New ARG Poll: Hillary And Romney Lead In Iowa

Comments (85)

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 5:16 PM:

Turn another burner up Madem Prez.

obama4eva wrote on December 29, 2007 5:26 PM:

hillary clinton is an unattractive candidate that america does not want to see age. There was a picture where face looked like rotting cottage cheese. Her personality suggests that she is a witch. Obama on the other hand is a beautiful black man who reminds us of a tasty chocolate bar. in an age where everyone is getting breast implants and nose jobs, democrats should nominate someone with obama's perfection to take advantage of the changing electorate. Obama's beauty will guarantee more seats.

colonpowwow wrote on December 29, 2007 5:27 PM:

That's gotta be good news for her going into the last campaigning week there firin' on all burners, including Kefa's ;-)

Hillary was the only one of the contenders here who could've afforded a close 3rd place finish. Although that would have hurt her standing, she could've quickly made up for that in the next three primaries with a good ground game.

However, a third place finish, close or not, is much more difficult for Obama and would be fatal to Edwards - and it's looking more likely that one of them will find themselves there.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 5:30 PM:

Very Likely Caucus-Goers-Only Model:

Candidate ARG LAT
Clinton 31% 31%
Edwards 24% 25%
Obama 24% 22%

Quite close. Being this close to the election and Clinton clearly picking up momentum, are these polls picking up something that other polls are missing? I wonder...

DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 5:32 PM:

Nice numbers, as so often nowadays, Mme President.

colonpowwow wrote on December 29, 2007 5:33 PM:

obama4eva:

Ever see someone dying of lung cancer?

Way worse than looking older in the face, in the face of aging that is.

Also, if you're serious (and my snark detector is on serious alert) - you have a serious problem.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 29, 2007 5:45 PM:

Polls always look better when you buy them . . . Wonder what green stains could be found if folk were looking . . .

hello_world wrote on December 29, 2007 5:50 PM:

These ARG polls are laughable. I can understand them under-counting Obama's supporters due to his reaching out to parts of the Iowa electorate that will be new to caucusing this time around.

But for Clinton to be almost 8 points up on both Edwards, who's spent the last 7 years of his life and almost all of his limited political capitol in Iowa and Obama, who's bringing new faces and new enthusiasm into the game just feel wrong.

If Clinton wins, I wouldn't be shocked. But I wouldn't be shocked if any of the big 3 win in Iowa. Right now, all numbers coming out of Iowa at this point should be viewed with real care as there's no way to know what's truly going on until the day of the caucus, but it feels like ARG is making more of an attempt to nudge support than making true poling predictions at this point.

pacc wrote on December 29, 2007 5:55 PM:

As always, and throughout every primary and caucus state in the nation (save dinky Barry's home state), Senator Clinton remains the one to beat!

Can't wait to see O-Bomb-A gone!

Ni Daye wrote on December 29, 2007 5:56 PM:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802445_pf.html

Check out this editorial about responses to Bhutto assassination. By the way, if you go to other discussion forums, you will see a much more balanced discussion. if you only visit this site, you thought you are totally outnumbered if you are not an obama supporter. Not the case in most other places.

Obama is a risk we cannot take at this juncture. He has tremendous upside but not now. If he is not so annoyingly against Clinton, he may make a good VP.

BluePuppy wrote on December 29, 2007 6:15 PM:

Ni Daye, you couldn't be more right. The Hillary-haters seem to love TPM, probably because they can't be banned for their ugly and hateful words. I like to see what folks at mydd.com are saying as well as Taylor Marsh. But I don't think the Hillary-haters would be so vehement if they actually had a case against her. They just appropriate neo-con talking points in their thinly disguised loathing of America and it's most capable, progressive leader. The want Obama to get the nomination, and then lose so then they continue to complain about what a terrible and racist country this is.

erik wrote on December 29, 2007 6:15 PM:

i will not vote for hillary clinton, or if i do so, it will be another depressing election, regardless of the outcome.

awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 6:16 PM:

So, Hillary's lead has been cut in half since the last ARG poll. And her supporters are happy about this?

erik wrote on December 29, 2007 6:16 PM:

and ni daye, if obama becomes hilary's vp, that will be even more depressing

DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 6:24 PM:

The Concord Monitor in NH will endorse Hillary Clinton.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:28 PM:

erik wrote on December 29, 2007 6:15 PM:

i will not vote for hillary clinton, or if i do so, it will be another depressing election, regardless of the outcome.
erik wrote on December 29, 2007 6:16 PM:

and ni daye, if obama becomes hilary's vp, that will be even more depressing

LOL. It sounds to me like your problem is Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and not Hillary Clinton!

awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 6:16 PM:

So, Hillary's lead has been cut in half since the last ARG poll. And her supporters are happy about this?

I have no idea if this so-called "lead" is real or not, but to be shown to be ahead in IA with just one week to go is encouraging, wouldn't you say? I am sure that Clinton's detractors would be going on ad nauseam about how she's collapsed if she had been shown to be "trailing" by 7 points...

awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 6:31 PM:

Since the last ARG poll, that's minus 3 for Clinton, plus 4 for Edwards, and plus 5 for Obama.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:32 PM:

DemAC wrote on December 29, 2007 6:24 PM:

The Concord Monitor in NH will endorse Hillary Clinton.

Oh, my! That is a biggie that is likely to do for HRC what the DMR endorsement has apparently done for her in IA!

Diogu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:34 PM:

dcshungu, I thought Hillary had 34 points last time. Regardless, it appears based on this poll that only Barack has the Momentum. And that speaks volumes because polls at this stage can only gage trends.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:36 PM:

awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 6:31 PM:

Since the last ARG poll, that's minus 3 for Clinton, plus 4 for Edwards, and plus 5 for Obama.

Conceding all of that and realizing that most of these polls out of IA might not even be that meaningful, I still say that Clinton has cause to cheer because this at least keeps the all-important "narrative" in her favor...

mg wrote on December 29, 2007 6:36 PM:

It's an ARG poll, need we say anymore. I think this is the giveaway, "Some skepticism had been voiced about their last Iowa poll".

Laughable, show me a real poll, DMR or Quad City Times, something.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:43 PM:

I gotta go folks, but before you get apoplectic about any poll coming out of IA, go to pollster.com and read Mark Blumenthal' piece on just how reliable polls of the IA caucuses in 2000 and 2004 turned out to be.... not very, and I have been saying this all along. The only poll that would be reliable would be the one taken on Jan 3. In the mean time, I like the fact that Hillary's "lead" in IA would keep the "narrative" on her side, just like it did for Obama when screaming headlines had announced that he'd taken the lead there although it was almost always well within the MOE.

Cheers!

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 6:53 PM:

Isn't this the same outlier poll from last week that looks nothing like an of the others?

Marcie Shenkman wrote on December 29, 2007 6:55 PM:

Has anyone noticed that this ARG poll is the only one from the last week that has her even in second place? Both of the more recent polls from more reputable companies have her in third. And yet the Clintonistas rejoice as if this is the only one. Keep dreaming guys....with negatives like that she is going down hard (just like some bimbo on Bill somewhere at just about any time).

Sarah Fischer wrote on December 29, 2007 6:56 PM:

awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 6:31 PM:
Since the last ARG poll, that's minus 3 for Clinton, plus 4 for Edwards, and plus 5 for Obama.

Yup...even the outlier poll shows where the momentum is. Go Obama go.

Susan wrote on December 29, 2007 6:59 PM:

Sarah Fischer wrote on December 29, 2007 6:56 PM:
Yup...even the outlier poll shows where the momentum is. Go Obama go.

Just wait until Obama kills it tomorrow on Meet the Press. She is a goner. Good riddance you phony calculating witch.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 7:05 PM:

wishful that wants to pass for analysis is appalling...

posted in transit...

Imelda Blahnik wrote on December 29, 2007 7:09 PM:

Re: Meet the Press: Obama can be a pretty rousing speaker when he's giving a prepared speech, but he's surprisingly boring in interviews. Tends towards the monotone and vacuous. I doubt he'll kill tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:13 PM:

Wishful thinking Imelda. Hillary looked terrible with Wolf yesterday.

Tara wrote on December 29, 2007 7:14 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 6:53 PM:
Isn't this the same outlier poll from last week that looks nothing like an of the others?

Yes, but what if their numbers are the ones that are correct? Most of us agreed that due to the dates (2 days before Christmas) of the last (ARG 14 point lead poll,) the numbers could have been off some. In any case, I agree with the majority here so far tonight. It is good news for Hillary and it would be making for huge headlines if Edwards or Obama were showing the lead instead of Hillary.

I second the CHEERS!

Stymie wrote on December 29, 2007 7:24 PM:

Sorry Tara. Obama clearly has the Mo in Iowa, NH and SC. Just look at the numbers. Hillary is losing ground everywhere as folks get to know her.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 7:25 PM:

Stymie-

You couldn't be more right. They are trying to put lipstick on a pig and they know it.

Tara wrote on December 29, 2007 7:30 PM:

I want to mention one more thing.
If you look to the right of this page you will see the INTRADE predictions. I believe the prediction markets mean more than the polls. Hillary is at 67% and BO is at 24%. When it comes to people putting their money on the line, they go overwhelmingly with Hillary.

Bill F wrote on December 29, 2007 7:34 PM:

Is that all you gout Tara? An outlier ARG poll and Intrade? Hillary's numbers across the board continue to drop precipitously. Look what has happened in NH her supposedly "bedrock" state in just the last month - 20+! Whatever you're smoking I want some.

michael valentine wrote on December 29, 2007 7:34 PM:

Hillary ...... meet the new boss same as the old boss.

HarpoMarxist wrote on December 29, 2007 7:34 PM:

Dear Hillary supporters,

I am a lifelong Democrat and I voted for Clinton both times, Gore and then Kerry but I will never ever vote for Hillary Clinton!

she voted for the War and the Patriot Act. She cynically assumed the country would still be supporting our glorious effort in Iraq or that we'd even be in Iran by now. Human nature proved her wrong but the country pays the price.

Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children died to serve her ambition.

Go ahead and vote for her and have your 4 years of 51% of getting nothing done and then another Republican.

You get the president you deserve you cattle.

NCSteve wrote on December 29, 2007 7:44 PM:

Aaagh! In agreement with DCShungu at 6:43! Aak! Cannot process! Norman coordinate!

(Well, in agreement except for the liking how ARG keeps the narrative postive for Hillary part of his post. Not so keen on that.)

But seriously, he's (she's?) right. Iowa polling data, particularly during the holidays, are not meaningful and getting our boxers/panties in a bunch about them is not a productive use of our time.

JHo wrote on December 29, 2007 7:54 PM:

HILLARY SUPPORTERS - do me a favor. Pick up a few books that detail Bill's various accomplishments (e.g. Fiscal Policy, Welfare Reform, etc.). Not the sensationalized bio stuff but real policy retrospectives. Scan the indices of these books for Hillary's name...nowhere to be found. Those that tout her experience are being snowed. Open your eyes.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:03 PM:

From The New Republic Blog today:
Who Has More Paths to the Nomination?
Just a quick thought about what Iowa may or may not accomplish for the Dems. First, the three easy scenarios: 1.) Hillary wins by more than a point or two, in which case the race is basically over. 2.) Obama wins convincingly (five points or more), in which case it starts looking pretty good for him and Edwards is done. 3.) Edwards wins convincingly and Obama is third, in which case Obama is probably done and Hillary and Edwards duke it out (with Hillary enjoying a near-prohibitive financial advantage).

Short of one of these things happening, I think we're looking at the muddle Mike was talking about last weekend. But here's the thing: An inconclusive muddle actually benefits Obama. The reason is that a muddle kills Edwards, who needs the kind of fundraising and free-media boomlet that only a clean victory can provide. And without Edwards in the race, Obama consolidates the anti-Hillary vote, which nudges him over the top in what's now a dead-even race in New Hampshire, makes things look pretty good for him in South Carolina (where he's been closing but still has to convince some African-Americans he can win), and generally gives him the upper hand for the nomination.

So, somewhat counter-intuitively, Obama may have at least as many if not more "paths" to the nomination as Hillary, which is worth keeping in mind.

--Noam Scheiber

DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 8:11 PM:

The last three ARG polls really just seem to be confirming the holiday effect suggested by Blumenthal over at pollster (the closer the ARG polls were taken to Christmas, the greater the relative advantage for Clinton and the relative disadvantage for Obama). And that in turn suggests that insofar as the Times/Bloomberg poll taken immediately before and after Christmas is broadly consistent with these ARG polls, it is also just confirming that holiday effect.

Which does in fact mean that as far as Iowa polling is concerned, it recently passed over to the "dark side of the moon" (to use Blumenthal's phrase), since there is no real way to know how to correct for this effect even once it has been identified. So to me the more interesting question is whether we will get any useful polling before the caucus (and plausibly we will not).

JP from HB wrote on December 29, 2007 8:21 PM:

Hey Bill F and everyone else putting down this recent ARG poll-can you not read!!!!!
Look at the LA Times/Bloomberg poll from a couple of days ago and you will see the democratic likely voters in Iowa is almost exactly the same as this ARG poll(NOW DON'T TELL ME LA TIMES/BLOOMBERG IS NOT A RESPECTED POLL!!!)yes the ARG taken from before Christmas seems to be an outlier but this one has another poll to verify the accuracy(what would we listen to rinky dinky Republican polling Strategic vision or research 2000-who the heck are they?
Get used to it Bill F-Hillary will be President!!!

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:27 PM:

No...if Shrillary gets the nomination, John McCain will be President.

Bill F wrote on December 29, 2007 8:30 PM:

Hey JP-

First off, STOP SCREAMING. Are all of you Hill supporters that shrill (I guess it comes with the loyalty).

If you look at any of the recent polls, including ARG, you will see that Obama has the momentum in Iowa followed by Edwards. In NH, Obama has now erased Hill's 20+ point lead. In SC, he has just about erased an even bigger lead. Sorry dude but you sound as defensive and shrill as your candidate. It's not happening. She has 50+% negatives and once the anti-Hillary vote consolidates she is as soiled as Monica's blue dress.

Tara wrote on December 29, 2007 8:37 PM:

Hmmmm. I notice there are alot of angry frustrated BO supporters that have shown up. You can scream and spew all you like, Hillary can lose the first 3 states and still win the nomination. Get used to her. She ain't goin nowhere.

Bill F wrote on December 29, 2007 8:43 PM:

Hey Tara-

Look again. The ones that are screaming are from your side.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 8:45 PM:

Sounds like Tara is doing some expectations lowering. Will be interesting to see if Hillary does something with her staff the day before Iowa as Mickey Kaus has posited in light of her dropping support.

Mike wrote on December 29, 2007 8:48 PM:

Hillary would really make a great Senate majority leader.

Merle wrote on December 29, 2007 9:10 PM:

obama4eva states:

"... Her personality suggests that she is a witch. ...Good riddance you phony calculating witch."

this is really getting tiresome, obabma4eva. Hillary Clinton may be many things but she is not Wiccan. If you mean the term for a female dog, say so, if not, then leave the Wiccans alone!

framecop wrote on December 29, 2007 9:39 PM:

Still posting ARG numbers?

HOW EMBARRASSING!

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 10:02 PM:

They disparage ARG and then ARG turns out to have been right all along...I wonder whether they would email ARG to apologize...
Listen, no one has got a clue about the situation in IA, so stop hyperventilating. It is clear from every indication out there that Obama might have peaked just a tad too soon. Either Edwards or HRC looks poised to take this thing, but that is just a guess. The polls are not that helpful at all...Chill out!

MonaL wrote on December 29, 2007 10:45 PM:

Either the 2 latest polls are unreliable or Iowans are much smarter than the average Obama supporter. I'll go with the latter.

Welcome Madame President.

DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 10:52 PM:

Just to make something a little more explicit:

It is true that if you compare this ARG poll to the last ARG poll, it looks like Obama and Edwards have momentum, and Clinton is falling. Of course, if you compare the last ARG poll to the one before that, you would reach the opposite conclusion. But if in fact this is all just a holiday effect along the lines of what Blumenthal suggested, we should be seeing precisely that: movement in favor of Clinton as Christmas approaches, then movement back away from Clinton as Christmas recedes.

Now, of course some people are going to be inclined to suggest that whatever part of that cycle they prefer is more likely to be a true reflection of the dynamics of voter preference. But personally, I really don't see how an unbiased person can get much of significance out of all this.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 11:13 PM:

I think your "Madame President" is a phony with 50+% of the country who hates her. Never in a million years.

Sara wrote on December 29, 2007 11:14 PM:

When is she finally going to come out? Enough already Hillary. Tell us what you really are.

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 11:15 PM:

Iowa is between Obama and Edwards. That much is clear. That is why Hillary has been in NH...the site of her second loss.

Its about the future stupid wrote on December 29, 2007 11:20 PM:

Obamas supporters arguing about this poll is nuts, while it doesn't look to be an acurate snapshot is the least of his problems. First, if he thinks all these college kids are gonna go caucus for him, then he is as crazy as the rest who have said this (gov. dean). Second, the comeback of sen. mccain in N.H. may be a fatal blow to his hopes of winning there with the independants, if mccain remains close the indie's will in my opinion break with him like in 2000, they wouldn't want to be responsible for another bush (romney). If obama can not win one of the first 2 or if worse comes in third in the first 2, it will be a trouncing in nevada where he will be not even close, at that point he is done in S.C. and out.

dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 11:23 PM:

GO PATS! Tom Brady for POTUS!

(and I live in NYC)

audit the polls wrote on December 29, 2007 11:48 PM:

If only Kucinich had the money to buy some polls. Then he'd be just like the 'frontrunners'

Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 11:54 PM:

If aliens were polled he would be in first. Are them ufo detectors on the side of his head or ummm ears.

JP from HB wrote on December 30, 2007 12:01 AM:

Hey Bill F-no screaming coming from here
(obviously in your imagination just like your fascination for Monica-can't you anti Clinton's come up with something new after all these years)
Just to educate you-Obama has peaked-his #'s are not going up they are going down over the past 2 weeks(just read the polls with open eyes if you can)Nobody is going to pick an inexperienced hypocritical senator who has done nothing in his 2 years in the senate other than one stupid speech at the convention-he is an empty suit who talks up a big storm about how positive a campaign he's going to run-then trashes his opponents-people see through this bs and he will not win any primaries other than his homestate of Illinois. but seriously dude get a life and give up this hatred of Clintons-she is going to win-she does not have 50% negatives(another thing made up in your imagination-the # is closer to 40% and last I checked that's lower than 50%.

audit the polls wrote on December 30, 2007 12:18 AM:

Clinton and Obama are the only ones who can lose to the Republicans. That's why they get so much money from them.

Mad Jayhawk wrote on December 30, 2007 12:47 AM:

Please, please, please, please, please let Hillary win in Iowa.

Peggy Noonan wrote about Hillary Clinton:

My central problem (with Hillary Clinton) is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

A lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, share Ms Noonan's view.

JP from HB wrote on December 30, 2007 12:50 AM:

Hey audit the polls-how come trial heats show clinton beating every republican in VA and Kentucky(2 very red states in the past)
and that doesn't include how well she runs in Mo,Ohio,and even deep southern states like Alabama. The truth of the matter is clinton will pull in some of the south,rocky mtns and midwest(besides traditional blue states) because she will pull the womans vote which is about 54% of the country-she will pull in Hispanics, and African Americans as well. the only republican that would have a prayer against her is McCain(just check the trial heats)
But McCain is not getting the nomination.

JP from HB wrote on December 30, 2007 12:56 AM:

Oh Madjayhawk give me a break!! peggy noonan was Ronald Regan's speechwriter
asking her opinion on Hillary is like asking George Steinbrenner's opinion on the Yankees. You think any democrat gives a hoot about that right wing elitist??

bbln wrote on December 30, 2007 1:29 AM:

JHo - I take it you think Madeline Albright is an ignorant sockpuppet of the Clintons - and you must agree with Obama who yesterday summed up Clinton's First Lady experience in this sexist way - "It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with..."

DUBUQUE, IOWA -- Perhaps in reaction to a perceived slight from her rival Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton spent time laying out her foreign policy experience at a Dubuque campaign event tonight.

While discussing a visit to Bosnia during the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords as First Lady, Clinton took a swipe at Obama saying, "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said their might be snipers. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening." She was referring to remarks Obama made yesterday that some - including the Clinton camp - perceived to be a jab at her foreign policy experience.

The comment drew fire from the Clinton folks who quickly released a statement from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. "Senator Clinton has been in refugee camps, clinics, orphanages, and villages all around the world, including places where tea is not the usual drink. In addition to these experiences she has met with world leaders and has known many of them for years. I have been with her on many of these occasions, and it is this combination of experience and understanding that sets her apart from the field, and why I am supporting her for President." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry3656683.shtml

Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 30, 2007 2:07 AM:

obama4eva: "hillary clinton is an unattractive candidate that america does not want to see age."

That is a really ugly, disgusting comment. If you think sharing such rancid opinions helps your candidate, then you're driving on three wheels and still missing a couple lugnuts. I would like to believe that you should be ashamed of yourself, but you're obviously someone who doesn't embarrass easily.

Bill F wrote on December 30, 2007 7:11 AM:

Hey JP from HB-

No one is going to pick a phony, shrill, calculating bitch with no experience who also does not have the capacity to bring people together, lead or inspire. That's why she has 50% negatives even after the "conversation." People hate that witch, see right through her, and can not stand the thought of listening to her for the next 4 years. Which is why her poll numbers are dropping in Iowa, NH, and SC.

kefa wrote on December 30, 2007 8:11 AM:

Bill F...class is in session

The reason the negs are so high is because
...get this....the other side hates her. So frickin what??? I want them to hate her. it means she or Bill are doing something right. Thats why they hate the Clintons. Got it. Good

Class dismissed.

Kefa wrote on December 30, 2007 8:18 AM:

Bill F....The bad guys do not want to be brought together, lead or inspired. They want to disrupt. They want it their way. This is not tv. Wake up. HRC will have to pull ears and make them wash their faces be mean, kick asses and take names. No tenderness. This holding hands and nicy nices is just crazytalk. The next Prez is gonna have to put foot in the bad guys asses to get things close to back to order.

Kefa wrote on December 30, 2007 8:22 AM:

One more poll HRC is up on

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2948587520071230?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

audit the polls wrote on December 30, 2007 8:38 AM:

JP from HB, These trial heats never match all of the candidates up. They mainly match Obama and Clinton against all the Republicans except Paul. These are the corporate candidates. They get the donations and the coverage. Obama and Clinton get corporate support because they're 1]the most conservative and hawkish, and 2]the most beatable. That support includes corporate media coverage.

JHo wrote on December 30, 2007 9:32 AM:

bbln -
Albright: "Hillary has been in refugee camps, clinics, orphanages, and villages all around the world". That's what first lady's do. Give me some true foreign POLICY accomplishments. She didn't have National Security access during Bill's tenure. How are people falling for this?

JHo wrote on December 30, 2007 10:02 AM:

"In April 1985 Nancy Reagan expanded her drug awareness campaign to an international level by inviting the wives of world leaders to attend a White House conference she hosted on youth drug abuse. In October of that year, during the U.N.'s 40th anniversary, she hosted thirty international First Ladies for a second such gathering."

Nancy Reagan for President!!!

Merle wrote on December 30, 2007 10:37 AM:

"In April 1985 Nancy Reagan expanded her drug awareness campaign to an international level by inviting the wives of world leaders to attend a White House conference she hosted on youth drug abuse. In October of that year, during the U.N.'s 40th anniversary, she hosted thirty international First Ladies for a second such gathering."

Nancy Reagan for President!!!"

and she WAS president, remember? Ol Ron was napping or have you forgotten?

Liam wrote on December 30, 2007 11:03 AM:

Nancy Reagan for President!!!"

and she WAS president, remember? Ol Ron was napping or have you forgotten?

You are wrong sir. If you check the actual records you will discover that Nancy Reagan brought in an Astrologer, Joan Quigley, and that was the person who set Ronald Reagan's daily schedule.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Astrologer Joan Quigley was hired by Nancy Reagan to dictate what the elected president should do on a daily basis.

Liam wrote on December 30, 2007 11:54 AM:

Reality Check:

Senator Obama treats his wife with respect, as an equal marriage partner.

President Bill Clinton treated his wife to a steady diet of Bimbo eruptions. How does that qualify her as a strong leader? Her own husband treated her with the utmost disrespect through out their marriage, and what is worse, she accepted it, and continued to enable and cover for him.

If she did not respect herself, then how is she supposed to regain respect for America.

colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 1:20 PM:

My spouse is a freelance editor who works online at home. We share the same office. Although I've never edited anything approaching that level of expertise, or ever participated in query letters to authors, conferences with senior editors on policy, etc., - I have gained a ton of experience just by asking questions, discussing the projects, looking stuff up, helping with busywork to meet deadlines, etc., in other words, everything a spouse would normally do.

Bill and Hillary are both intellectually curious, hardworking, policy wonks. There is no reasonable doubt that she knew most of what was going on day to day, and that her counsel was solicited by Bill. He has always said that. Remember "two for the price of one?"

colonpowwow wrote on December 30, 2007 1:29 PM:

Liam:

Reality check. You know how the Clinton's marriage operates in accordance with your positively biddy-like standards?

How biblically provincial your take is. You should maybe take another look at Huckabee. There's someone who knows how to form judgements.

Ever been to Europe? Just wondering. Do you know for a fact that the Clinton's don't have a more non-traditional "open marriage" arrangement, but that Bill just wasn't able to stay discreet?

Then shutup, Ken Starr . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Liam.

DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 1:51 PM:

colonpowwow,

My wife is an executive in a bank. I am not in banking, but I am a supportive spouse. Do you think any bank would hire me as an executive thanks to my relationship with my wife?

Bill G wrote on December 30, 2007 3:22 PM:

Hillary is a shrill, calculating opportunistic bitch with very little real experience and no ability to lead or bring people together. People hate her (on the right and left) because of her phoniness. If she got the nomination, she would instantly galvanize a disorganized right wing and lose faithful Dems like me to Bloomberg, Paul and/or McCain. Them's the facts.

CalD wrote on December 30, 2007 7:22 PM:

"My wife is an executive in a bank. I am not in banking, but I am a supportive spouse. Do you think any bank would hire me as an executive thanks to my relationship with my wife?"

Well, let's ponder that:

- Is your wife the president of the bank?

- Have you actually lived in the bank day and night for 8 years?

- Do you have an office and a staff at the bank and work shoulder to shoulder with the bank's senior management team day in and day out?

- Have you been a trusted adviser and a sounding board for your wife, the bank president, in all details of the bank's operation for that much time?

- Have you performed official functions on behalf of the bank, including marketing, PR, and representing the bank in high-level discussions with the leaders of other banks?

Because if a person had done all those things, and had done them for as long as it takes to earn a Phd in a subject, then I would say that person would have to be some kind of idiot not to have acquired some real expertise in banking through that experience. But of course, I guess we couldn't completely rule out that a person who would attempt to draw a comparison like that, might very well be some kind of idiot.

DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 8:09 PM:

CalD,

First, please note I was responding to colonpowwow's own anecdotal argument.

Second, many of the things you are implying on Hillary Clinton's behalf we do not know to be true, or in fact know to be false (for example, we know she did not attend NSC meetings). But It would in fact be interesting for the Clintons to elaborate upon and document her role as First Lady, but unfortunately they have chosen not to do so.

CalD wrote on December 30, 2007 8:29 PM:

DTM: Of course I knew you'd have to come back with some lame-ass response. You're psychically incapable of admitting I pwned you.

kucinich for prez wrote on December 30, 2007 8:32 PM:

On a page this long, why is there only room for 3 Democratic candidates on the poll tracker? Is TPM trying to suppress some candidates?

DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 9:36 PM:

CalD,

Once again, your tactics are transparent and simply will not work on me.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)