Coming down the stretch baby.......creme gonna come to the top. The Lady is a Champ. She will take the White House back and bring dignity back to our country.

Become a Deputy Kindergarten Kop!

David Plouffe: Less than twelve hours after that poll came out, the Clinton campaign launched a series of baseless attacks against Senator Obama. Panicked by the poll numbers, they even attacked Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher what he wanted to be when he grew up.

I wish I were joking. Today we're launching a website that will keep track of all the attacks Senator Clinton has launched since she said she wasn't interested in attacking other Democrats at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November 10th. We're asking all of you to be vigilant and notify us immediately of any attacks from Senator Clinton or her supporters as soon as you see them so that we can respond with the truth swiftly and forcefully.

http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com/

With all of the hyperventilating out of Camp Hillary, I think it's fair to assume her internal polling numbers aren't looking so rosy.

She will take the White House back and bring dignity back to our country.

She might pull off the former. The latter is beyond the realm of possibility.

How in the hell did Kleefeld not notice that this poll is older than all the others? We know Hillary was ahead. Pretending like this is a valid counterpoint to every other recent poll showing rather different results is absolutely ridiculous.

Yikes!

Thanks for pointing this out. I was about to comment that this proved Eric's Great Grace Under Mental Stress of Hostage Crisis Bounce theory

Cool it folks. Give all 3 candidates a chance to go about their business. It is tough out there. Two weeks ago everyone in the Village was urging Obama to attack Clinton the frontrunner. Today everyone is angry and surprised when Clinton attacks the frontrunner. That is what happens with or without Karl Rove making mischief. Why do we allow that scumbag to get us attacking one another in blogs. In the end let the voters tell the candidates what they want. Can we more light and less heat?

"She might pull off the former. The latter is beyond the realm of possibility."

Really? What about this?

"In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a "boneheaded" mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, closing the deals on the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house, Obama bought a slice of the Rezko property for $104,500.

After news of the deal broke last month in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot. For the first time since he entered the national spotlight, the 45-year-old freshman senator found himself on the defensive, discussing a personal decision he had come to regret."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

It seems Mr. Clean has a few skeltons of his own.

BlueDog,

Of course, as the date of that Washington Post article indicates, the Rezko story has been out for over a year now.

And even though the matter was thoroughly investigated and it turns out there was no ethical violation (in fact, Obama paid more than the appraised value for the land), Obama handled it by admitting it was a mistake to even be involved in that sort of transaction with a supporter, and he donated Rezko's contributions to his federal campaign to charity.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Eve

Its interesting to see how both Hillary and Obama supporters try to nullify the poll results and try to convince themselves that the polls are either incorrect or don't matter because they are old etc when their candidate is on losing end.

In reality at least the polls show that Hillary does seem to lead by huge margins in big states like NY, NJ, MA, CA, PA, FL & MI (delegates won't be counted)and even if Obama wins Iowa and/or NH will it have any major impact on super Tuesday? We know both candidates have enough money and clout to remain in the race through super Tuesday. (Edwards will probably drop out after SC primaries).

Josh, why is it when Hillary is a head there is something wrong with the poll?

Gujar: "even if Obama wins Iowa and/or NH will it have any major impact on super Tuesday?"

Is this your first presidential election?

"Coming down the stretch baby.......creme gonna come to the top. The Lady is a Champ. She will take the White House back and bring dignity back to our country."

Surely, you're joking? No way is she going to bring any dignity to anything. She's one walking scandal and no Democrat or Republican in their right mind could think otherwise. She sells out to the most convenient interest group at the first opportunity. I hope she doesn't get the nomination.

Michael A wrote on December 3, 2007 12:57 PM:

When are dems going to start talking about the clinton II baggage, the white house years? This smacks of desperation but let me just say that Dem wingnuts have been talking about nothing but the "baggage" for the last 15 years, and frankly, it gone stale.

Do all you dems think that the great right-wing attack machine erased its memory from the 90's?

Th day they impeached Bill Clinton, his approval shot up to more than 60% and it has not come down since. We would welcome "the great right-wing machine" attacks on HRC. It would either be received with a collective yawn, or outright irritation.

Only someone in the throes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome with comorbid OCD would believe that Repub's attacks on Clinton would be effective. After 15 years, its is only with true OCD that anyone would keep doing the same thing over and over again.

DRinOH,

Yes it is my first election and I live in a state where primaries are so far down the road that it really won't matter anyway.

I am not very familiar with the history of candidates winnning Iowa primary and its effect on win in other states except 2004 election cycle. I would say that in 2004 Iowa win may have helped Kerry to propel through to win in other states but I am not sure Howard Dean was as well know in states other than Iowa & NH 04 as Hillary Clinton is in 2008. Also the MSM attack on Dean on his rant did not help him at all.

gujar,

Every campaign is different, so it is impossible to tell in advance whether the Iowa winner will get a bump in NH, and so on from there.

But I would note a couple things. First, as the Governor of Vermont, Dean was actually pretty well known in NH, and Kerry went from a huge deficit to a double digit win in NH after winning Iowa. So being well known is not necessarily an antidote to this effect.

Second, my understanding is that the volatility of support in the primaries is more a function of how well the other candidates are liked than anything else. And the polls are indicating the Democrats actually like a lot of their candidates, and are generally satisfied with their field.

So, I personally think we should not be surprised if the Democrats quickly rally around the frontrunner coming out of the early states (particularly if the same person wins Iowa and NH), because I think the Democrats would not have a problem supporting any of their major candidates (including not just Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, but also Biden, Richardson, and Dodd).

Obama said today that we should not pay too much attention to the polls---he said that when he was doing poorly, he remains consistent in that view, despite the upward changes.

I have to wonder----the under-reported fact that the hostage taker cited a Hillary ad which used someone Hillary also used in her 2000 senate campaign (Hey--I am glad his kid got the bone marrow transplant!)as a reason why he decided to contact her might be resonating in New Hampshire---where the ad---designed to attack Obama and Edwards for daring to raise issues about Hillary's trustworthiness---has been used a lot.

Does anyone know how the guy was used in 2000? before hillary was a powerful senator able to just call the hospital and get help for the guy?

DTM,

Thanks and you make good points. The only thing that puzzles me more so on the democratic side after reading different blogs on left for many months now I get a sense that there considerable polarization for Hillary and/or Obama. I am not sure how much Hillary supporters will rally around Obama or vice a versa. May be something to do with having a chance for Woman or an African American to be the first president. Hopefully democrats rally around their candidate in general election whoever the nominee is if they don't it will hurt democrats in general election.

dc, the funny thing is all that garbage from the 90's isn't just going to disappear. It's there and she wants to run on her "experience" and the clinton 90's record. What do you think the response to that claim is going to be from republicans. You actually think that they will act like dems and say "gee that's wonderful. Clinton II you are so brilliant and we love you." You're not that dumb.

So, clinton I's approval ratings went up to 60% when he was impeached. I had to laugh when I read that. They didn't go up for doing something increadibly great for the country. They went up to 60% for getting impeached. Way tooo funnnnny.

Also, in case you miss it, check out robert reich's comments linked on the front page. I guess he is just another one of those left-wing, wacko, pinko, commie, hillary-haters that you keep whining about, right.

Bottom line, my point on the garbage is not that I necessarily think it's important to your or me, but it may sway the "centrist" swing voters that you keep referring to. If that's the case, don't you think we should at least talk about it. It seems kind of naive and short sighted to ignore the elephant in the room.

Here's the link:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/26/124127/05

gujar,

People argue on the Internet. The real world polling I have seen indicates that most Democrats are willing to consider any of the top contenders, regardless of their current preference.

BlueDog,

Again, Obama pledged that he would not take PAC money for his presidential campaign, but he did not call on all Democrats running for any office to make the same pledge. And again, none of the Hopefund money went to his presidential campaign, so I don't see the issue.

Blue Dog:

Can you provide evidence that Obama's presidential campaign accept PAC money (that wasn' subsequently returned)? As far as his FEC declarations through the 3rd quarter, no PAC money. No federal lobbyist dollars.

So no matter how you try to spin this, Jerome Armstrong's opinion notwithstanding, he's been consistent. Until I see something from the FEC taking him to task, I see this as an act of desperation on the part of HRC's campaign.

I hate to be one of the people screaming bias all the time, especially since I think Josh and everyone other than Eric has remained admirably neutral. But how long is this link going to stay on the front page?

It took 10 minutes for commenters to debunk the chronology of this poll. This site (arguably correctly) refused to post the Zogby interactive poll last week on the basis of unreliable methodology, but has no problem citing this one, and no problem leaving it on the front page for hours, even after discovering the faulty methodology.

I'm not saying you can't cite this poll, but if you're going to cite it with an "update" footnote, you probably should be consistent and do the same with other arguably unreliable polls, even the ones that don't have Hillary in front.

dcshungu:

You wanted more information on the ISU poll here it is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/ISU_poll_dec_03.html

Wouldn't put too much stock in it, it was conducted Nov. 6-18th.

Hmmmm, didn't something like this occur like late July, early August, where an 'unfavorable to Hillary' polling picture was 'trumped' by another poll, which was held and released a a tad late, but failed to say that its data predated the 'unfavorable to Hillary poll news?

Here is what the Mother Jones site says about these two polls:
"Here's the catch. The AP-Pew poll was conducted November 7-25. Some of the results there are two to three weeks old. The Iowa State University poll was conducted November 6-18. All of the results there are two to three weeks old. They all predate the juvenation the Obama campaign has gotten going in Iowa these past few weeks."

Okay, now that the Obama supporters have decided that polls this "early" out actually ARE reliable (unless they are a few days old and show Clinton in the lead)...

A poll is a snap-shot for the betting person. But, just like we've come to realize when the Redskins play, the game isn't over until it's over; and an election isn't over until it's over.

My bet is on still Clinton. Your bet may be on someone else.
But can NOW we agree that reputable polling firms give us data, not promises??
And REPUTABLE data (NOT Zogby interactive) has validity, no matter who is leading the poll.
If you want to rely on polls for your postings, at the very least you should learn to read the data that they provide. A tie in Iowa is a tie in Iowa.

My take from the Iowa polls:
Not the least bit worried for my candidate.
But if my candidate was John Edwards, I'd be working my ass off right now knocking on doors all over Iowa.
He is.
Bueno.

Keith wrote on December 3, 2007 3:08 PM:

dcshungu:

Are you seriously trying to creep toward the Muslim smear? There must be some serious desperation in the HRC camp for you to even INTIMATE such a thing.

Wow, when the wheels come off, they come way the hell off....

What I had posted above was exactly what our Michael A had fantasized about: Obama is such a unifying figures that Muslims in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be grateful to America for electing a Barack Hussein Obama, Black POTUS, that would they feel instant kinship, paving the road for everlasting truce between Arabs and West...

His wheels are off, loose screws and all...he's even worse than you.

Sorry for the many types, omitted word, words out of sequence, etc, but I am always multi-tasking like crazy, or posting from an awkward hand-held device, which leads to errors. You can decipher most of my posts, I am sure....

dcshungu:

My, my, my, aren't you in a particular petty and juvenile mood today. I don't see anything in Michael A's comments to suggest that you are mocking his response, but whatever. If you choose to dismiss the impact Senator Obama would have on America's soft power, so be it. That doesn't warrant your trafficking in/parroting these untorrid and false smears. It's objectionable, but as I recall you've previously pushed racism-meme as a knock against Obama, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your ignorant taunts.

http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/374.pdf

Anyone who wants to get away from the trollery might instead read the Pew poll. Lots of interesting stuff, especially because it compares 2007 and 2003 results. Good and bad news for both major campaigns. The poll's timing is different precisely because it has a lot more depth.

You can tell whether people are absorbing new information or just looking at it as a way to bash antagonists.

My fellow Obama enthusiasts should get more sleep and not scrutinize every TPM link and headline for bias. Keep it positive and hopeful and don't get dragged into childish spats.

I don't think this was posted to me by Michael A but...

re: "Bottom line, you really don't give a rats a** about the country or trying to unite it as opposed to further dividing it."

I really DO give a rat's ass about the country.

But I really don't give a rat's ass about Clinton Haters. Clinton Haters gag me.

Part of the reason I LOVE Hillary Clinton is that she drives Clinton Haters absolutely nuts.

George W. Bush is the one who told us we were either for him or against him.
I'm against him.
Let me know when he wants to apologize.

Until then, I really do NOT care to unite with the Loyal Bushies, or the Clinton Haters. So, may the best man/woman win.

I'll take SMART government, like we had in the 1990's, over united government any friggin' day.
To each, his or her own opinion.

Jan writes:

But I really don't give a rat's ass about Clinton Haters. Clinton Haters gag me.

Part of the reason I LOVE Hillary Clinton is that she drives Clinton Haters absolutely nuts.

I'll repeat what I wrote in another thread:

People write disapproving things about BushCo. The response from the BushCo sycophants: You're a Bush-hater, writing anti-Bush rants.

People write disapproving things about Hillary Clinton. The response from DemAC: You're Hillary-haters, publishing anti-Hillary rants.

QED.

That post referred to DemAC's words, but they are equally applicable to others who respond to any criticism of HRC with the substance-free whine that they must be coming from "Clinton haters." It's straight out of the GOP playbook, which, to all appearances, is nearly identical with the DLC playbook.

dcshungu armchair-psychoanalyzes people who dare to criticize Her Presidentialness, diagnosing them with OCD and God knows what else.

DemAC whines about "respect" and "civility" whenever anyone dares to post criticism while whining and complaining bitterly about far milder treatment of DemAC's own favored candidate.

To each, his or her own opinion.

Indeed. And you would do well, Jan, to respect those opinions rather than attacking/dismissing them in typical GOP fashion as those of "Clinton haters."