to be a political junkie to have predicted Huckabee's rise. He's a very traditional Republican candidate and the one with the best shot at beating the Dem nominee.

Be very afraid but remember that this Christian test for all candidates for president is unconstitutional (see Article VI, Section 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution: but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Huckleberry and all of the Republicons are trying to invalidate this. Could somebody please ask them about this crap?

I prefer the following characterization:
...
LA TIMES/BLOOMBERG POLL: GAP TIGHTENS 7 PERCENTAGE POINTS BETWEEN HILLARY AND OBAMA!!

Among likely Democratic voters across the nation, the new NATIONAL LA Times/Bloomberg poll found that Hillary Clinton's lead is still shrinking over Obama; as polls in Iowa show she remains locked in a very tight three-way contest with Sen. Barack Obama slightly ahead, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina nipping at both of their heels.

In the latest National LA Times/Bloomberg Poll, Clinton was favored by 45% (down from 48% last month) of those polled; Obama favored by 21% (UP from 17%); and Edwards favored by 11% (down from 13%).

Clinton 45% DOWN 3 (from 48%)

Obama 21% UP 4 (from 17%)

Edwards: 11% Down 2 (from 13%)

The Obamaganda is just getting out of hand, seriously.

why is "mcWho?" in the poll but not Paul. Say what you want about the guy but the Media "Just Ignore Him hopefully he'll fade" bs is obvious. He is clearly a contender here.

Why the prodigious expenditure of exclamation points (!!) over Huckleberry? Last time there wasn't a governor/former governor on one of the tickets was 1972. A Southern governor has won 4 times since then. It would be shocking! if there WASN'T an obscure governor emerging from nowhere in the presidential campaign.

NCSteve wrote: This poll is whack. The last LAT/Bloomberg poll one had higher numbers for Hillary and lower numbers for Obama and Edwards than any contemporaneous poll and this one does too.

As DC Shungu correctly points out above, Obama’s strength is Iowa and just about nothing else.

It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!

ALL the changes on the Democratic side are within the 4% MOE. Eric is right not to dwell on them. A little sanity...

Josh C.:

Yes, but you are talking about rationality, and there is little to that within the ranks of the obamevangelists.

By the way, the decrease in Clinton's numbers and increase in Obama's numbers in this poll is broadly consistent with the overall trend as reflected in pollster's regression analysis. See here:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

But of course there is no actual national primary, and we know the results in the early states are likely to affect the results in the later states. So these small trends are likely to be swamped once the process actually starts.

Two New Polls: Hillary Clinton Leads in Iowa by 5-7 Points

AP-Pew poll also shows strong double-digit leads in NH and SC; Clinton leading on important issues, most electable

Hillary Clinton leads all Democrats in Iowa, according to a NEW AP-PEW POLL showing her leading by 5 points, and a NEW IOWA STATE POLL showing her ahead by 7.

In addition, new AP-Pew polls show her leading by 19 in New Hampshire and 14 in South Carolina. The polls also show her ahead on the issues most important to voters, as well as the most electable Democrat:

Iowa

* Hillary leads the AP-Pew poll with 31 percent, compared to 26 percent for Obama and 19 percent for Edwards.
* The new Iowa State University poll also shows Hillary ahead with 31 percent, compared to 24 percent for Edwards, and 20 percent for Obama.

New Hampshire:

* Hillary leads the AP-Pew poll with 38 percent, doubling each of her opponents. Obama follows with 19 percent, and Edwards at 15 percent.

South Carolina:

* Hillary leads the AP-Pew poll with 45 percent, followed by Obama at 31 percent, and Edwards at 10 percent.
* Hillary and Obama are even among black voters in SC, and Hillary leads by 3-to-1 among white voters.

Just to put some slightly harder numbers on the point I made above:

Using the tracking averages at RCP, Clinton is now down about 7 points in the six weeks since her mid-late October peak. Obama is up about 3 points in the same timespan. Clinton's average lead has decreased from about 28 to about 18 (18.2 as of the time I am writing this).

Just for fun, note we are about 9 weeks from the February 5 "Super Tuesday" set of primaries. At the current rate of closure, in that 9 weeks Clinton's national lead would shrink approximately another 15 points, making it around a 3 point lead going into Super Tuesday.

Again, though, that is just for fun. Those trends are highly unlikely to remain the same after Iowa (and could of course change before Iowa as well).

Kefa,

But of course this same poll also shows that Giuliani is STILL in the lead, and Obama is rising.

Again, this don't really matter much since all these trends likely will be swamped once the real voting starts. Still, it would be nice if people like Eric at least tried to remain neutral.

Steve, obviously clinton II's internals reveal that there is a major problem, or she wouldn't be doing what she is doing and she isn't doing the attacks well at all. I saw clips of her stump speech when she was attacking obama and she didn't look confortable doing it, which actually is a good thing on the one hand, but on the other hand it takes away from the clinton II mantra, that she knows how to "play the game" or "now the fun begins."

I want to win in the general and if she is the nominee, based on the way things are going, she will get slaughtered. Maybe she should have surrogates do the attacks and hire some new staff. The kindergarten attack was really, really stupid, as have been some of her other moves. Also, she's got to get a handler for Mr. bill. He's causing more problems than he is probably worth. Seems that gore may have been right not to use him in 2000 or he might have gotten beat worse. People should be informed and make an informed decision. I may be for obama, but I could change my mind and I want the dems to win in 08 regardless of who the nominee is.

Finally on the polls, two points:

(1) Name recognition obviously is playing a large part of what is going on. Look at Iowa, they know the candidates best and she is in a three way tie. What about those polls?

(2) Also, the gallup poll that I refer to as well as other non-horse race polls reveal that there is a general election problem for her. 39% of republicans are for obama and 43% are against. Clinton II is vehemently opposed by 78% of republicans. Also her negatives are the highest of all dems. These polls indicate a problem that clinton II supporters want to ignore, but clearly indicate a general election liability that dems should be aware of, as opposed to the rah, rah bs.

He's a very traditional Republican candidate and the one with the best shot at beating the Dem nominee.

I might have thought so until I just read the account of how he twisted every arm he could to release a convicted rapist, clearly because that rapist had the support of political and religious allies of Huckabee, and that rapist went out and raped and murdered other women.

That is going to be absolutely fatal to his candidacy, by my reckoning. It makes the Willie Horton case look like a wet kiss.