Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: For Obama, It Takes a Movement

For months, we've written that the only way for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- or any other Democrat for that matter -- to defeat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is to make the vote about more than just politics.

Line Highlights

  • Moving Off The Line: Fred Thompson
  • Moving On: Ron Paul
  • Moving Up: Mike Huckabee, Bill Richardson
  • Moving Down: Joe Biden

A standard political race -- governed by the same rules and regulations that typify these contests -- will almost certainly result in Clinton as the nominee. Her reach within the party establishment is just too broad for anyone to beat her in a traditional nominating contest.

But in a non-traditional fight, all bets are off. And, more and more, Obama seems set on turning his candidacy -- and the vote in the Iowa caucuses -- into a movement, insisting that the choice is crucial for the future direction of the country.

This idea is illustrated in Obama's latest ad, which began running in Iowa earlier this week:

That is one powerful spot, and it's all about casting his campaign as something much, much more than politics as usual. "We are in a defining moment in our history," he says in footage taken from his speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last month. "America, our moment is now."

The contrast between Obama's "movement" and Clinton's traditional campaign operation is implicit in the ad (the New York senator is not mentioned), but it is very real. Clinton, by the very nature of her background and candidacy, is not capable of taking advantage of this unique moment in American political history, argues the ad. Only Obama can do it.

Turning his campaign into a movement about something more than politics is the best -- and perhaps only -- path for Obama to win the nomination. He appears to have realized that.

In an attempt to keep pace with ever-changing landscape of the two nomination fights, The Fix is going to a weekly presidential Line between now and when the two parties have effectively picked their 2008 nominees. Because we'll be looking at the presidential candidates every week for the next 8 weeks (or more), we are trimming down the write-up for each candidate to make for a slightly quicker read.

As always, remember the No. 1 ranked candidate is the one who is most likely to wind up as that party's nominee.

To the Line!


1. Rudy Giuliani: The former mayor of New York has hit a rough patch of late, symbolized by the media fallout from (and his campaign's strained explanations of) a Politico story that suggested Hizzoner used official security funds to transport his mistress (now wife, Judith Nathan) when he was still mayor. But take a step back and things look far better. Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa takes the pressure off of Giuliani to slow Mitt Romney there and opens up the real possibility that Giuliani could win New Hampshire. His campaign won't cop to it, but in figuring out the math it seems like a win in New Hampshire or South Carolina is an absolute must for Giuliani at this point. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. (tie) Mitt Romney: For a man who seemed to have considered every possibility and every angle in this race, we don't think Romney saw Mike Huckabee coming. (He admitted as much in a sitdown with The Fix last week in Iowa.) Huckabee's surge in the Hawkeye State is generally bad news for Romney, as it puts a state where he looked invincible back into play and seriously jeopardizes his chances of running the table in Iowa and New Hampshire. That said, if Huckabee maintains his lead in Iowa for a week or two, Romney could well look like the Comeback Kid (apologies to Bubba) if he winds up winning the caucuses. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. (tie) Mike Huckabee: Timing is everything in politics, and Huckabee is moving at the right time. What remains to be seen is whether Huckabee's momentum can overcome Romney's money in Iowa. Huckabee finished a surprising second at the Ames Straw Poll in August but was well behind the well-financed and organized Romney. Given where Huckabee stands in Iowa polling now, a second-place finish is no longer the moral victory it would have been. Ah, the expectations game! (Previous ranking: 3)

4. John McCain: McCain is basically running a one-state strategy at the moment, putting the vast majority of his time and campaign resources into New Hampshire. Polling shows that to be a sound strategy, as McCain remains a major factor in the Granite State and is positioned to make a major push in the final month of the campaign. But can McCain's support in New Hampshire withstand a fourth or fifth place finish in Iowa? He skipped the state in 2000 and has so far mounted a half-hearted effort there this time around. McCain must hope New Hampshire voters ignore what happens in Iowa and decide to assert their famous independence by backing the candidate they loved in 2000. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Ron Paul: "Dr. No" makes The Line for the first time. Why? Because Paul's surprising fundraising success means that he will have plenty of money to reach Republican caucusgoers and primary voters with his unique message of getting American troops out of Iraq and drastically limiting the role of government. Paul seems likely to become a home for any disaffected voter unhappy with the top-tier candidates. While we'd be surprised to see him crack 10 percent in Iowa, his messaging is a surprisingly natural fit for a segment of New Hampshire's Republican voters. Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes.


1. Hillary Rodham Clinton: The coronation is officially on hold. But be careful about predicting the demise of Clinton II. She is tough as nails and, more so than any other candidate on either side (with the possible exception of McCain), knows how to soldier through adversity. For all the political obituaries being penned about Clinton, every poll we've seen shows Iowa a three-way statistical dead heat. Momentum isn't on Clinton's side at the moment in the state, but her campaign is pulling out the stops to shift the debate from one of personalities to one of accomplishments. If Clinton loses in Iowa, New Hampshire will be her last, best chance to retake the frontrunner mantle. Still, she has more potential paths to the nomination than any of her opponents. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Barack Obama: We've said our piece about Obama above. During our trip to Iowa last weekend, we saw a different Obama -- savvier politically, more comfortable in his own skin etc. The biggest remaining question for Obama is: Do Iowa voters go right to the edge with him only to change their minds to go with the perceived better general-election candidate (Clinton or John Edwards)? We don't know. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. John Edwards: Count us as skeptical about the talk that Edwards's Iowa support is rapidly eroding. In poll after poll -- including the Post's own poll and the Des Moines Register's gold standard survey -- Edwards is within striking distance. He touched a chord with Iowa voters in 2004, and he has kept a loyal and sizable group with him despite the presence of two rock stars in the Democratic field. Turnout is everything for Edwards in Iowa. In 2004, the campaigns of former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) and then-Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) planned for a traditional turnout model (60,000 to 70,000) and were swamped when more than 124,000 people turned out. If the number of voters stays between 120,000 and 140,000, Edwards has a strong chance. If it grows beyond that, he could be in trouble. (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Bill Richardson: There remains a major gap in Iowa and nationally between the Big 3 on the Democratic side and the rest of the field. We move Richardson up a spot this month based on the idea that of the candidates not named Clinton, Edwards or Obama, he will have the most money to spend in the final month. Richardson has really struggled to differentiate himself from the field; his appeal that he is the lone chief executive in the race has fallen flat and his plan to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year hasn't done the trick either. Still, polling shows Richardson running a solid fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire; our numbers-based mind can't ignore that. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Joe Biden: The highlight of the generally news-less National Public Radio debate earlier this week in Iowa was Biden. With foreign policy on the front burner, Biden scolded his rivals for their lack of knowledge and realism while simultaneously showing off his impressive political resume. The best thing going for Biden is Biden. He knows what he believes and connects well with voters and elected officials alike. The problem for Biden is that he hasn't made a major move in the Iowa polls yet -- and time is running out. Still, if an Iowa dark horse does emerge, our money is on the man from Delaware. (Previous ranking: 4)

The comments section is open for business.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 7, 2007; 12:01 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dacey To Head Democratic Soft Money Group
Next: Wag the Blog Redux


As Senator Barack Obama stated, "America our movement is now."

It is not about Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is about America grabbing hold to change.

Just look at them.

Are they really going to bring change to America? Or will we get the status quo because of who they are beholden to?

Or will we really have someone who will fight for change, if we have the guts for change.

I believe America wants a change. Not from the Republican. Not from a Democrat. But with someone who has vision for all of us. Someone who can be inclusive and respectful to us all. Not offending anyone.

America is crying out for change. It needs change.

If American does not grab hold of this movement, it is going to die.

The "old boys/girls" network is going to strangle it from all that it can be.

We've had Bill and Hillary Clinton. I don't care if all the rich, famous and undercover agents give them a billion dollars to win this election.

At this particular time in our history. They are wrong for America.

Remember what happened to Lot's wife.

Don't look back, America.

"America our movement is now."

Posted by: vgw22 | January 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

You know, I like Obama. He's stylish, urbane, witty and intelligent. He is a privilege child - a Cinderella story as the above article defines. Oh, I would say that many would disagree with my statement - but the fact is Obama managed to avoid the necessity of being black in America. He was able to skip out on qualities such as perseverance, determination, a belief of principle, and the art of living that principle. He took as much discrimination as my neighbor who is white. He is an intellectual African American who lived in an elite world, the ivory tower or upper middle class. That is what concerns me.
Although I regret to say, I did not walk with Dr. King in Selma. I walked in Berwyn and Cicero, the cities just outside of Chi-Town (Chicago), amongst white hostiles who reviled us and pelted us with dung and urine. I saw the hearts of bigots and racists, and I know that our nation is still populated with such ideology. I was young, and a teacher trying to teach in the inner city with history books whose final copyright was 1933. Apparently history ended with Hoover on the South Side of the city. We mimeographed pages that brought current events to our students. Earlier, I worked in the school during the race riots of 1967, and often dodged a bullet either from a white man or a black man. I walked through a city with military presence and smelt the burning of human flesh, or the shrieks of drunk men, angry men, both black and white, among the background of guns and flaming gas filled bottles. I worked with others, both black and white, to end the Jim Crow laws, and watched black men go off to war in Viet Nam.
At that time, Obama was a pubescent adolescent in Hawaii, Kenya and Indonesia - raised predominately white - with a father who only knew acceptance for the color of his skin - not rejection. Obama doesn't recognize the hate of discrimination - he's never had to face it - thus he rationalizes and theorizes upon it. We all have felt discriminated at times in our lives, all of us whether we are black, white, red, yellow, or brown. Obama is the product of what we wanted to see - urbane, cultured, intelligent and savvy, oddly enough he benefited from the gift of our determination. Yet even today he resides in his ivory tower, and rarely ventures far from his world of acceptance.
Obama is not a brave man, usually ambitious people aren't. When criticized he runs toward others - like Oprah, or Bill Cosby, or even Sen. Durbin. In his speeches I hear the words of a great man, Sen Paul Douglas, a big man with even a bigger wiser heart, snowy hair with twinkling blue eyes that saw beneath the sham and the tawdry and moved this country together - not apart. and who stood in Congress and shamed the members for their bias and discrimination. It is no wonder that the late Sen Douglas was awarded the Conscience of Congress. Yet, oddly enough, I hear too much of Paul Douglas's words issued out of Obama's mouth, and not enough of Obama words - Obama does that - lifts the words of hope off of other people and shifts it a bit and sends it out into the crowd who wolf it up. Yet the bare facts - it is not his words - it is plagiarized. More than that, it is deceitful because it is not the real heart of Obama.
The real heart of Obama is an ambitious intellectual. Therein is his flaw. I think of Obama sitting in the Oval office, and it is not nice. He has not been tempered by life's challenges, he has been indulged by life's benefits. To me, a man, or woman, must have tempered steel that forms his backbone. Obama's backbone is made of plastic. Worse yet, the media do not challenge him - they fear the race card. It is what Obama has avoided all his life - the challenges. It is what he needs in the coming years - experience - then it will be time to run for president, but not now.

Posted by: Truman_Plan | December 11, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

"Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes."

Does Chris Cillizza have a brain? No. Can he write yellow journalism against Ron Paul? Yes.

Why cant the military industrial complex owned media EVER, EVERY give Ron 100% credit. Everything the MSM says is Ron's Big, but he cant win.

HE MUST WIN. HE WILL WIN. Every un-rigged poll he wins. every indication I have he will win, but the MSM still tries to suppress Ron Paul.

Hello, Main Stream Media, You there? We aren't watching or listening anymore and we go to the net for many Points of View, we aren't being programmed like little robots anymore.

RON PAUL = freedom. No Ron Paul = no liberty, no freedom, perpetual war, being paid in FAKE MONEY, etc.

Posted by: mickrussom | December 11, 2007 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has momentum going into the final stage of the run-up to the Iowa caucus. He is making the race vibrate as his following grows across Iowa and will keep growing across the country during 2008. The people who understand the issues are beginning to recognize Obama's professional ability and average voters must then choose between him and the same old tired messages of his opponents. His refreshing honesty and integrity are immovable objects that the rest of the democratic field can not budge. I like his chances for taking 2/3 or 3/4 of the primary races into May. It should be all over but the shoutin' before Indiana shows its true colors. This reminds me of 1960. Dave in Indiana

Posted by: dqjohnson1965 | December 9, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe that Iowans will bolt from Obama in the closing days before the January caucus because they recognize his political purity and genuine foundation. He is redefining presidential campaign rhetoric with his emphasis on questioning the status quo and politics as usual. His real opponent is not HRC but American reluctance to change. So "change" is the operative word for Obama. Iowans are not stuck in the prairie mud and will deliver a resounding victory for the best voice of democracy since John Kennedy captured the national spirit of progress in 1960. Dave in Indiana

Posted by: dqjohnson1965 | December 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

P G: Looking at my Electoral College states, I have Ohio as going to Hillary, and in my judgement Obama could not win Ohio. Lets assume I am correct for a second, and think of where Obama could win anywhere else that Kerry didn't in 04 to make these 20 EC votes up is beyond me. The Repubs are in a pickle at the present time, and I think Mike Huckabee is going to be hard to beat once McCain drops out and supports him.

Posted by: lylepink | December 9, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul should be at the top of this list. Check the Straw Poll results. His support is massive and hes has won a majority of all votes and polls.

Thank you for at least including him.

Ron Paul's Straw Poll Results
Updated on December 7, 2007
Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):

Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 39-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 30-16-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 30-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 40-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 38-6-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 43-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 42-2-0

Posted by: NewRepublican | December 9, 2007 6:39 AM | Report abuse

OK. First off, racism is not just an issue in the South. We need to get over the idea that racism only exists in the old Confederacy.

Secondly, a Dem is not likely to win in a state where racism is a big strike against Obama, ESPECIALLY if HRC is the nominee.

Third, the Dems don't need to win a single state in the south to win the White House. All we need to do is pick up Ohio and maintain the states that Kerry won (and given the snoozer Kerry was as a candidate and the ongoing blow-ups in the WH, that shouldn't be hard). With the growth in the Western states (CO, NV, NM, AZ) the south is losing its relevance.

Fouth: Ron Paul's movement is limited to a relatively small (but very dedicated and vocal) base of Libertarians and libetarian-minded Repubs, period. Beyond that, he has very little appeal, particularly when people get a good look at what he really stands for (i.e. they get beyond the fact that he is a Repub who is against the occupation in Iraq) and what his voting record is, he'll loose many of the independents and conservative Dems.

Fifth, I don't think there is any way Rudy is going to win the Repub nomination. If he does, it will be becasue the Christian Conservatives split their votes between Huckabee and McCain. If that happens, look for a 3rd party candidate who speaks for/panders to the far right wing Christian Conservatives.

Sixth: The only reason I can see putting HRC first is her position in the national polls. But given the fact that the nominee is not chosen on a nation-wide basis AND the fact that HRC has been steadily sliding in the "national polls", I find even this rationale hard to buy into. In the states where people have had the opportunity to get to know the candidates (ie tv commercials, candidate rallys, town hall meetings, etc), HRC is either in a three way tie with Obama and Edwards or seeing a steady deterioration of her lead over Obama and Edwards...not such a great showing for someone who has been in the media spotlight for the last 15 years, especially with less than a month to go until the Iowa caucus.

My bet is that on the Repub side, you'll see Huckabee take Iowa and leave Romney with not much to show for his shopping spree. Huckabee will take that into NH and from there, he'll have good momentum to carry him into the Evangelical land of the south. Once Evangelicals see he can win something, they'll fight to get in line behind him.

I can't really speak for the Dem side because I am a strong supporter of Obama, so I'll just say I believe he will be the nominee.


Posted by: PeixeGato | December 8, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama will face racism, but just as there are some people out there who won't vote for him because he's black, there are others who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I don't think that will stop him from getting the nomination if he stays the course. He's done a good job so far of marginalizing the race issue. It's the media that keeps obsessing about whether he's not black enough for blacks or too black for whites.

Even Rev. Jackson won the south when he ran 20 years ago and at that time he definitely put the race issue front and center. Obama seems much more popular today (in a cross-cultural way) than Rev. Jackson was then, so I think he'll do fine in the south (the black vote will help him). He won't take every state, but I think he'll do fine.

No matter what anyone says, all African Americans are looking for is proof that he can win to throw behind him. They loved him when he went to Harlem and South Carolina; it's just that Hillary has been a well known figure on the national scene for 2 decades and blacks love Billo, so Hillary's benefiting somewhat from their fondness for Bill. Up until this year, Obama wasn't that well known outside of Illinois so it's a familiarity issue, not lack of support. At the same time, blacks want to know what he's about before they give him their vote - just like everyone else. Besides, the fact is that the black vote alone can't put Obama in the white house. He has to have a crossover appeal to make it, and I think he definitely does.

Posted by: writeava | December 8, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

cam8: The comment/post after yours by JM is what I like to see, everyone getting involved and supporting their choice. Naturally, I believe Hillary will win. I haven't paid that much attention to Ron Paul as evidenced by my being off in the ranking of the poll I went back and found. I am very skeptical of polls, but find the "Internals", when available, a much better indicator than the published numbers. A big problem is very few publish the questions asked. and how often is the order of the questions changed. This does have a big effect on the outcome. I try and find as many as I can and figure out what were the top news stories during the time they were taken to give ne a better idea of what were on folks minds at the time.

Posted by: lylepink | December 8, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul has my vote. He is the only man on this list with a 20+ year record of always telling the truth and always supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is only one choice this year: Ron Paul. Just Google "Ron Paul 2008"!

Posted by: jeff111 | December 8, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The revolution is here; vote for Dr. No in 2008!

Ron Paul '08

Posted by: drjhoss | December 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect, you're making the mistake that national polls are the same thing as state election results. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our primaries are done state-by-state, and different candidates have different strengths in different states.
The only state I have a good handle on is NH, and I've lived here all my life, having been involved in politics here since I was a little kid in '79 trying to get people to vote for Reagan.

Some things you need to understand about our little state:

We are extremely independent - What Iowa does has little effect on our decision making. Witness Bill Clinton in '92 going from 5th place in Iowa to 2nd place in NH and on to the Presidency.

We are VERY independent of the two major parties. 44% of us (myself included) are registered Independent, which is a larger voting block than either Party, and it is the Independents that decide every election here. Every one.

The idea of Rudy taking NH is laughable - He is, quite frankly, not trusted here. I'm not saying that based on a few samples, or just my friends and family. This is something I have been hearing from EVERYONE I talk to in NH about politics (and being in NH, we talk about politics a lot - we have two elections a year here).

On the contrary, the Independents in this state are only going two ways - to Obama and to Ron Paul. Both of them are going to finish NH much higher than you expect - mark my words.

Now, I have a degree in physics and chemistry, and being the science geek that I am, I decided to run an unbiased experiment this weekend in the state.
I rode 80 mailes around south-western and south-central NH, with a paper and pen, carefully marking down who had how many signs up and how they were placed.
The results were that there were around 40 signs up for Paul, beating the second-place Mitt Romney, who had 12. Rudy had 4.
Here's the amazing bit: about 35 of the 40 signs for Paul were on people's lawns and property. That was only true for 4 of Mitt's tweleve signs, and only one for Rudy.
I've also seen anecdotal evidence in that nearly everyone I talk to, strangers or friends I haven't seen in months or years, knows Ron Paul, and nearly all are supporting him - even the most liberal people I have ever known. Those who aren't are nearly all going to Obama.
I wouldn't count on either one of them doing poorly in this state if I were you. The state's Republican chairman predicts a top-three finish in NH for Paul, and as was said on a state-wide political TV show (Political Chowder) a little while back:
"Either Ron Paul is the name of a realtor with a WHOLE LOT of properties for sale in NH, or..."


Posted by: jgmaynard | December 8, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse


I agree that Sen. Obama will have to deal with racism in the south, though I'm not sure that Sen. Clinton will have an easier time there in the general either. Where I think her problem will be is changing public perception of her persona, which adds another bump in the road that Obama doesn't have to deal with. He's got a rock-solid 20-point favorable/unfavorable spread, while hers dips and dives and usually hovers around 50-50 or worse. Unless she can find a way to push past that, her lead in the polls is precarious at best.

Posted by: cam8 | December 8, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Email me. I'm serious Chris. $1,000 on Ron Paul breaking 10% in Iowa.

Posted by: jacob.lyles | December 8, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I would put a thousand dollars on the line with you that Ron Paul will get over 10% in Iowa. Easy money.

Posted by: jacob.lyles | December 8, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

It's ironic that Obama needs to fake a movement (A movement for what? Hope?) whereas Paul has already built a movement. A movement with a blimp.

Posted by: jacob.lyles | December 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Good work realizing that Ron Paul is a top-five contender, but why jump to the conclusion that he can't win? He has far more volunteers than the other candidates, and will have enough money to campaign through February 5th at least.

10% in Iowa? He's polling at 5% already, and could get a substantial multiplier effect thanks to the low turnout in the caucuses for the other candidates, and a very motivated and well organized base.

I think it's Giuliani who really has no chance to win. He has no visible support anywhere except in large donations from wealthy people who thought he was the front runner, and random telephone survey responses from people who didn't know much about the candidates yet. I just don't see that kind of "support" translating into votes.

Posted by: drd6000 | December 8, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I just want to thank The Washington Post for allowing me to post my comment, forgot to earlier. Also, I wanted to add the actual blind poll results that were taken by 1009 individuals posted at last month. This poll included Republicans, Dems, and Independents, and the results clearly show that no matter what party affiliation the majority of these people agreed with Ron Paul. These are the actual results, and unfortunately not widely publicized by the media as I have stated in a previous post. The results are as follows:

The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson.

Thank you Washington Post.

Posted by: tess101 | December 8, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to commit 100,000 additional troops to the Middle East. He also wants to make public service a requirement. Sounds like a draft to me, since demanding public service in all other forms has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional.

Posted by: gaaaaaah | December 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Non retards of the world unite!!!!!!

Throw out the warmongers. If your a democrat vote for Obama, if your a republican vote for Paul. Don't worry if most of America is drooling out the mouth staring at the crime and war on the telescreen, if you show up in large enough numbers it'll happen.

Posted by: gorak | December 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

FYI: The poll I referred to earlier can be found at WSAZ.COM Sorry, I forget when I had seen it, but had it written down.

Posted by: lylepink | December 8, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I live in NH.
Here are my biased predictions.
1. Ron Paul's limited government is popular in NH. His current bill to make all tips tax free is very popular at the local restraunts I have been attending. He has signs everywhere. The nh liberty forum is before the primary and there will be hundreds of volunteers campaigning for him.

2. Mitt Romney he was elected govenor in the most socialized State in the union. I have seen one sign supporting him and another painted with graffiti attacking his fascist style health care initiative he supported as Govenor of Mass.

3. Huckabee has a supposed strong surge in the polls. People have not been made aware of his corruption in Arkansas yet. Hillary will destroy him with stories about paroling rapists and the wedding registry three years after his marriage that was flooded with expensive gifts (bribes).

4/5 Mcain Guliani there are no signs although the Republican apparatus is supporting them. The add with Mcain trumpeting a tax and trade scheme on CO2 will kill him if immigration already hasn't. Guliani is also supporting this scheme to help save the planet (ha Ha).

Posted by: hibri | December 8, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

scan4: Hillary 34.5-Rudy 17.2-Ron Paul 13.8-Mike 10.3-Edwards & Thompson 6.9-Biden, Obama, and Mitt 3.4--All the others were at 0.0%. Hope this gives you an idea of how things look here in WV. The big suprise was McCain, with no support.

Posted by: lylepink | December 8, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

If the Republicans want a Republican in office next year, they should all be rooting for Ron Paul. After what we have been through with the Bush Administration, do you honestly think America is going to vote in another Republican Bush wannabee like the so called big government, big spending frontrunners, (Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney), I think not. I did not include McCain because I think he would do well in charge of the Department of Defense, but has no clue on economics and finance issues. Thompson is pretty much out of the race. RON PAUL is the only candidate that will make the changes necessary for our country's economic/financial future, illegal immigration problems but most importantly he will start with bringing our troops and military home period. Please look into RON PAUL, and don't believe all the untruths that are written, Ron Paul is not treated fairly even now by the media. Do the research on Ron Paul, look at his site, If you are a Republican and DO NOT want a Democrat in office, Ron Paul is the only candidate running as a Republican that will beat any democrat that is running for President. I am not making this up, this information can be found on a blind Zogby Poll report, which by the way did not make any headlines, as quite a few of the other polls that were taken and Ron Paul was the clear Frontrunner. Ron Paul has won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate. Don't take my word, please do some research, inform yourselves before you go to the voting booth, and please don't vote for a candidate just because you know his name or saw his face in the newspaper. Please America, lets do something right for our Country and the Citizens of the United States when we vote for our next Leader. My choice will be Ron Paul, he has my vote and support.

Posted by: tess101 | December 8, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

There will be juat one leader out there who will be able to restore law and order, who will restore the constitution, give the people their freedom and prosperity back:

Posted by: Rev6 | December 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

scan4: BTW, I posted a poll a few days ago about how all of the canditates ranked and I think Ron Paul came in 5th or 6th. I'll look for it and let you know if I find it.

Posted by: lylepink | December 8, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I'll bite. I'm tired of commentators ending every bit about Paul with "of course he can't win". It's like Republican Senators saying "I'm not gay". In other words: wishful thinking.

We're still at the point where news shows feel comfortable excluding Ron Paul in their coverage (mysteriously announcing 1st-3rd and then 5th-last in polls where he finishes 4th). The blimp will change that. Add in 1000 boots on the ground in New Hampshire and Iowa in the coming weeks and finishing among the top 3 fundraisers for the quarter, and Paul could see a meteoric rise.

Posted by: jacob.lyles | December 8, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I'll bet anything Chris was shaking when he put Ron Paul on The Line.

Or course there were qualifiers, like "I'll be really suprised if he cracks 10 percent in Iowa" or this good one, "Can he win? No." But considering that it took months before Chris had to be dragged, kicking and screaming of course, to put Paul on The Line, I'll take those as compliments.

But for people with open minds about Paul's chances (unlike Chris) consider the following: 1). An on-the-ground survey by the Iowa political blog Iowa Independent considers Paul a good bet to finish at least third in the caucus and 2). Paul finished first among candidates with committed delegates to the West Virginia State GOP Convention on Feb. 5 which will select 21 of the states 30 delegates to the GOP Convention.

Blimps are one thing but so are results and so far Paul has earned his way onto The Line and beyond.

Posted by: sean4 | December 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The past few elections have challenged the credibility of political pundits and their polls.
I hope Americans are not sheep to the opinions of these political pundits and poll results. We need to vote for whom we belive; vote our hearts and minds. The approval ratings of the President and Congress show that politics as usual is no longer acceptable. The institution needs to be shaken up. All the candidates, less one, will lead us down the same path of dissatisfaction. Oddly enough the one candidate who is different is the one labeled as "unelectable".

Posted by: drsave | December 8, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Why do you calll Biden a "dark horse", yet basically refer to Paul as unelectable?

Paul has a more realistic shot at winning than Biden (money, support, etc). Yes it's a long road and many things have to fall in to place...but it can happen. I'm not asking journalists to gush over Paul...but please treat all candidates with the same amount of respect.

Posted by: thanrekop | December 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I wish that the political pundits (including blogsters and columnist!)could see fit to STOP covering elections as though they were sporting contests. AL versus NL in the World Series at the end of the day means nothing. "Baby Shoes" placing 2nd at The Belmont at the end of the day means nothing. These 'events' are largely for entertainment. They mean nothing in the ocurse of our real lives. Presidential elections DO mena something, even if your a moron who cares more about the NL v AL than the NSA and the CIA becuase even if YOU choose to hide your head in the sand you are stilll affected by who is elected.

Maybe the press, including Mr. Fix-It could see their way to stop ranking candidates like movies or college football teams and provide some insight and analysis on the substance of the candidates' poaitions. Enough with the BS handicapping.

Posted by: fluidjazz99 | December 8, 2007 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Everyone should see this video.The Mainstream press is not reporting this very important revelation.

Posted by: earthtone2000 | December 8, 2007 5:15 AM | Report abuse

cam8: I pretty much agree with you about the sexism about Hillary, and the learning expierence of Hillary Care should be a plus, the Iraq and Iran votes, if memory serves, were hugely Bi-Partisan and passed with a pretty good margin, so I don't think that will play in the General as it is in the primary. The racism thing would play a huge role against Obama, especially in the south where the dems need help, BTW, I did have only Fla. and Va in my early Electoral count. Edwards seldom comes up with anyone.

Posted by: lylepink | December 8, 2007 3:51 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was a radical marxist in the 60s and she is still a marxist.

Barack Obama is a socialist but very personable.

John Edwards is a worse socialist and an elitist. Nice hair though.

Richardson is a failure as a Governor with his state coming in at the 47th to 50th state on alot of issues. If he can't manage his state, how's he going to manage the country?

Biden is a professional politician. He has only a kingdom in the Senate and has a problem with brain/mouth coordination.

Dodd is also a professional politician. No chance.

Kucinich. Beam him up Scotty.

The best bet for Democrats is to nominate Obama. At least he comes forward without the baggage, except for the drugs and alcohol, and he can talk the talk.
Guilanni has a problem in that the Clinton's have so much on him that it will make Bill Clinton look like the Pope.

Romney, despite the Freedom of Religion in the 1st Amendment, will be judged being unfit because he's a mormon.

Thompson needs a nap.

Paul is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

McCain is a RINO and Republicans are not going to support him because of the Immigration issue.

Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. We've already had that and that's not going to be a winner for him.

Tancredo is a one-issue candidate. That's not good enough.

Duncan Hunter is one of two real conservatives in the pack of repubs. Thompson being the other. He doesn't get the press so he doesn't get the money.

The best bet for the Republicans is to nominate ???

I do not want a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton and I wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman. I just hope people look at the candidate and what they really want. If you want bigger Government, more taxes, a loss of rights, a loss of sovereignty, a new majority being Mexican, Spanish as the National Language, more Government entitlement programs than the U.S. could ever afford and eventual Global Socialism, then by all means vote Democrat. Just get what you wish for.

Posted by: konniebay2 | December 8, 2007 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Many of us are really tired of the press -- in their usual lazy way -- talking only of Clinton and Obama, which has allowed Obama to make a good attempt of taking over all the positions of John Edwards. The REAL candidate of CHANGE is John Edwards. Everything Obama says is straight from the very words and phrases John Edwards has been saying for many, many months. (Of course his "handlers" have worked for Edwards in the past, and are working from their knowledge of this smart, courageous man.) Let's face it: Oprah Winfrey has never supported, much less endorsed a candidate before. Could the fact that he is black have anything to do with it? And Bill Clinton wants to see his wife elected. So where does that leaves the best candidate -- John Edwards? You would think the media would have the decency as Americans to make this a fair race. But no. It is just too easy to play the game of the horserace between the woman (and wife of a superstar ex-President) and the black candidate who has the support of a black superstar, and neglect the other candidates. Especially the one who, all the matchup polls show is the most electable. We may wind up with Hillary or Obama as the nominee. But neither one will win the general election, and we'll have a Republican in the White House for another four or eight years when we could have had a visionary, strong, smart Democrat in the White House. Because John Edwards is the one Democrat who could have gotten elected. What a truly sad state of affairs. But I still hold out hope that the people of Iowa will not be swayed by the superstars, but rather do what is best for America.

Posted by: rebelfriend | December 8, 2007 2:14 AM | Report abuse


I would tend to agree with you, but I reserve judgment on referring to this hatred being due to envy or jealousy. Other than sexism (which I definitely think is there) most of the people who hate Sen. Clinton hate her for the same reasons that many hate George W. Bush. They hate her because they're not sure she can be trusted. She's made some questionable decisions (HillaryCare, the Iran & Iraq votes) and shown a limited amout of candor in admitting mistakes.

Whether or not these are constructs of right-wing pundits or not (and some of it is, to be sure) is of limited relevance; they exist. And they are a large part of the force that keeps her unfavorability ratings above 50%. It can and ultimately will damage her electability in the general.

Can she overcome it? I would say so, but I think her hill is going to be a harder one to surmount than the one that an Obama or Edwards would face. Once public perception is hardened, it's supremely difficult to change.

Posted by: cam8 | December 7, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

LV : That pretty well fits into my category of the "Envy/Jealous" Factor I mention a lot. You are rite on about Bubba. A whole bunch of southern white males still want to keep women pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter. Another thing I find is the more education women have are among those that fall into this category about Hillary. urban4: Folks may disagree with her and refer to it as "Negatives" as you do, but that is far different from the visural hatred showed by so many towards The Clintons.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This country needs Obama, not Clinton II. I hate that fact that there seems to be a coronation in process. Don't get me wrong, I still love Bill but we do not need Hillary and we do not need politics as usual. Obama has so much offer; Hillary is over.

Posted by: w4npx2 | December 7, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

dyck21005 clearly only gets his news on the Clinton News Network, and ignores the congressional record, the statements from Planned Parenthood that this was a joined strategy to vote "present" on the abortion votes,...I worry that people don't do their OWN research!

I started out as a Clinton supporter. I am a very strong feminist, and it looked natural at first. But then ethics and her lack of true feminism got in the way. I did a thorough investigation of ALL the candidates on the Democratic ticket, and a couple on the Republican side (hey, I'm an Independent voter) that I thought warranted a second look. I read everything I could find.

Obama won my endorsement, and my support, after hours of research and reading. Now I suggest all of you do the same, and not trust the main stream media, owned by Rupert Murdoch (who donates to HRC and the Republicans) and about 6 other corporations. If we want to know what is REALLY going on, we have to read about it in the congressional record, and in independently owned media. We need transparency in government, and we need to reduce corporate lobbying, at least to an 'even' level with the rest of us. Senator Obama is the man with the balance, judgment, integrity, tenacity, and intelligence to get it done.

Posted by: maryTnurse | December 7, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Joe is right! Joe Biden has the sharpest mind and the best platform.

Posted by: soonerthought | December 7, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse


I would agree that Sen. McCain is the most electable Republican in the field, except that he'd be 72 when he took the oath on January 20, 2009. As healthy as he might be right now, that's still pretty old. And I don't think that 5 1/2 years as a POW did a lot for his life expectancy. A lot of the 40 and over voters that remember Reagan being in the early stages of Alzheimer's during his second term are going to think twice about voting for someone who'd be about two years older than Reagan was when he took office.

By the way, that balk would be similar for Ron Paul as well. In fact, he's a little older than McCain.

Posted by: cam8 | December 7, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse

All Obama, or any of the other candidates with an actual chance of winning has to do is follow the dictates of the American people. F#$CK parties, just listen to the people. Do whatever we need to get out of Iraq, help the middle class, secure the borders and stop spying on Americans. That' all he has to do.

Posted by: ElectricBill | December 7, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain is by far the most electable Republican in the field. He's got the experience, especially in foreign policy, and is a straight talker on the issues. If the Republicans don't get serious and support a McCain/Huckabee ticket, they may as well vote for Hillary, because that is what will happen.

Posted by: michael | December 7, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Oprah will bring them Barack will give them

BARACK OBAMA'S ANSWERS Top Priorities, Iraq war, SecurIty, Health care, Education, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Poor, Guns, Stem Cell Research, Energy, Affirmative Action, Budget Issues, Social Security

choose your candidate washington post



My top priority as president will be ending this war
in Iraq, a war that should have never been authorized
and never been waged. In doing so, I will work to keep
our country safe from terrorists and to restore
American credibility around the world. Providing
universal health care to the 47 million Americans who
currently do not have it will be another top priority
of my administration, as will combating global warming
and putting our country on the path toward energy
independence. But all of the issues that I have
focused on in this campaign -- whether it's creating a
21st century education system and fighting poverty or
achieving comprehensive immigration reform and
strengthening our economy -- are vitally important and
must be prioritized by the next president. And all of
these issues share one thing in common: in order to
fully address them, we have to do more than change
political parties. We have to fundamentally change our
politics and transform the way business is done in

















Posted by: PaProgressiveDem | December 7, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Lyle and Loudoun,
There are of course "Hillary haters". There is also another segment of the voting public (probably larger but not as vocal) that thinks that her negatives outweigh her positives or simply she is not the best candidate. They are not too emotional about it but will be unlikely to vote for her. Several of the bloggers here have made their point fairly objectively for why they are reluctant to vote for her.

Posted by: urban4 | December 7, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse


For Bill, it's seeing a member of the southern white trash class rise above his expected station in life -- and also getting far more poontang than any one man has a right to.

For Hillary, it's because she scares them. They don't know how to deal with a female like her. Women like Coulter et ux are acceptable because despite their intelligence, etc they still accept their status as inferior to men.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to find an answer to my question of why the "Hillary Haters" Hate her so much. There is no logical reason I have heard yet. Yes!! I do understand there is logic to HATE under extreme conditions, such as someone hurting you personally, or a family member, and yet I find this coming from folks that claim to be "Christian" and believe in the teachings of the Bible, that are directly against/opposite to The King James version I read.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Generally, I agree with CC's analysis on the Republican side. I differ on the Democratic side. Based on no new statistical evidence and only reasonable deduction, I believe Edwards' campaign is slipping and ultimately will be disappointed on Jan. 3.
Seemingly, Edwards' support has topped out and has nowhere else to go but down. His polling has been within the same range (20%-26%) in Iowa for the last two years. The extra time he has spent in Iowa and prominent campaign structure he has in place has not effected his position in the polls.
In addition, Edwards' main problem is Barack Obama - not Hillary Clinton. Edwards and Obama occupy the same position in this race. They both are "change" candidates with relatively little political experience. Presumably, Obama is taking voters that would normally would have voted for Edwards. Obama represents Edwards' biggest obstacle to a successful Iowa caucus.
Finally, Edwards' campaign has two other significant problems. First, Edwards campaign resources are drying up. He has not done as well as he has in the past with regard to fundraising. Second, his message has become tarnished. Clinton has aptly been able to paint Edwards as a mudslinger because he has gone negative. Mudslinging has commonly been associated with beltway/insider politics. Edwards has consistently said that he is running against the traditional way our political system operates. Yet, this is where the contradiction lies. Edwards' seemingly negative tactics is endemic of traditional politics. This confirms that Edwards will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. That is not very genuine and my guess is Iowa voters are smart enough to realize it.
I do believe that CC is right that Joe Biden is a dark horse candidate. He is good on the stump and has been converting caucus goers and winning endorsements from Iowa locals. Biden has also performed remarkably well in the debates and his numerous detailed policy releases have casted him as a candidate of action. I believe Iowa voters will take heed. Below is the way I see Iowa shaping up on Jan. 3rd.
1) Hillary Clinton (28%)
2) Barack Obama (26%)
3) Joe Biden (21%)

**Edwards and Richardson drop out of the race Jan. 4th. Richardson endorses Clinton and Edwards endorses Obama.

Posted by: Pscoots14 | December 7, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza, once again, is beating the drum of HIllary's inevitablity with these crazy statements about her "electability."

Want something that will open your eyes? Read the Rasmussen daily tracking polls. check out the head-to-head match up. Obama beats all GOP contenders save one and there he is in a tie.

But more important to remember is that ANY candidate is unelectable if you don't vote for them, and electable when you do.

Chris keeps trying to find a way for conventional wisdom and what he learned in political science class to the real world. Hillary's negatives will be coming back to haunt her. When the so-called broad base support Clinton has, remembers "Clinton fatigue" and that it was having run away from the Clintons that did the real damage to Al Gore in 2000, her broad but thin support will evaporate like an ice cube on hot pavement in summertime.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't need to re-frame or re-cast his campaign as a movement. It already is. (Chris, you just weren't paying attention.)

Get on the bus! OBAMA '08!

Posted by: jade7243 | December 7, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?"

No. There are legitimate charges that have been raised against Bush and Cheney, specific reasons why they should be impeached. For instance, warrantless wiretapping. You might disagree that spying on US citizens without a warrant is an offense worthy of impeachment. But it's a fact that the program existed. Calling for an impeachment trial over the existence of that program is legitimate, whether or not you think it should result in impeachment.

That's very different from calling former president Clinton a mob boss or murderer. Those charges are just slanders, based on vague rumors or charges that have been repeatedly found false in court. There are criticisms of Bush and Cheney which are comparable to calling Bill Clinton a murderer, such as claiming that they were behind 9/11. But there's legitimate evidence backing up the calls for impeachment; it's not the same at all.

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

'I'm talking about calling the troops terrorists, saying they're "bombing villages and killing innocents", that they've killed "Six-Hundred-Thousand Iraqi Civilians", etc. etc. etc.'

I know you''re too young to remember Vietnam, but I had friends who came back and told me what they had done... and it included killing civilains, even chldren. It made them sick for the rest of their lives, I'm sure. We were too quick to demonize them, although some, like Lt. Calley, were methodical and devilish about it.

But most were simply like our troops now -- and like all insurgent warfare -- you simply don't know who your enemy is -- a kid coud have a bomb. There are always atrocities in wartime, it's what war is. I can't abide calling soldiers 'terrorists' but yes, certainly they are bombing villages and killing children. Not purposefully, but that's what happens in wars.

That's why they should be a desperate last resort, instead of a way of life.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?"

it just shows that you're as immature as any shrill lefty. You should be proud of yourself for achieving such greatness. Great job, devildog.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama's senator record shows America exactly what he will be as President, absent. After listing to him and reading his material on various positions like the economy, social security, immigration,etc.. he has a lot to learn how to develop and manage a budget. Obama is not qualified and his platforms has huge funding gaps. Having Oprah campaign for him isn't saying much. She is more focus on building schools in South Africa than rebuilding New Orleans schools. I sure hope people do not waste their vote for Obama for it will be a definite win for the republicans in 2008

Posted by: junebug9257 | December 7, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying everyone should support the war. Someone said supporting an immoral war would be anti-patriotic -- I think that passes muster.

And you're right, you can support the troops without supporting the President.

I'm talking about calling the troops terrorists, saying they're "bombing villages and killing innocents", that they've killed "Six-Hundred-Thousand Iraqi Civilians", etc. etc. etc.

We do have the freedom to critique war, and we have a duty to do so. But all I'm saying is there should be a line we don't cross.

And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse


They can't lose.

Posted by: daxtrumper | December 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you:

Posted by: avraamjack | December 7, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

dmcc: "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [and in that way] [so] you will know what you are doing". Sound Familiar??

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Having been born when the president was Eisenhower, I feel very old."

- LOL! LoudonVoter, I was born when FDR was president, so you can appreciate how old I must feel. Moreover, I DO remember Pearl Harbor (I'm just glad I don't quite remember the Alamo~).

I liked Ike. I was young in the 50's and I voted for him - twice. But he is the only Republican candidate for president who ever got my vote, and he is likely to be the last. If you are the least bit curious as to why, just consider what is heard from the "right side of the aisle" here on this blog.

Posted by: dmcc1 | December 7, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

How is Biden below Richardson? He's the one that is turning heads in Iowa.

The more and more people realize that national security is a huge issue, the more and more people turn their heads at Biden. He's the only one with knowledge in the field, and he's the only one who is realistic. He knows how to handle foreign policy.

Biden/Obama '08!

Posted by: drewhigham | December 7, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

dmcc -- don't bother -- i don't think zouk is a human, i think he's a program. a very buggy and deficient one of course, but there's no brain or humanity there. no 'there' there...

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Zoukie: You bloviate about "hate", yet that's what appears to underlie and impel every remark you make about the "Libs", as well as anyone here who challenges anything you say. You talk about facing "facts", yet you rarely if ever offer facts to support your opinions. You accuse your perceived enemies of exactly what you yourself do. Do you expect people to accept the slander of people you don't like as valid criticism because you say it is?

Here's a fact for you: Your belligerent, obnoxious style might appeal to the Limbaugh/Savage mentality, but it marks you as someone not to be taken seriously in any forum where reality-based thought is respected.

Go back to the island now, and ask your magic mirror who's the biggest hypocritical hater in all the land...

Posted by: dmcc1 | December 7, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Remember today is December 7th. I have not seen or heard anything from the media about this Historic day.'

i know... i was talking about this to a friend today. i mean we don't have to obssess, just as a sign of respect, some mention would bbe nice.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

'drindl - your statements are so ugly and outrageous, they should not be allowed to stand'

ROFLOL -- hilarious, coming frm you, whose only life and purpose is to attack people in the lowest, ugliest and vicious fashion.

And really, please try to stop thinking and obsessing so much about me. It's like having a stalker. You definitely need to get out of the bssement more, have a social life, meet a nice girl... or boy.

Or get a shrink.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Remember today is December 7th. I have not seen or heard anything from the media about this Historic day.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Colin: Think about this: There are already many millions of Americans who were not born when the president was not named Bush or Clinton.

Having been born when the president was Eisenhower, I feel very old.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Though I did not even get half way through this blog, I want to thank nhudson35, lylepink, and topicalfolk for echoing my overall sentiments. I honestly do not want Hillary as a candidate because she is the most vulnerable to the republicans. I do not want her as president because would certainly not be strong like Margaret Thatcher.

My favorite is Richardson and my second favorite is Obama. Obama does give me a sense of youthful renewal, class, and moving on that evoke memories of JFK.

I plead with my fellow Americans from all walks of life not to elect a republican because it would complete the "Waterloo" process of the United States as a great nation. If Hillary is elected president, I see moving on and leaving this period (1988-2008) behind happening like a slow-motion camera. If she does wind up as the candidate, I will vote for her just to avoid voting for a republican.

Obama probably has the better chance than Richardson to get the nomination. I also think that an Obama-Richardson ticket would be the best possible ticket, IMHO, that the Democrats could field. Their job would be to pick up the pieces of what is left of our great nation (put Habeas Corpus back together again and not leave it lying on the floor as if it were Humpty Dumpty) internally, and restoring our leadership in foreign affairs. Our nation is in shreds and it has to be healed.

All this business of manipulated religion, anti-gay, anti-immigrants, etc. used by the right us pure,unadulterated hogwash used by the right to divide our nation. We have to come together as a people and individually give that extra effort, just like in sports in the waning minutes of a hardly fought game, to heal our country. George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, et al are the Benedict Arnolds of today. They should all be tried for and convicted of treason and, thus, be shot by a firing squad or at least spend the rest of their days in a Federal Prison. A George W. Bush presidential library would be a "tsunami-sized" source of shame for the American people.

We the American people deserve much better, so we had better buckle down and work "overtime" for it. As a society, we have to collectively go on "rehab" to cure ourselves of our oil addiction.

I have lived abroad for many years and an unofficial spokesman for my country in my adopted country. The people of Mexico want my interpretation as a "gringo" as to the "why" of the diverse facets of US society, government, politics, etc. This also when I speak some of my best Spanish.

For the last seven years, I have felt and projected a sense of shame when I try to comment on the US government and its policies, post November 2000. I also want to have a smile on my face exuding pride, not shame with my head down, as I speak of the land where I was born, raised, and molded, etc.

Richard Cadena
Mexico City

Posted by: RickCadena | December 7, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Lyle -- Thanks. As you well know, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the Clintons. But lies and wild accusations of the sort the GOP has leveled against both Bill and Hillary are simply beyond the pale.

Posted by: _Colin | December 7, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Colin: I wish I could express myself as well as you. Your 02:59 PM and 03:04 PM comments is exactly what I wanted to say as well.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter -- good point. Historical perspective can be rather important, to say the least. Turns out politics existed before 1980...

Posted by: _Colin | December 7, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Another big difference USMC-mike: Clintons scandals were real. Bush's are invented for partisan purposes. count the . . . " Yeah, Clinton's scandals were real alright: as real as a stain on a dress. Bush's are merely political, you know, like 3800 dead American young people and God knows how many dead innocent Iraqis, a trillion dollar hand out to Exxon (call it Iraq), a deficit our grandchildren's children will still be paying, payola tax cuts for the rich (paper tokens for the poor), and the destruction of America's image as an icon of goodness. The difference in realities exists, methinks, in the minds of deluded Republicans.

Posted by: edenart | December 7, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Colin: not to mention the kind of mud that got slung at FDR and Abe Lincoln, among others.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Mike said "It's hard to rule a gunshot in the back of the head, followed by an unexplained plane explosion, a suicide Jim."

If you ever go to law school, you will perhaps realize how stupid this statement is. On so many levels.

Posted by: _Colin | December 7, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: I didn't realize you were such a "Clinton Hater", apparently you consider the loss of life and limbs of our troops less important than Bubba getting a BJ, and not sending our troops into harms way based on how much money is in it for you and your friends.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike -- Do a google search on what Republican leaders said about Clinton when he put troops on the ground in Bosnia, etc. There are some fantastic and "supportive" quotes from Delay, Santorum, etc. Here are some examples:

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)"

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

Which, by the way, is fine in my book if those folks really disagreed with those specific military actions. Supporting a president when the country is at war is wrong, IMO, if you think the war is in error. In fact, I'd say supporting a war you don't' believe in is the least patriotic thing a citizen could do. No one should supporting keeping soldiers in harms way when the mission isn't in our national interest.

Oh, and the idea that GWB has been attacked more than Clinton is a joke. I think you're relatively young, so perhaps you don't remember what the eight years of the Clinton administration were like. Let me assure you, the vitriol thrown at Clinton -- culminating in his impeachment -- belongs in a separate category from what GWB has been forced to endure. Nixon, I would add, was also vilified more than GWB - even before Watergate fully broke. Heck, Johnson probably endured more as well.

Posted by: _Colin | December 7, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, valuable comparison of the strategies/efficacy of the candidates. Is anyone writing similarly regarding the ISSUES . Do a FIX on the ISSUES or please refer us to a comparable source.

Posted by: detering | December 7, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, call it the rule of normal distribution. On any given issue moderates will always be more numerous than the extremes.

Posted by: urban4 | December 7, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Jim: I hope you see that you are wasting your time discussing anything with Mike. You'll never get him to agree that anything that Clinton did or was done to Clinton is comparable to anything that a Republican president did or had done to him.

But I commend your tenacity.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse


If you believe that tabloid nonsense, there is no point trying to discuss these things rationally.

My point was that the poisoning of our political discourse has been going on much longer than Bush's presidency. In fact, I voted against Clinton both times he ran.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Mark: I'm not calling for "doctrinal purity". I'm not saying that only people with a narrow set of beliefs should be allowed to be Democrats. I'm saying that the Democrats need to offer something different from the Republicans. For years, the rhetoric has been practically identical from both parties, with the Republicans always leading the way. The Democrats need to stop trying to catch up with the Republicans by imitating their ideas and using their terminology. Democrats need to be a distinct and separate party. My original post was a response to Carlyle, who whined about liberals Limbaugh-style but claimed to be a Democrat. The spectrum of political thought is so narrow in this country, and Carlyle wants to make it even narrower.

Dave, the problem is the 2-party system. Right now, niche parties don't have a chance, because of the spoiler effect. Back in 2000, many Democrats (myself included) pointed out that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. If we had a different voting system which allowed someone to express preference for both Nader and Gore, I'm sure Nader's turnout would have been much higher.

Would Kucinich get anywhere nationally? Probably not. But I've seen polls showing that a significant majority favors liberal causes like universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, etc. And I've heard unreliable anecdotal evidence that Kucinich has amazingly high scores in those online candidate selection quizzes. Maybe if he was put in a situation where he could actually say more than a few sentences in the debates, and where the spoiler effect wasn't an issue, he'd have some success. But right now Kucinich, and other liberal politicians, are stuck in a negative feedback loop. The national party is afraid of seeming too liberal, so they pretend the liberal wing of the party doesn't exist.

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I agree with your assessment of HRC, but respectfully disagree with your point that Bush and the war should not be criticized.

I'm happy to live in a democracy where it is possible to criticize the president or his war without fear of retribution. Try to do the same thing in Russia!

As for the war it is our duty to criticize it because it is based on false pretenses and it is a colossal drain of our resources. Now tell me which lie is worse. Lying about infidelity. Or lying that lead to a war causing the death of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. Let any reasonable person be the judge!

Posted by: urban4 | December 7, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments over the past several days about how Hillary would unite the Repubs to such a great extent is certainly what I have been reading. This has me thinking should she get the nomination, which I believe will happen, The same thing is most likely to happen in the vast majority of Dems and Is that would fear another GW mistake is in the making. Anyway, this could bring the most people to the polls in our history, not only in actual numbers, but percentage of voters as well.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse


It's hard to rule a gunshot in the back of the head, followed by an unexplained plane explosion, a suicide Jim.

The Clintons are a mob and we all know it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: Obama has a history of not showing up for the difficult decision. My guess is that he won't be able to lead, because he can't make the hard decisions.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | December 7, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse


I'm not saying people didn't hate Bill. He might rank 2nd or 3rd in history. But GWB is unprecedented and it's disgusting.

He didn't "cut his losses", he was afraid of body counts. Period. No support for the military, and without sufficient troops we couldn't get it done.

He was a weak commander-in-chief and everyone knows it.

Reagan regretted Lebanon. And the two are not comparable.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

D"ems want trailer trash. this is why I support Rudy. We are done being a punching back based on falsehoods."

Ha ha ha. Ok KOZ, I understand. Rudy would no doubt take on NYT, moveon, CNN, but I think he would be a 1-term president who would leave behind a mess that the country would see as a D's to clean up.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse


You are finally looking objective unlike many of your Post colleauges who seem to be hankering for a job in the Clinton administration. Is there not a rule in the Post which forbids journalists to accept hospitality from the presidential campaigners ? If not, should there not be. Are embedded journalists any better than they were cheerleading the Iraq war.

Posted by: anil_malhotra | December 7, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse


You mean little things like Jerry Falwell peddling videos on TV accusing Clinton of murder. Richard Scaife Mellon funding a group going through Arkansas looking for dirt on Clinton, and making things up when they couldn't find enough.

One could argue that pulling out of Somalia was cutting our losses. What do you think of Reagan pulling out of Lebanon after the Marines were blown up? It was a very similar type of decision.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Can we move along or are we going to rehash the past 15 years for the next 100? Oh, did I really even bother to ask that?

Obstruction of justice is still a crime last I checked.

But maybe you're right, we shouldn't talk about why we should support our President in war, regardless of our political leanings. I guess that's just a military perspective from someone who doesn't want to see Americans die because of fatass pig rosie odonnell.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Another big difference USMC-mike: clintons scandals were real. Bush's are invented for partisan purposes. count the number of Bush folks in jail and compare to clinton. count the silverware, the furniture, the pardons, the chinese money, etc.

On bush we hear about the "scandals" such as he lied us into war and other loony leftist nonsense. policy differences made to look criminal. why are so many sheeple going along with this nonsense? rumor and innuendo as supposition.

why won't Bush fight back. too classy? - too bad. the Dems want trailer trash. this is why I support Rudy. We are done being a punching back based on falsehoods.

did anyone see the ellen incident with Jenna calling daddy. he is a real guy, not concerend with daily polls and public adulation, like some others we know. he does what he thinks is right and takes the hits. not many pols like this left. too bad. now I don't agree with about half of what he does polkicy -wise, but he is a good man, honest and caring.

I would relay a story about a trip to the WH and a visit with him during a bad time to show what a thoughtful and considerate person he is, but you cynics are beyond hope.

Just keep up the lies and slime. It is the only way for you to win.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"I believe Hillary still has the fortitude, intelligence, consensus-building capacity, and experience to do the job."

fortitude -- see above, McCain wins big on fortitude.

intelligence -- I think Romney is probably smarter. Calculating != intelligence.

consensus building -- what a laugh. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and McCain all beat her on this.

experience -- failing healthcare reform in '94 and lots of tea parties and socials doesn't count for the junior Senator from NY. Biden? McCain? Huckabee?

It's like a hypnosis, I swear.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Bryant: I do agree with you Huckabee will win Iowa (Remember they went for Pat Robertson) but he will lose his mojo in New hampshire. The republicans up there are economic conservatives not social conservatives. I see Fred dropping out in Iowa or NH. Somebody on his staff should had told him running for President is not a 9 to 5 job. Romney will win NH with McCain and Rudy close behind. Then SC will probably go Romney and also MI to Romney. By the time rudy gets in the game, the two minute warning will be sounding. ITS GOING TO BE ROMNEY or HUCKABEE.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

right Mike, he was merely impeached. Nothing like being called a dimwit.

Can we move along or are we going to rehash the past 15 years for the next 100? Oh, did I really even bother to ask that?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris - I agree with your analysis that Obama can win the nomination if his candidacy becomes a "movement." I think it already has turned in that direction. The Jefferson-Jackson speech was the moment - in my opinion - that it happened. That speech was one of the most moving and inspiring addresses I have ever heard. One other point I'd like to make is on the issue of "experience" - please, everyone, remember that Abraham Lincoln served only ONE two-year term in the US House of Representatives (along with his time in the Illinois State Legislature) before becoming president! I think Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all had enough "experience" to be president. But what is most important to me is their JUDGMENT! Obama wins hands down with his decision to oppose the Iraq War. That showed true courage of conviction! I hope the Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire will become a part of this "Obama Movement" and will propel him forward to win the nomination and the presidency!

Posted by: uofmdgrad | December 7, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I am not ready to stake my future on a movement. I want a leader who can tackle the complex problems facing my country, and my children. I am not ready to stake my future on Hollywood hype that is more style than substance.

I am in immigrant who will vote for his president for the very first time next year. I will vote for Hillary. I will do so because I believe she has what it takes to tackle the complex problems that faces this country. I need someone who can turn back the last 8 years. Flawed and awkward though she is, I believe Hillary still has the fortitude, intelligence, consensus-building capacity, and experience to do the job.

I don't just want the dream. I want the dream with guts, and tears, and strength. To me, that is not Obama. It is Hillary. And she would be the first woman president - if that ain't change, I don't know what is.

Posted by: glenntan | December 7, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I say Coward specifically because, as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, he allowed some rag-tag punks in Somalia to push the US around, and ended up NOT engaging in Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, etc... which led to genocide.

Maybe he was charasmatic, and lots of people like(d) him. My fiance (wife in 8 days!) likes him, as does her entire family.

But even he didn't take as much crap as the 'liar, dimwit, architect of 9/11 Bush'.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Two points on Chris's comments.
First Baracks' closing line in that briliant ad says it all: "Americas time is now".
This race, from the views of each political persuasion, is no longer about 'standards'.
Everyone has had it with the b.s. of old.

Regardless on all the hype around why Dean lost to Kerry in 2004, Kerry got it only because he brought something so special the average American could hardly refuse-the Veterans. The Veterans hit deep in America's soul. When a politician can do that, whether intentionally or accidentally, the voters are putty. The votes are then driven by gut driven believabilty and faith.
Clinton has already lost both of those battles, and, just as I predicted earlier this year -Bill Clinton status has suffered while trying to cover her backside to the extent that both of them have lost their superstar status.

An Obama and Oprah event would now easily beat a Hillary and Bill event.
Because the one represents the past -the other the future.

The people are ready..

Posted by: hazmaq | December 7, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris, We know that you are a Obama cheer leader. There was no reason for you to put exclusive Obama video on your post. I think you need more objectivity to be a good journalist.

Posted by: centauri99_99 | December 7, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Honestly - do you think HRC could get elected on the issues, she won't discuss. on the record she doesn't have, on the experience - holding teas?

the only chance of HRC winning an election is to obfuscate and throw mud to drive up everyone else's negatives. Talking about her ideas for policy is the kiss of death. she is way out there on the end of the leftist branch.

All this dreaming of a centrist mushy executive is just fantasy. that person can't win the primaries.

there are stark differences between the parties - raise/lower wars.....big/small government......individual/collective responsibility.

If you can't pick with those extreme differences, you must be confused.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Even when an amoral, womanizing, lying coward was in office he did not take this much from his opposition."

Now that is some funny stuff, Mike. Truly a laff riot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Mark

BTW, I have been listening to the POTUS 08 channel on XM radio (did lylepink have a role in naming it?) HRC was giving a speech at a fundraiser where she talked about all the 90+ year old women attending her campaign events. HRC says these women tell her that they were born before women could vote and now they want to see a woman in the White House. That sounds too cute by half.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Mark said "And the President of the United States must be our President, not yours or mine, at least with regard to foreign policy. He must serve Alabama and Massachusetts, Texas and New York, and the other 46 states as well, and his first duty is to the Constitution, not anybody's ideology."

I can't agree with this more. The spiteful disrespect, the complete disregard for the honor of the office, the slimy, unreasonable, and amazing attacks this President have recieved are unprecedented in American history.

Even when an amoral, womanizing, lying coward was in office he did not take this much from his opposition.

On foreign policy, we must be unified, and must support the President. I'm mad as hell about the out of control spending, the Dept. of Education, and other things.

But we have men and women overseas whose lives are at risk every day. And the President is not just the left coast's President or the red state's President -- he is the President of the United States of America.

For a candidate, such as HRC, to say "This is George Bush's War" is asonine. This is America's President and America's War. And if you don't like that, vote him out. But don't piss on our country and make us appear weak and divided to the rest of the world. Don't enbolden our enemies.

As far as a 3rd party, it might happen if Rudy gets the nom. Outside of that, I doubt it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I want to turn my earlier post about Ron Paul and a brokered R Convention into a question.

Am I correct in assuming that at the RN Convention other candidates' delegates will be largely local pols: e.g.; mayors, commissioners, and local operatives; and that Paul's will be mainly true civilians? If that is right, Paul's ability to be a kingmaker at the RN Convention would, IMO, be diminished.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - "I'd love to see a moderate third party. That would give the Democrats a chance to be the liberal party."

I'm not sure what, exactly, you mean by 'liberal'. But if it is the Ted Kennedy / Barbara Lee liberal then my question is what national election would you expect them to ever win? I'm not trying to be cute, I just don't believe that a liberal agenda is popular enough to get anything done on a national level. Could Kucinich form his own party and experience any success at all? I doubt it.

Posted by: dave | December 7, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I want to take JimD's brief 1:39P post further.

There is no future for the two party system if they are not both big-tent parties. You pose a three party system of liberals, moderates, and conservatives and that might work for JimD, bsimon, and me. Our party would be much bigger than the Ls or the Cs.

In any event, doctrinal purity is nonsense in politics, where each legislative act is a compromise, ideally to suit the various constituencies that make up the nation, but often just among competing lobbyists, unfortunately.

And the President of the United States must be our President, not yours or mine, at least with regard to foreign policy. He must serve Alabama and Massachusetts, Texas and New York, and the other 46 states as well, and his first duty is to the Constitution, not anybody's ideology.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

graysce101 - I saw your exact comment pasted here yeterday. Does the Clinton machine send these silly things out for their moonies to paste? Claudia - thanks for fighting the good fight here. Every time I read your comments, I am cheering you on!
I feel sorry for those who are not moved by Obama's speech here. He will win Iowa (with ot without Oprah)- as to beyond the initial primary states, I am making no predictions. But look folks, you have become so cynical you don't believe in tryiing to change this disasterous mess we are in?
Barack Obama is for real. He is the only candidate who can pull it off. And those who have seen him speak or have communicatd with his team know this. As others have pointed out, HRC would have been a great choice if this were a reasonable time in History. But our place in the world community is in jeopardy, and we need true leadership. If we could elect Bill again, it would be nice. But electing Hillary won't do that.
Obama '08!

Posted by: sheridan1 | December 7, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama's purported lack of experience will, I think, prove his most powerful quality. Mrs, C has too much of the kind of experience we don't need any more of. Obama also has going for him his obvious intelligence. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Obama will know what questions to ask and when to trust the answers. If elected, his victory may also go far in healing the race-mongering image foreigners hold of us.

Posted by: edenart | December 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Why have Rudy at the top? Most polls have him close to Huckabee and on a downward trend. He's still the frontrunner, but on paper he's tied with Huckabee for overall impression.

Posted by: parkerfl | December 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse


I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think it was mainly a matter of running from Nixon.

The choice was between two decent men, but Nixon's shadow hung over it. I happened to agree much more with Ford, and considered him a stronger leader (another rather important quality, and still separate from policy).

Posted by: J | December 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

better to take a stand on something than to sit on the sidelines, offer no substance and snipe.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

dave: talk about the law of unintended consequences. The "decent" Carter will go down with Bush as one of the very, very worst American presidents. A complete and utter failure.

It's too bad that killer rabbit didn't take Carter out when he had the chance.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the rankings on the D side. Clinton is certainly the front runner, but Obama is proving he can hang. If Edwards loses Iowa, he about has to quit the race. However, if Obama wins Iowa, will Edwards endorse Obama? If he does, does Obama become the freight train Clinton appears to be now? That being said, until Clinton actually loses Iowa in the vote she is the perceived Dem. nominee.

In the R nomination, I now rate Huckabee in the #2 slot behind Rudy. I believe, if Huck wins in Iowa, and he's now clearly the front-runner to do so, he likely takes the #1 slot. However, Romney still has tons of money. Will it do him any good? If Huckabee wins in Iowa, New Hampshire will likely be lost to Romney. McCain is certainly in a great spot there in Iowa to gain voters from Romney, as is Rudy. I believe Huckabee will win in Iowa. If that happens, New Hampshire gets awfully interesting and becomes a 4 way battle. Fred Thompson may as well endorse his favorite and give it up now. Not only has Huckabee taken the lead in Iowa vs. Romney, but he also leads the pack in recent polls in South Carolina. He's also rising in Florida. Looks in great shape right now with soaring polls & increased fundraising. Romney, however, looks in trouble. Rudy has until the Florida primary to tell the tale. McCain has New Hampshire. Romney & Huckabee have no sooner than Iowa.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | December 7, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Your ratings are based on polls yet has any reporter checked the validity of the polls? The link below shows a case where a Ron Paul supporter's answer was not counted. One has to question why the investigative reporters of this paper, if there stiil are investigative reporters, why no one does an actual check of the companies that do these polls. These polls may be as corrupt as the candiates themselves. The link below also links to youtube where you can listen to the actual survey.

It seems without the internet you regular papers would keep everyone in the dark. It shows a bias and one must also question the other articles in this paper. How much is true and how much spin for your favorite candidates?

Posted by: info4 | December 7, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

LOL find a single post where I said "I'm voting for Clinton" "I back Clinton" "I support Clinton" or anything to that effect.

You're a sick, sick man, brooks. Everyone on here knows it. Those who aren't too busy laughing at you, that is.

But by all means keep up the rants. Everyone from USMC Mike to drindl finds them amusing.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse


I simply do not view DLC type Democrats as Republican lite.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

J - "I disagree. Carter was elected because people were still running away from the GOP after Nixon and they punished Ford for his pardon."

That vote was all about Nixon, not Ford. I think a large part of the presidential vote was in response to Nixon's character - certainly not to be confused with a decent and honest person. The American people were looking for a person that was decent and Carter fit the bill. I remember numerous people using "decent" as the description of what they liked about Carter. While I think Ford was right in what he did and was basically a decent person, the pardon did help seal his fate in the election by linking him to the "non-decent" Nixon.

In the dem primary, the contest was basically between the "decent Christian peanut farmer" Carter, the "neo-conservative wannabe" Scoop Jackson, the "quirky" Jerry Brown, the "non-practicing Mormon" Mo Udall, and the "segregationist" George Wallace. Which one of those is the anti-Nixon? Carter. Nixon symbolized the worst of politicians - lying, cheating, mean, corrupt... People, in general, voted for Carter's character.

Posted by: dave | December 7, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The empty ephemeral rhetoric of Obama will not change the direction of the nation. His political rhetoric is destined to dissipate like a vapor in the atmosphere. Already in place are the movers and shakers who have no intention of releasing their reigns to a novice with a charismatic flash. Kennedy couldn't do it and neither will Obama.

True hope can't be harvested from words. It requires actions that marry dreams and visions to political policies that are executed and implemented in such a way as to create a positive social milieu for the people. There is no evidence that Obama has a demonstrable track record to overcome the same experienced politicians he now is decrying, but who will be the gatekeepers to challenge and sabotage every idealistic proposal he might present and, then, summarily usher it into political oblivion.

Chris Cilliza's column demonstrates the lack of critical assessment of Obama's speeches apparent in other news reporters and pundits' intent on elevating "feel good political rhetoric" to the level of substantive policies which addresses the deep dilemmas this nation finds itself facing. The desire for a "fresh face" in the political process is understandable, but realistically no "fresh face," including that of Obama's, is a match for the severe socio-economic and political maladies that have put this nation on the critical list. Moreover, the same media cheerleaders lauding Obama today in an effort to take down some of the other presidential contenders will seek every opportunity to devour him like vultures if it will sell more newspapers and increase their Nielsen ratings.

Posted by: william.booth | December 7, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if the strategy will play out well in the long run for Obama. Its for the same reason we don't have a third party.

In the latest effort to draw a distinction between himself & Clinton, Obama implicitly claims that he is not entrenched in the Party Establishment?


Posted by: jeffboste | December 7, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

JimD, I think you're missing my point. In an election between two candidates, there are supposed to be two sides. When both candidates offer exactly the same viewpoint, that's a problem. So when DLC types say that the Democrats need to act more like the Republicans, that's bad. It's bad for the Democratic party, and it's bad for the country.

I'd love to see a moderate third party. That would give the Democrats a chance to be the liberal party. But right now, we have two parties: The conservative party and the moderate-conservative party. Until the last couple years, actual liberals/progressives have been basically shut out of the Democratic Party. So when someone like Carlyle comes along to whine about how the liberals are holding the party back, even though the DLC has presided over so many Democratic losses, I find that offensive.

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

oh, Loud Mouth, you radical feminst twits have such a way with words. Of course, if you had a brain, instead of being a shallow-dishonest-game playing freak of nature, we might have be aboe to have a decent discussion. But, then, mental light weights, failed English major public sector happy hippo's have never been up for any sort of intellect conversation, much less honest discussion. Drink that Clinton kool aide and let us all know how it tastes in the morning.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 7, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

(Obama supporter)
One note in response to a few of the other bloggers here on Obama's record and experience. In his time in the Senate, Obama has joined with Republican Dick Lugar to pass a bill on nuclear non-proliferation. He has pushed forward ethics reform. He put together an aid package to help stop a civil war and promote democracy in subsaharan Africa. In Illinois, he successfully worked to reform the death penalty. He's accomplished a lot more in four years in the Senate than a lot of the Senators who have been there for decades. You get the sense that his goal is not just to get reelected.

Posted by: wesfromGA | December 7, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton trolls are out in force. I think they are relying on sheer volume to win this discussion, because they have so few facts on their side. But I will waste my valuable time debunking graysce anyway, because I'm sick of letting distortions influence our politics.

--Muslim blood. His father was a Muslim. Muslim's sons are Muslims for life.
--tried to change his identity. If you were born as a Muslim, you will always be a Muslim. No matter what you say or do.

Obama was an atheist until he became Christian. Do *you* submit to the rules written in the Koran, graysce? Yeah, neither do I and neither does Obama.

--refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance. He did not want to offend ISLAM so he refused

Absolutely untrue. There is a picture of him without his hand on his heart during the *national anthem*, during which it is not necessarily custom to put your hand on your heart.

-- had 17 years' old unpaid parking tickets

Holy cow, what a fraud!

--made personal "questionable" investments

Please elaborate. He had set up a blind investment scheme where he had no idea what was being invested in, but even that raised questions, so he divested himself of those holdings.

--insisted that his health care provides care to everyone, does he know what universal means?

His plan makes health care affordable for everyone. It is unclear whether the mandates in Clinton's and Edwards's plans would cover more people or less.

--he says one thing and does another

Way to repeat the Howard Wolfson talking point. You have just called him a liar with no evidence.

--claimed that as a young boy who lived in overseas for 10 years made him an expert of foreign affairs.

No, he claimed it was valuable, to get perspective on how different people live and think "on the ground" instead of just on senate travel junkets. Since his election, he has served on the foreign relations committee in the senate and has met with many foreign leaders, including Olmert a few weeks ago.

--will meet with enemies without preconditions

Your point? Please see the WSJ article (a bastion of liberal thought, right?) arguing why this position makes sense.

--recruited out of state non-Iowan residents to vote for him on Jan 3.

An absolute falsehood. He has encouraged legal residents of Iowa to caucus, including college students living in Iowa who may be relatively new to the area.

--he said that he was not taking money from the Lobbyists. Yeah right?

He has not taken any PAC money during this election.

--AWOL for an IRAN vote in the Senate, then criticized his opponent.

The vote was tabled, he left for NH, then it was put back on the floor and voted on. He has strongly stated his opposition before, the day of, and after the vote.

--inexperience with little accomplishments, we need a doer not a talker

How about Obama-Coburn, Obama-Lugar, Obama-McCain, Obama-Specter, Obama-Bond, Obama-Feingold, Obama-Schumer, not to mention addressing in the state legislature the death penalty, racial profiling, ethics, tax credits for low income workers, health care, etc. etc.?

Posted by: Nissl | December 7, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

CC wrote about Her Royal Highness: "She is tough as nails and, more so than any other candidate on either side (with the possible exception of McCain), knows how to soldier through adversity."

The POSSIBLE exception of McCain? You can't be speaking of John McCain, the GOP Senator from Arizona. That McCain has endured, literally and figuratively, suffering that Sen. Clinton can hardly imagine. To suggest otherwise borders on obscene. Sen. McCain could eat his colleague from New York for breakfast, but he's far too honorable a man to ever do so. What Sen. Clinton DOES have in spades is ruthlessness - a different quality than toughness. Only Giuliani can match her in that department.

For the record, I'm a true-blue Democrat - have been since HRH was a Goldwater Girl. If she is the candidate, though, she will not get my vote. My conscience will not allow me to even hold my nose. I will write in my vote rather than cast if for Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | December 7, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

KOZ playing politics is not beneath me, I am all for it to gain politcal advantage, but do so smartly, this is just so blantantly obvious it
can only backfire on us. I do not want to stay in the minority by losing independent voters to such nonsense.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

brooks, you inane freak, when have i ever even said i supported clinton? I think you're senile, you doddering, drooling nut.

now run along, it's time to get your diaper changed.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

mmeyerdc: You asked a question: "A movement? What is this movement for? The audacity of hope? Will some tell me what Obama wants us to hope for? Change? Change to what?"

Let us discuss this... how about change to end this war. How about leadership on the major issues we face... what issues? How about the confunding loss of jobs, the millions of Americans without homes- initiated by the greed driven mortgage industry and allowed to practice with impunity by our current administration. How about change to the staggering state of our economy and actual leadership on issues that affect every one of us.

That is the "audacity of hope". The audacity of a candidate to actually stand up to fight for a better America. Don't be so jaded.

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | December 7, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Loud Mouth Voter - This was not an anti-Clinton rant. It was merelyt pointing up a fact to keep Deomcrats from being run off a cliff by nut cases like yourself. We have decent honorable men and women that can be offered as candidates. One has to ask themselves what YOUR motives are in so hysterically pushing the worst dirtbag to come along in many a year. Are so some sort of Rove operative? Or, maybe a another of those shrill man hating/mae pretending feminists? A gay rights twit? Or...all three? They do sort of fit garbage in a can.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 7, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"And independents vote for the party who seems to have actual ideals. Why vote Republican-lite if you can have the real thing?"

"Every time a R moves to the left, the party suffers and loses. Witness, GWB.
'Compramise' to a liberal means conservatives 'waking up', becoming more 'enlightened', forgetting their 'traditional' issues like life, family, guns, and taxes. The only "compramise" a liberal will accept is a conservative giving up his principles."

Those statements sum up why so many of us independent moderate voters are so disgusted with the major parties. Given a choice between a docrtinaire liberal Democrat and a uncompromising conservative Republican, this independent would look for a third party.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually believe that Giuliani can actually win a presidential election? I really hope that he is nominated by the Republicans. It will be a walk in the (Central)park for the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: sonofbill | December 7, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse


Not to get all meta in the discussion, but wouldn't an alternate, equally plausible explanation be that Republicans are forced to take more moderate positions when they have less popular support (due to recession in 1992, various GWB policies in 2006), and then they lose anyway? I seem to remember GWB campaigning as a moderate "compassionate conservative" in 2000 as well.

Posted by: Nissl | December 7, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

neither -- officers go through USMC base Quantico (VA).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: Are you saying that playing politics is beneath me? I thought that was the whole point of this blog. without playing politics, how could all these people come here everyday and post the exact same stuff as outlined by USMC-mike. Just as the press needs new dirt every 24 hours, we here on the Fix need to "score" new material also.

Pelosi did make a big deal about corruption and Foley page thing. Why didn't she do something about the pages. I will speculate - more empty campaign promises? goes to credibility.

And as far as Reid declaring cartwheels are in order - I guess that just about sums up his leadership capabilites - zero. time for this dustball, speck of a waste of air to go.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Mike, you do me credit.

Just out of curiosity, you a 'hollywood' marine or Paris I?

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

It seemed clear to me that Obama is more committed to 97% of Americans who need Universal health care, than H.R.C.. I am convinced that Obama will establish a non-racist immigration system if elected president.On the war Obama is clear about taking immediate action to bring our children home from harms way. H.R.C. defines "National Security" as what the military industrial complex wants.Obama defines it as what is best for the American people.

Posted by: franco_fernandez | December 7, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The argument that Clinton is electable nationally just doesn't stand up. She's as unpopular outside the Democratic fold as she is popular within it. So far, her campaign shows no sign that it realizes this fact. Let's hope the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire do.

Posted by: wesfromGA | December 7, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh, good point.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: You forgot: "Babbling" Brooks posts shrieking anti-HRC screeds.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Just once I'd like to hear a politician refer to himself as part of "the American people." They all talk about the rest of us as an entity they are not a part of. Why can't they say "what WE need," instead of suggesting that they're not part of the "we." What the rest of you peons need . . ..

Posted by: adegorf | December 7, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: grunk | December 7, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

KOZ with all due respect to a fellow republican, this page story is silly and the republicans are just playing politics with it. Young people misbehaving! Who knew and who cares?

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed how Obama's always "borrowing" John Edwards' words and ideas without giving him credit? In journalism, they call that plagiarism. In life, it's just plain stealing. (And as for the comment that Republicans in Texas find Obama palatable, that ought to tell you all you need to know about him.)

Posted by: mickeynATL | December 7, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I want to point out, once again, that the fanatical Clinton supports are the gays and feminist posters know, the ones with the clever names like dyckZZZ, etc. Now, Americins, even liberals, are all for leaving homosexuals alone, letting them do their "thing", but they don't want special rights), special hate crime legislation, nor much of anything else passed (other than, maybe, domestic partnerships). Now, Clinton is pretty much alone in gaining the support of these nut cases and that is doing and will do FAR more harm than anything you can imagine. Every bit of Clinton's "liberal" credentials are wrapped up in gay rights and feminist nonsense. She is for staying in Iraq. She is anti-worker. She is pro-corporation and pro-big business. The term for politician's like this has long been "Log Cabin Republican". Ordinary Amercian's would rather drink kool aide than vote for a candiate that believes this sport of rubbish and they will actively oppose someone who is bent on enacting into law this sort of danergous garbage. Oabama-Edwards-Biden-McCain-Huckabee in any order, I don't care, but A-B-C - *anybody BUT Clinton*! That is what I ebleive, that is what most voters believe, and that is what WILL HAPPEN.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 7, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

When the Democrats shift to the right, they lose

you mean like bill clinton -the only D winner in decades

Pesky conter example, always getting in the way of Blarg's slippery daydreams.

Kerry and gore were moderates -
You are way out there amigo.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

dmcc: you can generally count on the discussion heading straight into the dumper soon after the Libs are challenged on any facts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

And, to echo what Blarg said --

Every time a R moves to the left, the party suffers and loses. Witness, GWB.

"Compramise" to a liberal means conservatives 'waking up', becoming more 'enlightened', forgetting their 'traditional' issues like life, family, guns, and taxes. The only "compramise" a liberal will accept is a conservative giving up his principles.

And, unvariably, it fails. Witness Bush 41. Witness 2006. And, likely, 2008.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

graysce101, that's an impressive list of lies, nonsense, and extremely vague assertions. Very convincing. Why don't you tell us about your chosen candidate and why they're superior, instead of posting idiocy about "Muslim blood" and unpaid parking tickets?

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey, loudermilk, I'm starting to think we should be kinder to geese (I confess I haven't been very charitable in the past). Bush certainly displays he hasn't the sense God gave one. I'm just disappointed that, as a Michigan resident, I can't vote for my choice in the Democratic primary. Barack Obama took himself off the list. I'm seriously considering staying away, which would make this the 5th time I haven't voted in 33 years. I was contageous the other 4 times.

Posted by: cardinalbird2 | December 7, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Blarg -- I'd vote for Biden over Rudy.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

drindl - your statements are so ugly and outrageous, they should not be allowed to stand. Dumb ignorant opinion is one thing, and all blogs are replete with them, but lies and idiocies taken straight from the book of hate, need to be dispelled.

Bush never fought back. he did many noble things and was called into question many times, with no evidence, just spite. not like a stained blue dress.

It is past time to accept all this bile being passed around by ignorant and baseless fools. I know you prefer to remain unchallenged and ever blissful in your disgusting little world, but all the misinformation and the bad economics just makes me gag and laugh at the level of total stupidity displayed.

If you don't like it, start talking about facts and figures and not hate speech, as you so readily did above, and always do.

not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or insane. That is just your way of not defending anything you say.

and BTW - your understanding of basic economics is clearly lacking. why highlight this shortcoming by preaching? stick with what you know emotional feminism and blame America first.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, you have nothing to apologize for. Carlyle deserves your criticism and worse. If he really is a Democrat, then his attitude hurts the party far worse than anything the Republicans do.

Yes, Carlyle, it's all the fault of those damn liberals! Liberals are the reason why the Democrats keep losing. Obama would make it three losses in a row, after crazy far-left liberals Al Gore and John Kerry. Oh, wait, they weren't liberals. They were moderates. Gore in particular couldn't get far enough to the right in 2000. Then the real liberals voted for Nader instead, and you see how that turned out.

When the Democrats shift to the right, they lose. Actual conservatives aren't going to vote for any Democrat, no matter how conservative they are. Liberal Democrats stay home in disgust, tired of being insulted and abused by people like Carlyle. And independents vote for the party who seems to have actual ideals. Why vote Republican-lite if you can have the real thing?

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, Chris -- stop calling Giuliani "Hizzoner" unless you're going to come up with cute, adoring nicknames for every other candidate. It's bad enough that you Beltway suck-ups always call him "Rudy," but now it's "Hizzoner." Take your man-crush elsewhere and be a professional.

Posted by: swallen1 | December 7, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

dmcc: you can generally count on the discussion heading straight into the dumper soon after the clock strikes 12 noon.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Why OBAMA can not be trusted?

--Muslim blood. His father was a Muslim. Muslim's sons are Muslims for life.
--tried to change his identity. If you were born as a Muslim, you will always be a Muslim. No matter what you say or do.
--refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance. He did not want to offend ISLAM so he refused
--claims he's running on his record
-- had 17 years' old unpaid parking tickets
--made personal "questionable" investments
--insisted that his health care provides care to everyone, does he know what universal means?
--a fabulous orator, but we need more than words....
--he says one thing and does another
--claimed that as a young boy who lived in overseas for 10 years made him an expert of foreign affairs.
--will meet with enemies without preconditions
--recruited out of state non-Iowan residents to vote for him on Jan 3.
--he said that he was not taking money from the Lobbyists. Yeah right?
--playing old politics as usual, after he promised hope and change....
--AWOL for an IRAN vote in the Senate, then criticized his opponent.
--inexperience with little accomplishments, we need a doer not a talker

Pls don't be fooled by this PHONY ROOKIE. If he is the nominee, the Republican will eat him alive. The Democrat will lose again...

Posted by: graysce101 | December 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Another day in the life of the Fix

Claudia is on vicious attack

Ron Paul supporters are offended

KOZ comments on the rediculous the do-nothing Pelosi-Reed 'Congress'

HRC supporters challenge her opponents as "afraid of a strong woman"

R's emphasize the "H" in BHO - as a manchurian candidate

JD makes logical, proven, economic arguments

...And Claudia keeps attacking.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

so according to you moonbats, pointing out drindls immediate recourse to vituperation is somehow construed to be venom? I must also conclude that investigating someone's kindergarten essays is just swell and laughing about it is "venom".

summary: nastiness is cool when applied to Repubs, it is to be frowned upon otherwise. Libs love to make the rules so they can break them.

I know you don't tolerate any challenges to your liberal world view, but that is why you always lose Presidential elections. FYI - the discussion is not "settled". hillary still has to actually get the votes.

Only one problem - bill. He is doing to her what he did to gore. finding a way to sabotage him/her with cryptic statements or non-support. He is so megalo that he can't really stand the idea that another Dem might eventually win an election. He can't help himself to say falsehoods that glare in the light of day and bring all the attention onto his own shortcomings and his minions by degree.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

my apologies to carlyse then, jim. i read th first line and i am just so tired of hearing from morons on the far radical right [like zouk] about how 'dems' don't understand the world.

that said -- i have some friends in this town who are very sweet, but incredibly naive -- like they voted for nader, for instance.

zouk, just can't get me of your mind, can you? do you dream about me, too?

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

JD - kruggman and co have been predicting and hoping for a recession for years now. eventually it may come to pass. their only hope for electoral victory is for negative things to happen to us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes."

Why is Ron Paul the only candidate in The Line that gets such a definitive statement that he "can't win"? I've been back through the archives of the line and I've not seen you call out any of the candidates in the same way, no matter how low they were in the rankings.

Posted by: Fred | December 7, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Re: Ron Paul blimp.

This whole Ron Paul revolution starts making sense while toking pure helium!

Posted by: rich5 | December 7, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I wondered how long it would take for the kingofnowhereisland to slither into this (mostly)rational discussion and pollute it with his venom.

Posted by: dmcc1 | December 7, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Claudia, you're right, I would weather it without hardship. I've got plenty of money, actually, and am in a mostly recession-proof industry (government contracting).

The fact that a recession causes pain for some as it helps (long term) the country as a whole should not disqualify it from being a necessary (indeed, unavoidable) phase in the business cycle. And I think you'll find that you agree with me, if you think about it logically and not emotionally.

I won't rehash the argument in total here, but the benefits of a recession are hardly trivial: keeps inflation very low, makes American industry more efficient and able to compete globally, and keep the price of credit low.

Harsh Darwinism to be sure, but a bad-tasting medicine that provides benefits at the end of the day.

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's idea of cleaning up:

So much for reform of the House page program in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal. House teenage pages are so wild and unsupervised that two GOP members of Congress have resigned from the House Page Board, protesting that they were not informed of two pages caught shoplifting and two others busted for engaging in public oral sex.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like J and Jimd52 are the swing voters that are so important to both parties. If its Obama & Rudy, Obama wins in a walk. If its Clinton & Rudy, I don't know where the swing voters will go. I would not vote for Rudy as much as vote against Hillary. I am for a Romney/Huckabee ticket or Huckabee/Romney ticket. Still pretty sure the dems will nominate Hillary, which will give us the WH for another 4 years at least. Plus we would pick a lot of congressional seats in swing districts if the dems want to commit suicide with Mrs. C.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse


You're ranking Giuliani in first place for the nomination? Is this a joke? This is a candidate who is in 4th place in Iowa and 3rd place in NH according to the very polls you site in this blog entry. A candidate who is getting bludgeoned with a scandal over having secretly spent public funds while mayor to arrange illicit affairs with another woman while he was married.

The idea of ranking Giuliani at the top at this point is perfectly ridiculous. He's well behind in the polls for the early states and the news lately has only been bad for him. You failed to make a plausible case for this ranking.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | December 7, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

From the head clown:

As if there was any doubt that Congress was on the verge of devolving into a carnival atmosphere, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, on Thursday proposed doing cartwheels down the center aisle of the Senate chamber to draw attention to Republican efforts to block legislation. Here, in the Cirque du Senate, there is trash-talking, whining and finger-pointing, bickering and, occasionally, brief flashes of serious disagreement on policy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Barack Obama represents the United States of America. He is the only candidate capable of bringing Democrats, Republicans and Independents together into a single united group, which is what this country is about. Division helps no one, except the Wall Street Supercapitalists who are sending our jobs and currency overseas. America works best when Americans work together at home with American currency in active use throughout the 50 states. Love to America and love to the World.

Posted by: dwashington1 | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"A movement? What is this movement for? The audacity of hope? Will some tell me what Obama wants us to hope for? Change? Change to what? Nothing but a campaign of vacuous platitudes."

- What a shallow understanding, and what a short memory! Your sainted Ronald Reagan, who kicked Ugly Politicking into high gear in Philadelphia, Mississippi, based a career on delivering campaign speeches full of vacuous, hyper-patriotic platitudes. Remember "Morning in America"? Where was "the Beef", indeed?

But I knew Reagan was just an actor - and not a very good one. I suspect (and hope) that Obama is much more than that.

Posted by: dmcc1 | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Merry Christmas from Harry and Nancy:

WASHINGTON - With Christmas approaching and the Bush administration trying to ratchet up pressure on Congress to pass a wartime funding bill, the Marine Corps commandant said yesterday that thousands of civilians working at Marine bases in San Diego County and elsewhere face furloughs beginning March 24. Workers should know by Christmas whether they will face furloughs, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway said.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

LOL. What smug little moron you are, 'carlysle'--what a pretty little name you have too. gee

drindl back with her insults and vacuous policy statements. Like - invade Pakistan - our ally, a democracy in the region, a nuked up one. Very wise oh pea-brain one.

"debacle in iraq' - winning a war is a debacle to a foolish Lib

'economy recovers from the current meltdown', - record expansion and low unemployment with almost no inflation is a meltdown. this must be a Jimmy carter era Lib who loves 18% mortgages.

the train of silliness continues.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"So - still think this guy's a nut and (worse) a non-entity in the '08 race?"

Not a nut, but much too far left to win a national election and yes, an non-entity in the '08 race.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse


If you look at Carlyle's post, it is from the perspective of a centrist Democrat discouraged by the party's poor showing in presidential elections.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

As a dyed-in-the-wool Beltway Outsider, I'm still stunned that none - and I mean none - of the pundits (Mr Cillizza included) have seen fit to count Rep. Kucinich in the mix of viable Democratic candidates.

Is it that Dennis tells the truth too often (as in, always)? Or that he favors the "peace thing" - which may not "bleed" enough for big time media outlets (what would the head of programming at CNN do if they had to pull "The World at War" off their air?)?

Call me a Crazy, Peace-loving Tree Hugger, but I'm down with universal/single-payer healthcare (for everyone, Mr Obama), immediate and sustained peace (not just a deep breath of peace between unprovoked wars), deep-sixing NAFTA, bolstering primary and secondary education (really, kids in Banana Republics have better education systems - and better healthcare, too), and remaking this country back into the great place it used to be.

Not one other candidate in either party has the ability to accomplish MY agenda better than Dennis Kucinich. And all this guy does is go out and win poll after poll after poll. Not the CNN/USA Today/Zogby polls, but those where ordinary Americans are asked to vote for their favorite candidate. In other words, real world polling always shows DK the true winner.

So - still think this guy's a nut and (worse) a non-entity in the '08 race?


Boca Raton, FL

Posted by: psdingo_2002 | December 7, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Still, if an Iowa dark horse does emerge, our money is on the man from Delaware"

I truly hope so, CC.

"If we have Clinton and Guilani as their respective party standard bearers then America has a tough choice between two deeeply flawed human beings with suspect moral character."

I totally agree, bhoomes, and we will also get one of the dirtiest, most content-free campaigns in a long, long time. Frankly, I am closer ideologically to them than the other major candidates. I am more liberal than the Republicans and more conservative than the Democrats - so I like moderate to liberal R's and moderate to conservative D's. Also, I do not want a incredibly divisive D to succeed an incredilby divisive R. I think Giuliani would end up being incredibly divisive also.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

'Supporters Pump Ron Paul Full of Hot Air
A 'Ron Paul Blimp' Readies for Take Off'

Check out the graphic-- it looks like a cover of an old beatles album....

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

You people must be joking.

Hillary has the black caucus vote.

She has the womens vote.

She has the i'm tired of being overtaxed by the republicans vote.

You will be astounded by how large a margin she wins the nomination.

Posted by: Ciap | December 7, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

'The leftwing idealists, who understand little of the world, and even less about life, '

LOL. What smug little moron you are, 'carlysle'--what a pretty little name you have too. gee, you rightwing 'idealists' have sure done a heck of a job. when the troops come home from this debacle in iraq, when the economy recovers from the current meltdown, when kids in the most prosperous country inn the world stop dying from lack of health care, thenn talk to me about who understands what.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, I hate to break it to some, but Obama is not only going to continue to move up in polls, he will get the Democratic nod and be your 44th President. Why? Simple. Clinton is the natural choice were it not for George W. Bush. Most Dems would be willing to go "Back to the Future" were our recent past not such a disaster.

After George W. Bush, this country has no choice but to put someone in office who reflects the real change America wants and the hope it needs and demands. Clinton does not embody that change or that need. The movement is real. What is lacking is the understanding by rank and file Democrats (Unions, special interest groups, others) just how large a segment of the US public wants it. I switched from being an Independent for 20 years to Democrat just because of this. Believe me, I am not alone.

The only reason Clinton has held her lead this long is because people are slow to get involved with the Presidential political process. As they become more aware you are going to see the Tsunami.

Posted by: PJW5552 | December 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Geez, it isn't politics, it's THEATER. Obama hasn't got a political, it's a movie trailer, complete with one-line reviews.

It tells me NOTHING of SUBSTANCE. Sorry, you may not like it, but Americans have NEVER been "united" except for things like "defeat the Germans" or some external threat.

We don't agree that banning guns will do anything except rob use of our Constitutional Rights. We don't want to see our taxes double so we can have an immense Federal healthcare system that will make us wait months for treatments they deem "necessary."

Saying "I want to be President of all the United States" is a great ad -- it ISN'T a realistic policy.

Posted by: rhwells | December 7, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse


I disagree. Carter was elected because people were still running away from the GOP after Nixon and they punished Ford for his pardon.

In that case, Ford was a decent, honest person with whom I did tend to agree. But he had to overcome Nixon's baggage and was unable to do it.

In the current situation, I have problems with Clinton and Giuliani because I consider them to be autocratic as well as dishonest. Others may disagree with that, as is their right.

But I think that a search for "character" candidates would lead one away from them, and toward people like Biden, Obama, Huckabee, and McCain. That's not meant to be an exhaustive list, but gives the idea along with providing a good variety of policy viewpoints.

And I don't feel that policy should be discounted, I just think that honesty is more important. Especially since the President isn't going to be able to dictate favored policy papers to the country anyway. It has to get through Congress.

Posted by: J | December 7, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

'send troops to Pakistan'

sorry guy -- that doesn't bother me a bit. Pakistan is where the actual terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are [who are undoubtedly planning to attack us again], has a lot of loose nukes floating around, and a weak leader hated by his own people, It's currently the biggest threat we face in the world -- and so what do wwe do? why, we give them money to create more nukes.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

mmeyerdc: What Obama stands for is mostly the democratic agenda of big nanny government, weak defense,, Core democratic values which is why I more than likely stay to my republican colors. But Obama is fresh face, would help in race relations and unlike Hillary, he has the capacity to unite and lead the country in a crises because we just disgree with his policy positions but find him inspiration. I really wish he will grow and become a Republican. (I better quit before I give any fodder to the Clintonitas.)

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The leftwing idealists, who understand little of the world, and even less about life, have been trying to create a utopia of US politics since RFK in 1968. This nonsense about turn the page is empty rhetoric by persons who know little about politics and the way the real world works. Obama and his supporters live in a dreamworld of fantasy politics and a personality cult which if successful, would be a disaster in the general election and worse in governance. A part of me wishes that Obama would win the nomination only to have the left defeated again in three straight elections. Liberals never learn, never grow-up and never mature as individuals and remain in a constant state of anger. What upsets them about the Clintons is a failure to realise that tactical positioning is needed for any center-left candidate to win. And Obama, for all his talk, is an empty suit. But since I lived through the Carter/Mondale/Dukakis years of the 1980s, I am sure I can survive a repeat. My only fear is can the Democratic Party survive it? After all the anger at the Clintons is over, which I doubt will ever happen either from the left or the right, ask yourselves, who saved the party from disaster in 1992? And what would have happened if the party has lost that election? Leftists may not like the Clintons, but they should remember who built the party and who, like Gore shifting leftwards, and Bradley, a through-back, caused its defeats. Carry on liberals; you might just get what you wish for and live to regret it. Politics is neither for children nor the angry but for mature adults who understand how the game is played.

Posted by: Carlyle_R | December 7, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse


Well, that's news!!

I must admit that Obama has serious appeal to right-wing Republicans: he is "a man of integrity" (very much like GWB), a "religious man" (very much like GWB), a "uniter" (very much like GWB).

And the similarities go further. Obama has never had a real job (very much like GWB). On foreign policy, Obama has threatened to bomb Iran (very much like GWB), to send troops to Pakistan (surpassing GWB on this), and shares GWB's notion that American troops must stay in Iraq for the years to come. Obama is "right" on taxes too: he says nothing about the huge deficit GWB caused with his tax breaks for billionaries and how to pay for the debt caused by the nonsensical invasion of Iraq.

No wonder why Republicans like Obama so much.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if many Republicans were donating heavily to Obama's campaign, out of their deep hatred toward the Clintons.

Posted by: tropicalfolk | December 7, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"every poll we've seen shows Iowa a three-way statistical dead heat."

Strategic Vision's new Iowa poll shows Obama leading by 7 pts (not a statistical dead heat).

Obama 32%
Edwards 25%
Clinton 25%

Looks like the media choosen 'front runner' Clinton is going to come in 2nd or 3rd in Iowa. This shows her poll standing nationally is just 'name recognition' and where Obama is the best known (Iowa) he is leading.

Posted by: ESR1 | December 7, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

A movement? What is this movement for? The audacity of hope? Will some tell me what Obama wants us to hope for? Change? Change to what? Nothing but a campaign of vacuous platitudes.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | December 7, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I'd say that the R results will be heavily dependent on the D's. If HRC comes out of Iowa in 1st, RG will get a big boost because he is seen as the best to defeat her. If BHO wins and continues through NH, and SC, (or at least is perceived to be winning) then RG has no chance in his Feb 5th states that he is planning on, as his biggest advantage (the best R anti-HRC) will not matter.

I don't understand why the pundits aren't analyzing this like this is one horse race with two winners, not two completely separate races as they have been analyzing.

My 2 cents

Posted by: bjohnson | December 7, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee in Greensboro, N.C. tonight tried to respond to concerns about his lack of familiarity with the National Intelligence Estimate. Digging a deeper ditch? You decide ...

"Well, first off all it was kind of an ambush question. It came out at ten in the morning, I think it was late that afternoon and the reporter said: Have you read it? You know, George Bush had had it for four years, and he hadn't read it yet, so I don't really know that it was a big deal that I had not yet seen it and read it because we had been on the campaign trail nonstop. In fact I was saying to the reporters, you know the reason I haven't seen it is because you guys have been tailing me all day asking me questions."

huckabee is starting to get unpleasant. he's lied outright several times -- 4 differnt stories about the murderer pardon and nw says a legitimate question about a subject evryone in the litral world had been talking about for 24 is 'an ambush'? i think he's not ready for prime time.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I am one of the last staunch conservatives remaining in Fairfax County. I see BHO as a fairly conventional liberal, and would agree very little with the vast majority of his positions.

I would, however, vote for him just with the hope of lifting the long-term race debacle from the shoulders of my 20 year old multi-racial daughter.

We are however at war (and not just Iraq), and that fact gives me great pause.

Posted by: harry.heisler | December 7, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

what is this retarded, illiterate smear campaing about obama? i mean, really, wtf?

and this made me furious--

'Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on U.S. casualties in Iraq: "Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."'

thhis made me nauseous. absolutely nauseous. so because they're fultime military, sommehow thier lives are worth less than those of 'draftees'? what a monstrous statement/

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

'Claudia, I read your post WRT the sub-prime issues; let me bumper sticker my reply: sometimes, recessions can be a good thing (long term)'

I read that Samuelson post. I think it's ridiculous. You speak from the viewpoint of someone who could weather it without much inconvenience, obviously -- if a recession caused you to lose your job, your savings and everything else you had and put your family on the street, woud you still consider it 'a good thing'?

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

No Obama - it takes a compliant media to ignore your many deceptions.
Your health care plan does NOT cover everyone, but you keep telling audiences it does.
You and Hillary co-sponsored a bill in March designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Like Hillary, you have accepted donations from corporate lobbyists throughout your political career until embarking on your 2007 theme of "changing Washington."

Posted by: JoseyJ | December 7, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

In 1984, according to Barack Hussein Obama's Pastor, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and NATIONAL of ISLAM leader LOUIS FARRAKHAN met with LIBYAN LEADER MOAMMAR GADHAFI.

What was the intent of this meeting??

ALSO, at the forum given for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA in HARLEM he said,...WE ARE GOING TO SHOCK THE WORLD !!...

What did he mean by that statement?

Posted by: burlupus2000 | December 7, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

rogden71: I hope you are right about your Iowa and NH prediction, but I think vbhoomes may have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, by his posts, saying he would be ok with Obama, or words to that effect. I have stated my thoughts on the Repubs effort to stop Hillary. More and more I think their efforts are going to focus on Iowa, for if Hillary wins there it is pretty well over, but if Obama wins, and this is where I think he must to remain viable, although Hillary could lose Iowa and go on to Super Tuesday when it will be decided.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Claudia, I read your post WRT the sub-prime issues; let me bumper sticker my reply: sometimes, recessions can be a good thing (long term). There was a discussion about this a couple weeks ago. It wrings a lot of the fat out of the economy, and positions it for greater growth in the out years.

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama's ad makes Hillary look like a dirty dish rag without ever mentioning her name. If that ad runs often enough in Iowa, Obama will win the caucus there, in my opinion.

My first thought after listening to the ad: I want the opportunity to keep listening to this man speak. I believe he can change politics in this country, and the unfortunate course we seem to be traveling. We need a president who can rise above partisan (dirty) politics. Do we want to go back to the 90's?

Obama must have put together a really superior organization, new as he is to national politics, to be doing so well. I suspect he has surrounded himself with the right people and is listening to them. The presidency is not just one person... we should be looking at who these candidates are listening to, as well.

Posted by: judeca | December 7, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If we have Clinton and Guilani as their respective party standard bearers then America has a tough choice between two deeeply flawed human beings with suspect moral character. I do not believe Obama was a muslim in the past or ever but shouldn't matter. I totally agree with Mitt on that account. I do believe having an African-Americans as President and 1st lady would be great for this country because it would help with race relations, blacks will find out that thie is not as many racists as they think.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

J - "If I can get a decent, honest person with whom I agree, that's great. But I'll take decent and honest over policy agreement every time."
And thus, Jimmy Carter was elected... I tend to place a large part of my choice on the person also but nobody should simply discount policy.

Posted by: dave | December 7, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If you are still interested in Senate and House rankings, make sure to check Campaign Diaries's recent race-by-race analysis of all vulnerable seats --

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 7, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

*That's the quality CC commentary I'm looking for. Great post.
Obama/Biden '08!!*

I'm a Republican who will vote for that ticket over any we have so far. That's a good combination of vision and experience.

That's what we need, the first administration of the 21st Century.

Posted by: jeffreyhsykes | December 7, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

first of all, i don't get how giuliani, huckabee and romney are all a tie for 1st while we have a supposedly clear 1, 2, 3 for the dems even though there's a statistical dead heat in iowa.

that said, it's clear that clinton is more interested in showing how women can be better versions of men (i.e. that they can play the politics game better) rather than changing the (rules of the) game. whoever is pointing out the idea that ". . . .Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women" is missing the point. clinton isn't really interested in "women" or scoring one for women. she's interested in politics, and the only way she can win is if everyone is still playing 90s style political games. this is why the battle is so bitter with obama, because he's not so much interested in scoring one for african-americans. he too is interested in politics. while there are subtle difference between them, the big difference is (as chris makes clear over and over again) the way in which the political game will (or will not) shift if he or she is the nominee.

Posted by: plathman | December 7, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I am from Iowa. Just moved from there 5 months ago. I have family who are working for Edwards. They even admit that Clinton and Obama have better ground games. Edwards supporters are more likely of caucused before, but they do not have the best ground game. It might help if you actually talk to someone from Iowa.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | December 7, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Nobody believes Hillary will win Iowa, and New Hampshire is in doubt.

People who claim this nonsense are ignorant of the way the Iowa caucuses work.

Edwards will win Ioowa--handily, I might add and will be well-position for the other races. The media-designated "frontrunners" don't have the ground operation Edwards has had in place for the past few years.

Face it: The media have been told to cover only two Democrats in this campaign because neither of them can win the GE. It's very simple.

Posted by: snunes | December 7, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

wj_phillips -

Just because somebody is agaisnt Hillary, it doesn't mean that they are afraid of a strong smart woman or having one in a leadership role. Just like if you are against war doesn't make you against the soldiers.

I guess I should put it this way:

so are you telling me that you are against Obama you are afraid of having a black man in a leadership role? Are you afrad of a strong smart black man?

Posted by: mcmahon10 | December 7, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton and Guiliani are the respective nominees, you can bet there will be a serious third party challenge. The depth of support for those two is razor thin and I can easily see 35 - 40% of the country saying "isn't there another choice?"

Posted by: NMModerate | December 7, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Mike - the Obama is a Muslim rumor is part of an Internet smear campaign. It has been thoroughly discredited. Here is a link to the Urban Legend web site discussing this smear.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is going to win Iowa, was always going to win Iowa, and you know it, Chris, and everybody else in the media knows it.

You guys keep spewing the crap that it is a two-person race, the black and the woman, neither of whom are electable, and, in the black's case, has NO coherent policy positions at all. He's all media with no substance, and I wish people would quit taking him seriously.

Posted by: snunes | December 7, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"Can't stand the thought of a woman in a leadership role?

Afraid of strong smart women?"

That's right HRC supporters. If you don't support her, pull the woman card.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I believe that We the people want change in the direction of our national government. I also believe that We the people want our Senators and Representatives in DC and voting on all the bills. I see no change of direction for our nation with Hillary or any of the Republican candidates. Barak Obama and Joe Biden seem to me to represent change from our current course of demise as a nation. I will vote for Hillary if the Republicans are the only other choice but I fear her myopic view about every idea which comes along.

Posted by: musselmanm321 | December 7, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

As usual the WaPo people are all lining up against Hillary. Why?

Can't stand the thought of a woman in a leadership role?

Afraid of strong smart women?

Afraid Hillary will get a law passed requiring the neutering of journalists who have bad mouthed her at every turn? (A lot of WaPo journalists would really have to worry as would all the FOXs.)

Posted by: wj_phillips | December 7, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Re-rank Chris Cillizza's finalists by voting here:

Posted by: Desidirius | December 7, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Eh, I watched the Obama commercial and it was nothing special. This kind of stuff from Obama has always struck me as empty rhetoric. Until recently I've thought that America has for the most part shared my reaction, given how the numbers have favored Hillary. But after Iowa has even out, I'm not so sure.

But seriously, why do people go gaga for this stuff? "America, your time is now"? That's just a meaningless platitude. Also, Obama promises to be the President of both red and blue America, but this is false; he's basically just an out-and-out liberal, as is evidenced by his plans to withdraw from Iraq and eliminate the cap on the social security taxes. You may think those ideas are good, but you have to recognize that they are liberal ideas, and that no conservative would call Obama their president.

Posted by: RobertJordan | December 7, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to have to agree with vbhoomes (and split from a good number of my fellow R's) on Obama.

I don't know if he was ever a Muslim. I suspect he might have been.

But either way, I don't care.

I could vote for a Muslim, so long as he has the same values that make this country great - freedom, equality, and life.

Actually, there might even be benefits to having a moderate Muslim in the WH, such as more cred. in killing terrorists. Any thoughts?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Barack HUSSEIN Obama used to hang out with the NATIONAL OF ISLAM? I can't believe this paper didn't report on that! Thanks for bringing this to our attention, burlupus2000.

Oh, wait, never mind. You say that happened back when Obama was a MUSLIM. But Obama was never a Muslim, at any point in his life. So it must have happened in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE. Therefore, I must assume that burlupus2000 is an INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVELER, who brings NONSENSICAL SLURS and unnecessary USE OF CAPSLOCK from another world. Fascinating.

Posted by: Blarg | December 7, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse


Well stated.

Most important to me is not what a candidate's policy positions are, but what sort of person he or she is. How does this candidate operate? In my opinion, Clinton's methods are similar to those of the current administration (which disgust me, and I was a Republican in 2000). I don't understand why that doesn't alarm people, but I guess I don't need to understand.

If I can get a decent, honest person with whom I agree, that's great. But I'll take decent and honest over policy agreement every time.

Posted by: J | December 7, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

burlupus2000 - you sound like a religious-intollerant person who is a tad bit paranoid. Get over it and come back to the real world.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | December 7, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,

P.S. Better 'Horn than Aggie, in my humble opinion. Being newly settled after a transient military life, we are as yet unaffiliated. Our firstborn is looking at schools now, as it would happen.

Posted by: kurtrk | December 7, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,

We're on the north side of San Antonio. We're in a conservative, somewhat affluent enclave in an otherwise fairly liberal city. We're also military (retired, now defense contractor), so we are the lone liberals in that circle, as well.

Perhaps our perspective is limited in these environments, but I simply can't see anything but visceral hatred for Hillary. That's why I was so surprised that even with Hillary-hating Republicans, they would actually consider Obama. The "he refuses to cover his heart during the Pledge!" boneheads notwithstanding. Otherwise, after ranting about Hillary, they were amazingly reasonable in their views on Obama.

Posted by: kurtrk | December 7, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have no beef against Obama, he is an honest decent person as are the rest of the dem candidates except Hillary. We have rabid hatred for the Clintons because we think they are bad characters but of the two at least Bill has some likable attributes. Hillary would be an absolute disaster for this country. For those can't stand GWB, magnify it 10 times to get how we feel about Hillary. Then asked yourself do you really want to divide the country when you have good candidates who would be acceptable to Red America.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Isnt it interesting that WAPO and other News outlets, have NEVER had an indept story on Barack Hussein Obama's trip with NATIONAL OF ISLAM leader LOUIS FARRAKHAN to meet with LIBYAN leader MOAMMAR GADHAFI.

I believe that was when he was a MUSLIM and later turned to become a Christian.

Barack Hussein Obama at a forum in HARLEM said,... WE ARE GOING TO SHOCK THE WORLD !!...
What does he mean with that statement?

Posted by: burlupus2000 | December 7, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse


CIA interrogations would not be admissable evidence in court.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 7, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

'If they were going to make loans based on no documentation, then let them suffer those consequences.'

you don't understand the dimensions of this, or the potential effect on the WORLD's economy -- too huge to risk. i listened to an hourlong progam on this on NPR yesterday, andit was sobering.

'And maybe we need a standardized box, like in all credit card solicitations, clearly showing the terms'.

yes - absolutely. to give consumers a chance to understand what they're getting into. it's only fair, for chrissake.

My guess is, though, that most bad loans came about because people got greedy and materialistic,

mot of the subprime market is poor people, a great many of homes foreclosed are shabby. sme are not of course, but the salient fact is that however we got into this, the result without a bailout would be recession. major recession. we are in great danger of that now.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse


I tend to the libertarian, but I think there should be at least some regulation on this stuff. The "standardized box" you mention is a good start.

But I also think that there should be some things restricted. Those "low-payment" plans with negative amortization that they used to lure people in should never have been allowed to exist.

I used to get something at least weekly from a company pushing those very low rates and "selectable payments" including negative amortization. My first response was, "This is a con." I consider myself fairly knowledgeable, but there were terms I hadn't heard of in there, which I promptly looked up. But not everyone does. It helped that I'm on the opposite end: I want to pay off my house, not reduce the payments.

Posted by: J | December 7, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Hillary followed Bush on the Kyl-Leiberman Iran vote. She did that after following Bush and voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. What did Bush say...

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Well, after the NIE, Hillary, you got fooled again.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | December 7, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I enjoyed CC's post, but I don't agree on Rudy winning the GOP nomination. He is clearly behind Huckabee and Mitt in Iowa. NH will be between Romney and McCain, with Paul playing spoiler. Rudy would have to do well in NV and SC before Tsunami Tuesday.
HRC will win Iowa and New Hampshire and the Democrat's will have their nominee in place by February. All that is left to discuss on the Dem side is who will win the VP stakes.

Posted by: rogden71 | December 7, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse


I looked at the post on "Moral hazard" and have to agree. It's economics 101. If making mistakes is free, I'm going to keep making them because I know I'll be bailed out. And hey, I might make a risk-free killing in the process.

Posted by: J | December 7, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

And as for the confusing t's and c's, obscure loan conditions; I don't know, it seems like that's a very convenient excuse. And maybe we need a standardized box, like in all credit card solicitations, clearly showing the terms.

My guess is, though, that most bad loans came about because people got greedy and materialistic, reached for more house than they could afford, all to keep up with the Jones's.

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

dyck21005 -

Are you kidding me? From a supporter of someone who said that Democrats shouldn't use "Republican Talking Points" you say all of those things. I guess as Hillary says, she must be attacking Obama because he is winning. But lets look at your "points"

TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE - Now this is straight from Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly's mouth. Congratualtions on that one. First of all, where is the proof on that. She has never shown the math. Also, he has stated that he would also look at a doughnut approach (I beleive Edwards said it first) where it would start somewhere above $200,000. Tell a couple with 2 kids that make $50,000 that a single person making $300,000 gets a 7.5% tax break on every dollar past $100,000. Ask them if that sounds fair.

ABORTION - Obama got 100% ranking from abortion rights group. They have no problem with him.

IRAN VOTE - Obama stated before hand that he was against it. The vote was tabled and so he went to New Hampshire. So why does Harry Reid bring it up for a vote once Barack Obama is out of DC? Who is Harry Reid's son supporting? Hillary. Isn't that interesting.

HE CAN'T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION - where does this come from? Polls are showing that he does just as well as Hillary, and some even show him doing better. And he has a much higher cieling than Hillary when it comes to votes, because he has MUCH lower negatives.

So if you are gonna spew out such venom, at least, please, be truthful. Do not try to paint a false picture.

And lastly, your thoughts on a woman President could be applied to an African American. And your thoughts on Oprah is an outrage. If a black man supports Hillary, do you shame him also? How presumptuous of you to think that Oprah cannot think for herself.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | December 7, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of al Qaeda suspects because they no longer had "intelligence value" and they posed a security risk, CIA director Michael Hayden said Thursday.

The agency made the decision to destroy the tapes "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries," Hayden said.

Hayden said he was providing the background information to CIA employees because he expected possible "misinterpretations of the facts in the days ahead."

'Misinterpretations' -- could these people possibly be any moe disingenous? just curious, attorneys out there -- what's the penalty in a legal case for destroying evidence?

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I'd comment on your OT post but aside from the "If you can't say anything nice..." motto that I try to live by, I'm currently so irritated that I probably could not put anything coherent or printable together.

Posted by: dave | December 7, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Claudia, I think you and I don't like it for different reasons, then.

Personally, I absolutely do NOT think that the answer is more government regulation. The answer is to let the market work, and let the lenders, who presumably knew what they were doing, sleep in the bed they made.

If they were going to make loans based on no documentation, then let them suffer those consequences.

Short term pain for long term gain (better behavior by both business and consumers, knowing no govie bailout is coming).

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

'I thought Republicans were about people living with the consequences of their decisions. I guess not. Talk about distorting the market.'

frankly, JD, I don't like it either. But the whole problem came about because of lack of adequate oversight and regulation of lenders. many of them loaned money to people without even borrowing to ASK what their incomes were. Ridiculous and irresponsible. and many of the loans were written in such an opaque manner that it was impossible to understand the terms, or were outright misleading. anyway the bailout isn't about the consumers, it's about saving the bacon of the lenders and the impact of this meltdown on WORLD markets. many banks in other countries invested in our housing feeding frenzy, and now it is estimated that many of these investment are worth about 20% of their valuation, if they were liquidated now.

a fine mess indeed.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

dave, you are so right to call this just one more "crucial" election. It only reminds me how old I am.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

kurtrk, my NW Austin neighborhood is heavily populated with tecchies who are both not very partisan and not very involved. The precinct is strongly I and up-for-grabs - our State Rep is a tecchie, conservative D, who can command a 54% majority now but won his first race at barely 51%. So we are less "liberal" than Austin, but more "liberal" than most of TX. And still, Rs here would have the same visceral response as in your neighborhood.

So, where are you, and are you a 'Horn?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

CC - "But in a non-traditional fight, all bets are off...Obama seems set on turning his candidacy...into a movement, insisting that the choice is crucial for the future direction of the country."

This is something new and non-traditional? Funny, it seems to me that every election is pitched by at least one candidate as being "crucial for the future direction of the country". Let's see. 2004 - crucial due to Iraq/WOT. 2000/96 - crucial due to restoring honor to presidency / bridge to 21st century. 92 - crucial due to continuing/ending Reagan legacy/determining peace dividend. 88/84 - crucial to continue / end Reagan revolution. 80 - crucial due to Stagflation/recession / American weakness. 76 - Watergate. 72/68 - Viet Nam. 64 - Continuing Kennedy legacy/civil rights... When was the last non-crucial presidential election?

Posted by: dave | December 7, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I went to a neighborhood party last night, our subdivision in Texas being made up of W's 30%ers. The absolute hatred for Hillary from this Republican group was stunning. Not as stunning, though, as when I said I was supporting Obama. These same people said in response that Obama was a good, decent and honest man who would be an acceptable president. I damn near fainted.

Posted by: kurtrk | December 7, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"I'm surprised this hasn't already brought the Ron Paul fans out of the woodward."

Uh Mike, the word is 'woodwork', not 'woodward'.

Vote for intelligent change. Ron Paul '08

Posted by: KCBreslin | December 7, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"(Giuliani's) campaign won't cop to it, but in figuring out the math it seems like a win in New Hampshire or South Carolina is an absolute must for Giuliani at this point."

Both of which he trails badly and trends down, yet CC lists him #1. What a hack.

Somebody give Chris and Obama towels, that had to be messy.

Posted by: zukermand | December 7, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

If Obama had demonstrated greater leadership during his brief tenure as a US Senator, I might actually find this ad inspiring.

Instead all we get from him is empty rhetoric with no substance. Talk, talk, talk.

"I wanna be the President of the United States of America."

And I want a trip to Europe. Doesn't necessarily mean either of us will get what we want.

Posted by: cab91 | December 7, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes."

Oh Contrae.. I beg to differ..

Obviously TheLine has not seen the RP blimp yet!!

"ELIZABETH CITY, N.C., Dec. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Supporters of
Presidential candidate Ron Paul are excited to announce the launch of their
very own privately funded Ron Paul blimp. In less than a month the idea has
gone from a wishful post on a website to a full-blown and flying reality.
Launch date is set for the morning of December 11th from Elizabeth City,
NC where the blimp will then fly north to New Hampshire with stops in
Washington D.C., New York City and Boston. The blimp will be met at each stop by thousands of Ron Paul supporters who will come to cheer it on as it
continues its journey while passing over stadiums, parks, highways and
anywhere else people gather."

Posted by: oneman | December 7, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

BTW, I am assuming that at the RNC Paul's votes will actually NOT include a hefty portion of local RP officials and office holders, where each of the other candidates will have Mayors, and County Commissioners, and precinct chairs and the like. Thus the others will be more disciplined, in my view, when it comes to vote bargaining.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

OK, I need to run to work in a minute, but for those in the mood for an OT article, check out today's in WaPo.

This article could have been written by me. I can't stand the bailout, I think it's disgusting, dangerous, and I can't believe Bush and Paulson are doing this. I thought Republicans were about people living with the consequences of their decisions. I guess not. Talk about distorting the market.

And of course,

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I got interrupted by work and posted a double negative in my final sentnece at 9:01 -
should read

I suspect they scatter - being by definition not ones who feel bound by "authority".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I share JD's guess that Oprah's active campaigning actually means something positive and measurable for BHO.

I have actually run political campaigns - local ones and a long time ago, to be sure - and from that perspective I think that BHO's move from the general to the specific and from the "soft focus" to the sharp has been timed well. I have no reason to think
he has changed strategy, from what I have seen.

And similar may be said of HRC. Her strategy had to be to stay "above the fray" and appear presidential and limit soundbites for Rs, knowing that if [when] the race tightened she would have to focus on the immediate challenge. A change of tactics well within the strategic overview, I think.

Where the candidates have moved, from facts, to draw defined lines I applaud their methods. Where they have resorted to push-polling and false claims I deplore them. I have not followed in such detail that I can name the "almost pure" and the "stinky impure", and would hope to see a tactical breakdown here or at the "Trail" at some point.

The "Biden is the best one, but I do not want to waste my vote" responses I have seen in several IA news stories is disheartening to me.

And AggieMike, I can envision a scenario in which MH, RG, and JMcC are all still viable
going into the R Convention, but MR is not, as well as several in which MR remains alive, and one in which JMcC is not. But I think the brokered R Convention is the most likely of the several possible outcomes here. Then where would RP's folks go? As libertarians, I suspect they scatter - being by definition not ones who do not feel bound by "authority".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 7, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Romney loses Iowa and he's a gone goose. Rightly or wrongly, the lawn crew and Mormon issues have killed him this past week. He's looking more and more like a GOP Clinton (i.e. currently leading, but faltering).

NH is breaking for Mc Cain and fast according to local friends with long experience. The problem is that does Mc Cain have enough money to go forward after that? Time will tell.

With FL and MI out of the primary contest, Clinton seems to be more vunerable with each passing day especially in NH where a lot of people just don't trust or like her. The Granite Staters are angry that so many of their so-called Democratic leaders jumped on the Clinton bandwagon so early.

Make no mistke, Clinton is and will remain a formidable campaigner, but if the rest of Obama's organization is as organized as it was last Sunday night in Boston, it's a killer! Movement indeed. We've done "deja vu" and it's been found lacking.

Posted by: Smokescreen | December 7, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

'If a TV ad can get you elected, Obama's is the one. Its so good, it sent goose chills down my back and got me ready to cast my vote for him before I remembered I was a Republican.'

just do the right thing, bhoomes -- vote for who's best for your country. we have to stop this partisan madness. if there were a republican i liked better [and john mccain was once that man] i would vote for him/her.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are supporting Hillary because they know they can take her down, drawing more independent votes in the GE away from her and to their party and third parties. I could never vote for her. She IS Bush, and I hope the rest of the country continues to wise up about this. Obama, though it is true he lacks experience - yet having no less than HRC - is exciting, zealous, and necessary. I believe he really can make a difference, and that's why he's got my vote. I hope Biden's Sec. of State; it'd be too humbling for him to be VP to these relative newbies.

Posted by: schencks84 | December 7, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Judge: If Obama is the democratic nominee and he convinces me he not going to raise my taxes through the roof and will not be pushed around by World Thugs, then I will give him due consideration before I cast my vote.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

'For months, we've written that the only way for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- or any other Democrat for that matter -- to defeat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is to make the vote about more than just politics.'

Could you stop this please? This inanity, this 'inevitability' crap?Will you allow us to decide whm to vote for?

'from (and his campaign's strained explanations of) a Politico story that suggested Hizzoner used official security funds to transport his mistress (now wife, Judith Nathan) when he was still mayor. '

First, stop using this phony and cheesy 'hizzoner'. Second, the story didn't 'suggest' anything, it rather 'detailed' something. The accusations about Guiliani were backed by official city records.

Please stop being either so lazy or partisan.

Posted by: drindl | December 7, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

" me ready to cast my vote for him before I remembered I was a Republican."

Good one, bhoomes. Hey, think maybe you'll join all the Iowa Obama R's in the general election?

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 7, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I just don't get the continuing love for Giuliani. Maybe it's the name-recognition national polling. Rudy very likely won't finish better than third in Iowa. He might not finish in the top 4 in NH. The support he has in SC is shallow as can be, and if he can't finish in the top 3 there, he's through. He doesn't have much in the way of institutional or ideological support to fall back on, and a horserace-obsessed media that craves a Candidate 1 vs. Candidate 2 narrative will be focused elsewhere.

I can see leaving Rudy at #3 on the Line, just for pure nostalgia, and because McCain/Fred/etc. don't have a chance either, but it seems pretty blazingly obvious to me that Romney and Huckabee have separated themselves from the rest of the R pack.

Posted by: novamatt | December 7, 2007 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Dyck21005 wrote:

You know, the great thing about Fix commentary and reader responses is that it is a conversation -- sometimes heated -- by intelligent people who take the time to share their own thoughts. Not like, the above post from dyck21005, which contains talking points directly from the Clinton campaign cut and pasted right down to the mistakes it contains. You can find this same hatchet job verbatim on numerous other political blogs across the Internet. I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't the only one with a following of robotic dittoheads. The Clinton campaign must be getting desperate as the Obama movement builds.

Posted by: rich5 | December 7, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Who would have thought that the most meaningful endorsement of the '08 election would be Oprah, for Obama. Her star power and appeal to both blacks and chicks will be kryptonite for the Clintons.

Obama ought to make her vice.

Posted by: JD | December 7, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama isn't the first Presidential candidate with a razor-thin resume to declare himself to be a uniter, deride the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, and wrap his message in lofty and religious rhetoric.

That script was already made into a movie called George W. Bush, and look how well that worked out!

Posted by: JoeCHI | December 7, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is soooooo transparent. Planted questioneers, ringer Generals at GOP debates, threatining mags if they print this or that,etc. And then when you read blogs like this one, it is so easy to pick out HRC staffers like dyck making posts with outlandish clams about Obama. Say it with me, dyck, "President Obama". There you go, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Posted by: m.favreau | December 7, 2007 7:54 AM | Report abuse

If a TV ad can get you elected, Obama's is the one. Its so good, it sent goose chills down my back and got me ready to cast my vote for him before I remembered I was a Republican. He's one of the most inspirational speakers since Kenndey, King and Reagan. How any democrat could vote for Hillary over Obama is simply beyond my understanding. The dems have the most gifted speaker/leader since JFK. But I have confidence they will blow it and choose Hillary because the Democratic establishment told them they better. It kinda makes Ann Coulter's last book title somewhat apt. Hey!

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 7, 2007 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, in the last sentence of my last post, I meant to write, "But if Chris thought the Obama campaign WASN'T *getting* the big picture on how to win . . ."

Posted by: dk98103 | December 7, 2007 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Chris implies that Obama's campaign has just now realized something that Chris already knew: that Obama's best/only chance of winning is to frame his campaign as a movement, and not merely a traditional campaign. Chris implies that the Obama campaign was initially on the wrong path when he writes that Obama's campaign has finally made the realization of what is necessary to win. I recall that a (few?) months ago, Chris devoted space on his blog to solicit reader advice for Hillary Clinton on how to improve her campaign. Granted, I don't follow Chris' blog every day, and I may have missed a few of his posts. But if Chris thought the Obama campaign was *getting* the big picture on how to win, and needed advice, why is it that I hadn't seen Chris deputize all his readers to be informal advisers to Senator Obama's campaign as well - as Chris has done to help Senator Clinton?

Posted by: dk98103 | December 7, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will be shifting the focus to her accomplishments, and that's somehow a disadvantage to Barack Obama?? Please remind me what her accomplishments are? She stayed with husband after numerous extramarital affairs? She has no charisma and absolutely NO accomplishments relevant to being president. Her entire resume is that she's female, and her last name is Clinton. Why does Chris take as a given that the conventional wisdom is that HRC and Edwards are more electable? All the polls I've seen show Obama doing well in a general election matchup.

Posted by: dk98103 | December 7, 2007 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Anyone want to place a bet on how long it will take CC to stop listing Guiliani as #1? A week would make sense but the CW changes very slowly inside the Beltway.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 7, 2007 7:03 AM | Report abuse

It is proven over and over in his short time as a senator that Obama doesn't have the nerve to take on tough issues. Notice Obama is ducking votes on abortion and Iran!!! Seeking a trillion-dollar tax hike and raising the retirement age for Social Security!!!! PLAY ATTENTION IOWA! DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE!
Obama completely skipped the Senate vote on Iran. But throws mud at ALL the other senators doing their job. Take a look at his public tenure in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers can vote "present"?? (If you can believe that), instead of yes or no on a bill. Obama, votes "present" on SEVEN ABORTION MEASURES!!!! Unbelievable! WAKE UP IOWA! The President can't vote 'present.' Nor pick and choose which challenges he will face. This guy is afraid to make ANY decisions. LOOK AT THE FACTS IOWANS.
IOWANS the world is watching you first! SHOW THAT YOUR ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, Not Americans who would see out this great country for a TV talk show host!!!
DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON OBAMA he cannot win in the general election. I vote for him is a vote for the Republican Party

Madame President of the United's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal healthcare and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us...and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."

Posted by: dyck21005 | December 7, 2007 7:02 AM | Report abuse

And this surprises me.

"New York Senator Hillary Clinton's lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama in South Carolina's Presidential Primary has disappeared. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows Clinton with 36% of the vote while Obama is the top choice for 34% of the state's Likely Primary Voters. A month ago, Clinton had a ten-point advantage. In September, the former First Lady was up by thirteen points."

"Second, Obama's showing has improved significantly among black voters. He now attracts 51% of the African-American vote in South Carolina while Clinton picks up just 27%. A month ago, the candidates were even in this important constituency (Obama 46%, Clinton 45%). There is virtually no movement among white voters in the state--Clinton now earns 43% of the white vote, Edwards 22%, and Obama 17%. In the South Carolina survey, African-Americans constitute 49% of Likely Democratic Primary voters."

However, the following is NOT surprising:
"Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee continues the surge he's seen in Iowa and now leads with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney at 18%, Fred Thompson at 18%, Rudy Giuliani at 12%, and Sen. John McCain at 9%."

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 7, 2007 6:50 AM | Report abuse

"His campaign won't cop to it, but in figuring out the math it seems like a win in New Hampshire or South Carolina is an absolute must for Giuliani at this point."

Not likely to happen in NH where Romney, McCain and Huckabee continue to draw votes away from Guiliani

Not likely to happen in SC where Guiliani's aggregate support continues to slump downwards

Why do you have him ranked #1 again?

Edwards' eroding support in IA appears to have stabilized, for the moment ( ). Clearly, the voters there are moving toward making up their minds. I agree with everyone else that Edwards is likely to lose even more support when the curtain of the voting booth closes and interest in not wasting your vote increases.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 7, 2007 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is a definite no. She may have name recognition and political skills, but she is obviously the wrong person to lead this country because of her lack of integrity, her flip-flopping on everything, and her obscure fundraising.

Obama is another definite no. He makes frontpages due to his African name, skin color, and being Oprah's favorite guy. But the media -conservative and liberal alike- failed to address his huge blunders, particularly on foreign policy: threatening to bomb Iran, threatening to send troops to Pakistan, and failing to do anything significant to end the Iraq war. If you want another gut-driven, hawk-wannabe fool in the White House, vote for Obama.

Edwards is a better candidate, with integrity and clear ideas. He's not the sunny outsider anymore, but he would be a great President.... if he wins the nomination.

Richardson is obviously the best candidate. So far, he has been campaigning door to door in NH and Iowa, with little money and almost no media coverage. Let's wait and see if he can finish in a decent position over there, so he can get the media exposure needed to launch a national campaign.

Posted by: tropicalfolk | December 7, 2007 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Sorry a P.S. -- I don't know how much I'd trust the polls on electability for someone who is ____________, other than a white, male. People may say they'd support a _________, but behind the curtain I think they don't follow through.

Posted by: dietrich.timothy | December 7, 2007 6:18 AM | Report abuse

I am not really excited about any candidates. I'm sure others have thought of this and I may be stating the obvious -- but with the ridiculously long campaign season, then the early primaries ... will the apparent winner from the primaries have to be the party's nominee? And if a party's nominee is ordained practically a year ahead of time -- there is SO much that can happen in a year. Isn't that a big problem, and a large amount of time, for a nominee to falter or self-destruct, especially in this day of constant and instant access to almost every move a person makes? I know this contributes to the talk that a 3rd, or 4th, presidential candidate is talked about -- they will have months to campaign against the party nominees if the 2 Big Partys' nominees are decided in March 2008 or so.

I find it so absurd that the people elected to positions spend most of their time trying to get re-elected or elected to another position. I guess that is why incumbents generally stay in the House so long -- with an election every 2 years, they basically wouldn't have any time to work in Congress if they had to start campaigning again the day they were elected -- which they would have to do if there were any true and real opposition to them.

This is an aside -- but I get so sick of hearing about religion in these races. I'd love to have a Non religious president, but I know that isn't going to happen. The candidates trying to prove My Faith and God is better than, or surely as good as, yours -- haven't people learned anything from 8 years of W's polarizing and questionable religious grandstands? Or seen how religions have been the source of most conflicts going on today?

I love The Fix by the way -- the political blog I read the most.

Posted by: dietrich.timothy | December 7, 2007 6:15 AM | Report abuse

th: My post at 03:32 AM pretty well explains what is happening, and the Dems can't seem to understand that by hook or crook, whatever, the Repubs KNOW THEY CANNOT BEAT HILLARY IN 08. I am absolutely convinced Obama has NO, NONE,ZIP,ZERO chance in 08.A few days ago I was not as certain as I am now. By talking to different folks on a daily basis, I have not found one that thinks Obama can win in 08. This includes folks of male, female, black, white, hispanic, Dems, Repubs, rich, poor, and any other category you can think of.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 5:49 AM | Report abuse

"The question is can the movement get surpass Clinton's enormous base of support...polls in OH, PA and Fl are consistently showing Clinton with a strong lead:"

All of that changes after Iowa. Everything the pundits and the columnists have been saying for months changes in light of who wins in Iowa. Clinton MUST at least come in second in Iowa, and then win New Hampshire-- or her candidacy is doomed.

My guess, given HRC's nutty mistakes and frantic swipes at Obama over the past week, is that her campaign knows something about her chances in Iowa that we don't-- maybe an internal poll showed her getting her butt handed to her?

Regardless-- I hope and pray for a leader like Obama to receive the nomination. I have serious doubts about Hillary's electability.

Posted by: nhudson35 | December 7, 2007 5:37 AM | Report abuse

I'd put Biden in front of Richardson, but on the Democratic side the line might as well be limited to the top three. And then maybe Chris could consider the second choices (Iowa-style) of Biden, Richardson and Dodd voters. Wouldn't most of them be likely to support Obama over Clinton? If they do, then Obama will win Iowa. And when Clinton's "aura of inevitability" disappears, her negative traits will be more visible. If Obama wins Iowa, then I think he'll win the nomination - unless Clinton manages an unlikely comeback in New Hampshire (yes, I know she's ahead there now, so "comeback" might not be the word, but you know what I mean...).

Posted by: th | December 7, 2007 4:44 AM | Report abuse

The question is can the movement get surpass Clinton's enormous base of support...polls in OH, PA and Fl are consistently showing Clinton with a strong lead:

Posted by: nquotes | December 7, 2007 4:32 AM | Report abuse

loudermilk: I posted something similar a few days ago about how the folks in Iowa and NH has so much power in our political system. I seem to remember reading or hearing about 100,000 folks would be going to the caucus in Iowa, this doesn't seem accurate to me and I have been trying to get more accurate information, but nothing yet. I keep hearing the Repubs are going to support Obama in the hopes of stopping Hillary for they think she is the strongest Dem in 08 and Obama the weakest of the top tier. By early February, I am pretty sure we will know the Dem nominee.

Posted by: lylepink | December 7, 2007 3:32 AM | Report abuse

I wonder Chris, why do you think there is a perception that Obama would be a weaker G.E. candidate? The polls do not back that up. According to the aggregates at rcp he does 1 point worse than Clinton against Rudy (easily attributable to name recognition), and a couple of points better against Mitt and Fred. In the only poll vs. Huckabee to date (Rasmussen), he's at +5% while Hillary is only at +1%. Edwards is significantly worse against Rudy, although there haven't been any new polls in over a month.

Is it because of Obama's supposed lack of experience? He seems to be handling the vaunted Clinton attack machine very well, with quick, forceful, witty spokesperson responses and dismissive humor that makes her look weak and petty. The more she attacks the more his momentum seems to grow. She's also thrown just about everything she can at Obama, and nothing has really come close to sticking. That's what I like to see in a GE candidate.

I'm much more concerned about Clinton's ability to rally the GOP base, or Edwards's potential to come off as an angry populist.

Posted by: Nissl | December 7, 2007 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Will Iowa and New Hampshire Voters decide the election. I hope not because if so, my vote, no my opinion, doesn't count.

I continue to support Hillary Clinton but could be happy with Obama. Even though it seems the I have set my sights on the supposed top two, I would be happy to have a goose in the White House after the past seven years.

Even so, I am sad that as a voter outside the huge populus known as Iowa and New Hampshire that my vote will not count as much as the millions and millions of votes cast in these densely populated areas of our nation.

I guess that my point is this...even though I live in Texas, a republican red-necked daughter loving illiterate state, I am sure that our votes count too and hope that the race will rage on until the race is won and ultimately, our goose lays the golden egg.


Posted by: loudermilk | December 7, 2007 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama 's got the best ground crew. It's not just college kids. Add Edwards voters to Obama voters and Obama's number 1

Posted by: thebobbob | December 7, 2007 1:37 AM | Report abuse

More than any Presidential election year in 3 decades (think Jimmy Carter in 1976), this is a change election. Those who underestimate Obama and Huckabee fail to realize this basic fact. While both candidates have glaring weaknesses (foreign policy experience for Huckabee and executive experience for Obama), their overall message is consistent with the pent up desire for authenticity and healing. That's why Hillary, Rudy, and Mitt just won't do (to borrow a phrase from Obama). Prepare for a major upset. In the end, Obama will be elected the next President and will have to endure unrealistic expectations. But he will succeed, and the country will rebound.

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | December 7, 2007 1:09 AM | Report abuse

i feel the pundits inside the beltway for most of this year have greatly misunderstood and underestimated Obama.
he is much more savvy and clever in politics than you guys give him credit for.
Obama is very patient and will wait a long time looking for the right opening and timing.
In the meantime, he has used his skills as a community organizer very well and built his movement up and carefully trained the staff and the volunteers all summer.
Obama knew that if he did anything to start momentum he would peaked far too soon as HRC seems to have.
As they say, Timing is everything.

Posted by: vwcat | December 7, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Where'd Thompson go anyways? It would be nice if he just quit and endorse a more energetic candidate. Hmmm...I wonder who that could be? Probably the guy with the most similar voting record.

A McCain/Huckabee would be a very strong ticket and would help turnout Republicans to vote and thereby helping the party overall. These would be the same voters who would probably stay home should Giuliani be the nominee.

Posted by: stjetters | December 7, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I also think Biden should move up one.

He actually says stuff. Richardson just seems to talk.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza --- you should make it your mission to find out what 527s Obama has coming in on his side to counter Emily's List (clinton), AFSCME (Clinton), and SEIU (Edwards). He looks naked right now, and very vulnerable to a third-party mugging.

Posted by: tracker2 | December 7, 2007 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes."

I'm surprised this hasn't already brought the Ron Paul fans out of the woodward.

I agree with your R rankings as they are, currently.

If and when Huckabee nuetralizes Romney, and a Huckabee-Guiliani 2-way race ensues, I think you almost have to put Huckabee on top, regardless of money. But that hasn't happened yet, and it might not.

Romney's speech today was ill-timed. And any of us paying attention are likely to see it as a desparate act to stop the slippage in Iowa.

Fred Thompson is a dud, and although I don't take much pleasure in being right about this one from the beginning (because I would have preferred him to live up to the hype), I agree that Ron Paul has a better chance than Fred Thompson - which both happen to be zero.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 7, 2007 12:14 AM | Report abuse

That's the quality CC commentary I'm looking for. Great post.

Obama/Biden '08!!

Posted by: thecrisis | December 6, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Has McCain said if he will take public financing down the road? If he does well in NH and SC, will he have any money for the February blitz?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 6, 2007 11:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company