Clinton's inevitable train would start in New Hampshire

It helped that Clinton got Karen Hicks, who ran New Hampshire for Dean in 2004. Now Clinton's hired Sarah Nolan, who was [one of] Howard Dean's Seacoast organizers four years ago, as her political director (and in a move that a sign of things to come, Clinton's announced hiring a director of online organizing in New Hampshire). Clinton also got the endorsement from the NH House Majority leader, Mary Jane Wallner. The Shaheen's are also said to be going to Clinton. That's substantive, as it shows that Clinton is getting the leadership of both the Dean and Kerry '04 operations.

With Edwards still in the thick of it from his '04 operation, I don't think it too sacrosanct to say that Obama is way behind in New Hampshire. Can Obama build it from the ground up? Sure, Dean did. But is hiring Gephardt's '04 team for his NH leadership a sign of that to come? Hmm. I would also note that although a lot of the funding that backed Mark Warner is said to have gone to Obama, people working New Hampshire for Warner (and he was strong there) are backing Clinton (probably Lynch too). Obama would have to go after Clinton on the Iraq war, hard, to make it competitive.

Patrick Hynes video'd some of her "100 Club" speech, and thinks Clinton has shifted in message too -- saying Bush Ignores 'Invisible American' -- signaling a change in the focus of her campaign for the presidency. Considering that all the rumors say that New Hampshire is likely to jump ahead of Iowa for its primary, Clinton is in a very strong position to begin the nomination on a winning streak.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked, though, are the Independents in NH. So far, the Democratic primary is garnering far more attention than the Republican one, so the Indies will probably vote disproportionately in the Dem primary in NH. From polling data and anecdotal conversations with friends and family, Obama seems solidly ahead of Clinton with Independents in NH as of now. And, considering Hillary's status, I don't see her picking up a lot of Indie support in NH.

She may go negative against Obama in the few weeks before the primary to try to hold Indie turnout down in NH.

by BriVT 2007-03-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable

New Hampshire underwent a full-scale political revolution in Novemeber 2006. The NHDP elites and usual suspects who've been courted by presidential candidates since the dawn of time don't really run the party anymore nor do they have a clue about what's going on among the rank and file of the state party.

Ask yourself this question: why did presidential candidates trip over one another to give money to the independently wealthy Martha Fuller Clark (who got her clock cleaned) in 2002, but avoided Carol Shea-Porter like the plague in 2006?

Clinton is courting an obselete leadership.

The most coveted endorsement in New Hampshire isn't the Shaheens anymore. It's not even Lynch. It's Shea-Porter and DFNH.

by blueflorida 2007-03-11 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

Hillary's doing great.  She has a great team working for her in N.H. and that is going to continue to help her.  Heck, they haven't even begun, when you think about it.  

by marasaud 2007-03-11 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

Are you kidding?  Hillary has been seriously running for President ever since she ran for US Senator of New York.  Of the candidates running right now Obama is the one who hasn't even begun.

by msstaley 2007-03-11 11:41AM | 0 recs
New Hampshire

As an Edwards supporter I must say that I pray to god that New Hampshire does not move ahead of Iowa.  I have heard that New Hampshire's Secretary of State is determined to make sure that they retain their importance in the nomination process.  However, Iowa has sent signals that they are not going to take this lying down and after New Hampshire passed the law saying that they had to be first in the nation they grandfathered Iowa into the law because they have a caucus that had already been going on before the NH law, so I think this is less about being in front of Iowa and more about NH wanting to avoid being just another state when everyone and their mother wants to move up to Feb. 5th.  My fear is that because primaries are easier to move than caucuses New Hampshire could win a game of chicken with Iowa.  In the end, I wonder if Dean will have to step in with some kind of plan that would completely discourage states from moving up.  The only thing I can think of would be some kind of rule that any candidate who campaigned in the states who move up would forefit not only any delegates won from that state but the ability to win delegates period (thus ending their bid for the nomination).  Because the media attention is the driving force behind the need to win in Iowa and NH that would be all that would stop the candidates from playing along with the constant schedule changes.  But is that even "allowed"?  Clinton seems to have NH in the bag, though with Vilsack gone and Edwards nearing 50% of county chairs and co-charis behind him in Iowa (and he has led every legitimate poll there as the 2 ARG Hillary polls have been thoroughly discredited)he seems to have Iowa pretty much in the bag.  

Any Edwards supporters interested in being part of an organization of grassroots supporters check out our still under construction (it still needs a final edit) blog at...

It is on hold because we want input from other Edwards supporters before we launch it.  There's an e-mail address listed where you can contact us if you want to be part of project development or if you have any comments.    

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: New Hampshire

No one has any state in the bag yet. Edwards still has the advantage of having organization on the ground in Iowa but things can change practically overnight as we saw with Gephardt and Dean.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 09:17AM | 0 recs
In the bag

Absolutely right, nobody ought to be counting any state as theirs.  We haven't even had the first debate with the candidates.  Remember when Dean locked up his first state?

by msstaley 2007-03-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Dean lost NH, so did edwards

by vamonticello 2007-03-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

So did Bush.

by adamterando 2007-03-11 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

So did Bill Clinton.

by msstaley 2007-03-11 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

So did Al Sharpton!  So take that!!  ;-)

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:21PM | 0 recs
train would start in New Hampshire

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton's rhetoric is starting to sound a lot more like John Edwards?

I noticed it in invisible speech and also in some of her recent comments about health care and Iraq.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 09:10AM | 0 recs
Yup - her DNC Winter Meeting speech was

filled with pronouns like "I,me,my and mine"

Contrast it with Edwards; she used those phrases 6x more than he did at the  same event.

I'm cynical enough to think someone has spoken to her and told her to make this race less about her and more about issues/America.

by merbex 2007-03-11 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: train would start in New Hampshire

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.  If she is successful, Edwards and Obama are in trouble.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

That is a good clip. Clinton is adding a powerful populist message.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

That is not populist.

The day Hillary Clinton legitimately comes across as populist - or actually becomes one - is the day I'll take the Edwards sticker off of my car.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Populism is a generic word and can be left-wing, right-wing, and centrist. Historically there have been candidates from such extremes as George Wallace on the right to Al Sharpton on the left who have run "populist" campaigns.

Each of the top 3 will use elements of populism in their campaigns. I think all 3 have very similar economic points of view in terms of what could be definied as populist. My point was Clinton incorporated some good populist points in the speech Jerome posted.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Moreover, Edwards didn't start off as a populist either -- read up on his 1998 campaign.  He's turned to the left as well (thank goodness).

by Adam B 2007-03-11 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Kind of like Jimmy Carter.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Populism isn't merely rhetorical.  There is also populist policy, in which the only place that I can find Clinton fitting in is being for a ban on flag burning.

"I think all 3 have very similar economic points of view in terms of what could be definied as populist"

Clinton is much more of a classical liberal or neoliberal than John is, and perhaps Barack, though he doesn't have enough for me to know about him.  Populists have an issue with classical and neoliberals.  In actual policy preferences, John exhibits the most populism.

This doesn't translate into a lot of difference on voting records, but it does for executives.  From my assessment, Clinton will be much more likely to pursue targeted programs (like her proposal to cover all kids with health insurance), while John will tend to pursue more universal programs.

by jallen 2007-03-11 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

I think you inadvertantly put it perfectly. She's most definately not a populist, so she tacks on just such a message because her pollsters are finding that she faces a serious threat from Edwards because he actually is a populist that is closer to where actuall Democratic voters are.

Tried and true focus-grouped campaigning. And why are we supposed to feel passionately about her?

by adamterando 2007-03-11 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why be passionate about Hillary?

To keep flags from being burned.

by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 12:47PM | 0 recs
Senator Clinton

I don't know if I would say that Clinton is "doing great".  In fact I think this calls for a little bit of rambling.  Trying to ramble with one hand (shoulder injured) will be interesting.  Typo city here I come.  The media had to go easy on her at the start because they have the most to gain from her being the nominee.  They can use the whole "first woman serious contender vs. first African-American serious contender" storyline and if all else fails they can do what they are going to do sooner or later and that is go in for the kill.  She is the candidate most easy to sensationalize so of course they love her.  Her campaign has been about as dishonest as it gets.  Howard Wolfson is a turd in a pinstripe suit.  First there was the attack at Edwards (the best candidate) that lied about what he said, then there was the attack at Obama (a great candidate)that lied about Geffen's relationship with Obama.  Geffen was right about one thing.  The media is going to use Hillary's personal life to destroy her.  The only question is whether it's during the primaries or after she wins the nomination (the very thought makes me sick).  Clinton/Bayh would drive away so many Dems (who would vote for a progressive independent or perhaps Unity 08') that she would lose.  And that is assuming that if all the Dems stayed intact she could deal with the 47% of the country who won't vote for her. She has no room for error and losing Dems (recent polls show she loses 6% with freaking Ralph Nader as the progressive option) finishes her off.  Speaking of finishing her off back to her other serious problem (actually her whole candidacy is a serious problem).  Not only will she get whacked over Iraq (she wants it to keep going until 2009 so she can end it) and health care (she doesn't want universal care until 2016) but we all know what will do her in.  Bill.  I don't think their personal life should matter but she has been such a tremendous sell out (all the stuff about finding the "right way to get out of Iraq" - translation "look at me I'm a hawk...caw...caw...(hawk noises)") that no one feels like standing by her on this one.  And Wolfson is such a massive idiot that he buys the media spin that they will only pounce if there is something new.  I picked up a book that had nothing to do with the Clinon's whatsoever (at least it looked that way) called The Way To Win (it is about the 08' race) and it wasn;t long before I'm confronted with some guy telling stories about Clinton confesing all these affairs to him in 88' when he considered running.  The story might not be true but it won't matter.  He promised he didn't do anything with Flowers then in his book he said "Oh yeah, sorry, I did do the nasty with her" (clearly that was paraphrasaing) and we all know about the other one.  So when he denies it this time (and we all know that the GOP will hit him with someone, even if thet've never met him before) no one will beleive him.  So the media will find something "new" even if that is from 1987.  This will turn Hillary from the "wronged woman" in the eyes of many women to the "woman who is so power hungry that she stays in a marriage of political convenience".  Her and Wolfson's strategy is to prepare us for this gently.  She issues statemetns like "Bill I began a conversation a long time ago and we haven't stopped talking since" that makes them seem like really good friends.  Sorry Hillary but it's going to take more than that.  And then when the media asks Wolfson direct questions he just says that they should respect Bill's private life.  Huh? I'll agree with him on that but do we really think that the rest of America will?  Team Hillary is a house of cards.  She is running as her husband against Georege W. Bush.  We all know that she has nowhere near as much charisma or political skill as Bill (his charisma got him elected while she was a drag on the ticket) and while McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are all weak candidates and political shapeshifters they will be smart enough to say the 11 words that will derail Hillary's whole campaign, "You are not Bill Clinton and I am not George Bush".  Or how bout these 12 words "Senator Clinton, America should know, is your hudband faithful to you?"  We all know that America shouldn't know and that Senator Clinton should be judged on substantive matters.  She fails there just as miserably.  But she will not be judged on those matters and if she guilt trips the party into nominating her with her "You kno who my husband is, now you owe me" campaign then the GOP will eat her alive.  I'm sorry but to say that Clinton's campaign is "doing great" is to say that the Titanic was "doing great"...right before it hit the ice berg.  

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton

Not to mention the possibility that Bill is still being Bill.  If he has been unfaithful post-presidency, it will be a big story and it will hurt the campaign.

by LPMandrake 2007-03-11 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senator Clinton

Boy.  Sure, let's just use unfounded innuendo to sully Bill Clinton here.   You guys are seriously delusional if you believe that Bill Clinton will not be a major plus for the Clinton campaign come fall.  

by georgep 2007-03-12 08:30AM | 0 recs
Edwards and NH

I hope you are right about Edwards and NH.  I think that if the schedule stays Iowa, Nevada, then New Hampshire he has a better chance.  I desperately want him to win New Hampshire, our organization is just trying to prepare for the possibility that he comes in second there.  If voters pay attention to who is the most substantive and who is most willing to take real action then Edwards will win NH.  Paying attentiont to who is the most electable might not be a bad thing for once.  I think that for the first time in a long time we have all the attributes we look for in one candidate...John Edwards.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 09:30AM | 0 recs
NH moving up

If New Hampshire moves up ahead of Iowa I hope all the candidates boycott the state and the DNC doesn't seat them at the convention. I'm tired of NH being petulant children when it comes to their elections. It has zero to do with healthy democracy and everything to do with maintaining a very lucrative plum of having political campaigns and media outlets spend money in their state.

It's time to go to 4 rotating regional primaries and teach the moron press to cover it like an NBA game - it's not over until the last quarter because everybody goes on a run. Why should I give a rat's ass who New Hamphire votes for in Florida?

by joejoejoe 2007-03-11 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: NH moving up

Agreed.  Petulant children should be ignored.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Petulance
Trying to get your voice heard in politics is not being petulant. They fight for what they believe.
Would that Dems did more of this as a party, instead of cowering at every threat about lack of patriotism.
The people of NH are the most patriotic people in the country.
by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Petulance
Rubbish. Where's the patriotism in grabbing all the attention for your tiny unrepresentative corner of the country whilst the rest of the nation gets ignored? They may care deeply about the situation, but claims of greater patriotism than others don't stand up.
by Englishlefty 2007-03-11 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Petulance

Okay, I'll except that they care but not that they are petulant and give up their being more patriotic. You see how I used Repug talking points regarding patriotism? Please don't burn any NH state flags. :)

by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now, I support Edwards over HRC or Obama
Edwards will do quite well in NH, even if it comes before Iowa. Clinton will fade as the debates develop and direct comparisons are made between E,C,and O.
The other two are much more likeable than Hillary.
I'll also predict that Obama will improve vs Clinton and that this will develop into a two-man race.
by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 01:02PM | 0 recs
In the bag

That is exactly why in both cases I said "seems to" before I said that anyone has anything in the bag.  Things can change.  But 8 months of 2004 Iowa polling was not as consistent as the 2008 Iowa polling has been.  Polling aside, the point is that Iowa Dems seem to gravitiate towards Edwards.  Just like NH Dems have a lot of respect for the Clinton's.  I'm not saying that anything is set in stone, which is why I pre-empted both statements by saying that it only seems this way.  But with Vilsack out and much of his operation going to Edwards he has done a lot to secure Iowa.  As for Dean and Gephardt they fell from the first two because they went at each other.  I don't see Edwards and Obama having a scorched earth confrontation.  Every one learned from 2004.  Gore's support will likely be split between Edwards and Obama with the bulk of it going to Edwards (recent polls show that when Edwards drops it's because Gore rises or vice versa), add to that the "unity" endorsement from the Unions Edwards is likely to get and he becomes very hard to beat in Iowa.  Things could change but I don't think that saying that Edwards is in position to win Iowa is going too far.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: In the bag

Unless the poll numbers pick up for Edwards in other national and state polls at some point that will have an effect in Iowa. If Edwards still trails in 3rd place Iowa voters will take a hard look at whether they will still support him. Clinton and Obama are very strong in national polls and in every other state poll and that will become a factor.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 09:52AM | 0 recs
no, Iowans don't care about national polls

as the 2004 caucuses showed.

I think it would be very difficult for someone to top Edwards in Iowa. The question will be, how close will someone else come in second?

If NH moves ahead of IA, the road becomes tougher for Edwards, no doubt.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

The difference between what happened in 2004 and 2008 is that Kerry was viable in NH before Iowa. Voters in Iowa knew that Kerry had a shot. The problem Edwards has is he is barely viable at this point in NH or any other states afterwards. If he can get his poll numbers up then voters will think he has a shot at the nomination. If it continues to be just Clinton and Obama who are high in the polls I think Iowa voters will take a second look the closer we get to voting time and some may decide to go with Clinton and Obama. Another factor is the possibility Richardson may continue to rise and become viable as well.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

I think you assume iowa voters care about national polls. All indications are that they don't. In fact, I think many Iowans would prefer to refute them.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 12:23PM | 0 recs
as a Kerry precinct captain here, I disagree

I was working my precinct hard in the fall and winter of 2003/2004, and doing some stuff in other precincts as well.

I don't think even 10 percent of Iowans were aware of how the polls in New Hampshire looked. The wave toward Kerry and Edwards toward the end didn't have anything to do with who looked like a credible candidate in NH.

Incidentally, one of Gephardt's guys (I think it was Steve Murphy) said after the caucuses that they had done focus groups in Iowa in september 2003 and found that many people came around to supporting Kerry and Edwards as they learned more about all the candidates. Obviously the Gephardt people didn't publicize that at the time--they were trying to figure out how to get Gephardt above the low 20s in polls despite his 70 percent favorability rating among Iowans.

What I'm saying is that there were plenty of reasons why Iowans gravitated toward Kerry and Edwards. For Edwards in particular, the large rallies were important. I knew so many people who were on the fence until they saw him deliver his speech in person. On my own street I had identified two Kerry supporters (I think they may have even signed pledge cards for me), but toward the end they went to an Edwards rally, and next thing I knew there was an Edwards sign in their yard!

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-11 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

"I think it would be very difficult for someone to top Edwards in Iowa. The question will be, how close will someone else come in second?"

I think thats spot on. Its Edwards to lose at this point. And he is going to keep putting pressure there because he knows how important it is.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

That's a long time to run out the clock...  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

Or a long time to build your lead :).

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: no, Iowans don't care about national polls

Fair point... as long as one does not rest on their laurels.  Not saying Edwards is currently, but with all front runners it CAN happen.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:46PM | 0 recs
Deaniacs supporting Clinton?

If so, I would question their loyalty to the values expressed by Gov Dean.  As an early supporter of Dean, I identified most of the effort to prevent his nomination to be emanating from the Clinton/DLC camp.  It wasn't so much that they supported Kerry as they were afraid of losing their clout within the Party.

I would hate to see all the work that the grassroots has done toward reestablishing representative government, including electing Carol Shea-Porter, to be overtaken by the moneyed and corporate interest represented by Hillary Clinton.

by lobo charlie 2007-03-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Deaniacs supporting Clinton?

Not to mention the vast differences in power dynamics of the bottom-up, grassroots Dean movement versus the institutional top-down establishment Clintonistas.

It's less about politics than political philosophy.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 11:21AM | 0 recs
Good idea

Rotating regional primaries sounds like a good idea.  Some kind of fairness has to be restored. The problem is that the presidential candidates are all to afraid to tell IA and NH to be grown up about at so unless rank and file Dems demand it I don't see how an idea like rotating regional primaries (which is a very good idea and would have broad support) becomes a reality.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

I find it so intersting that the Clinton campaign would tout hiring all these Dean staffers - Dean lost and lost horribley - especially in NH. So, why would it be such a great thing to hire these people?
And I was a Dean supporter - but I recognize that while the message and the candidate were right on - it was the poor infrastructure that helped sink the campaign.

And why would anyone hire Gephardt staffers!? That's even worse.

by DuncanB 2007-03-11 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

I would not fault Dean's staff in NH. He had some very good people and a large base of volunteers. Dean's campaign started to come apart before Iowa but it was not the fault of his NH people.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Dean still placed second in NH,  39-26 behind Kerry, and way ahead of the rest of the field.

by Adam B 2007-03-11 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Even after his 2nd place in Iowa Edwards still was only able to get to 4th in NH with Clark getting 3rd. The poll numbers for Edwards are about where they were in 2003 - 2004 in NH and other states which is why I don't think he would get a huge bounce even if he wins Iowa since Clinton and Obama will have the money to carry them through February.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Well, here's the thing: if Clinton loses Iowa, by any amount, then a lot of air comes out of that balloon very quickly, even perhaps more so than Dean in NH.  The thing is, she'll have the money to stay in this through 2/3 if she wants to regardless of the results, and hope for big wins in larger-delegate states.

Edwards has SC after NH; he really just needs a solid #2 in Iowa and a win in SC to survive.

by Adam B 2007-03-11 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

The difference is the Dean campaign thought they would win Iowa and that was the expectation people had. Clinton has never said she would win Iowa and has a long, multi-state campaign to get the most delegates. Unfortunately Edwards seems to have a game plan similar to Dean and Gephardt that Iowa will give him some momentum.  

Edwards will have a tough time in SC. If he wins it will be by a very narrow margin. If Clinton or Obama wins SC it would seriously hurt the Edwards campaign.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 12:31PM | 0 recs
I disagree

Regardless of whether she says it herself, the expectations on Clinton will be that she's an unstoppable juggernaut who, because of her fundraising and other advantages, will stomp on her rivals like my 3 1/2 year old daughter on a roll of bubble wrap.  She can't-not-win Iowa, because once that happens, she's no longer inevitable.

by Adam B 2007-03-11 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Clinton and Obama could finish poorly in Iowa and either still would be in good shape to win the nomination. Because nearly half the U.S. population will hold primaries in the first days of February it will be a completely different election process for 2008. They are both laying the groundwork in terms of financing and groundwork for the big delegate states and so far they are the only two who are able to do that. Even if Edwards or Richardson won Iowa they do not have the groundwork and money in place for the big states which is why I don't think Iowa will be such a bounce this year.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Just look back in history... if you don't count sitting Presidents, then the winner of Iowa has won only about 50% of the time... even less if you don't include sitting VPs.  So you are right, winning Iowa is in no way a guarentee especially if it isn't the insider's candidate winning.  It seemed in 2004 peopel were so ancy to get after Bush that they stayed with Kerry after he won... after all, I am sure many thought the years of experience and the war record would be a great counter balance to Bush's incompetence.  Unfortunately, Kerry rested on his laurels, let Bush define him, didn't fight back against the swifties and lost the election.  I think people are weary of that in 2008 and aren't gfoing to pick a guy JUST because he wins Iowa... After all the star power is huge... you have 3 stars running, you have a 4th major one contemplating as well.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Who is the 4th major one?

by robliberal 2007-03-11 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Al Gore would be the 4th one.  Its a long shot he will run, but his no's haven't been as definitive as they were in 2004.  

Obama, Edwards and Clinton are the current 3.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Just my opinion but I don't see any possibility Gore will run. He has his place in history and has an important mission with global warming.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Oh I agree he is a long shot, but until he gives a definitive no like in 2004 OR the first primaries happen, he is still a star on the sideline with the possibility of getting in.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

We don't really have a lot of history on this, because 1988 and 1992 were won by local "favorite sons" in Gephardt and Harkin, and 1996 wasn't contested.

by Adam B 2007-03-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

96 was a sitting president and wasn't included in my statement.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

But we've never had a situation on our side in which, say, Gore loses to Bradley in 2000 or Harkin lost in 1992.  So we don't know what happens when expectations aren't met.  

On their side, Bush I beat Reagan in 1980, and lost to Dole in 1988, yet the loser survived each time.

by Adam B 2007-03-11 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.  Basically, I'm just saying that winning Iowa is not a guarentee that one will win the nomination.  History supports this so far.  It could change sure, it may not.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

"Iowa will probably win the Nom" is a common one touted by the MSM.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

I'm not sure how Gephardt was a local favorite son... He is from and his entire career was spent representing Missouri.  I think his Midwestern roots just appealled to Iowans... much the same way Edwards "folksyness" for lack of a better word appeals to many Iowans.  Harkin is a good point though.

Here are the Results since 1972 when this fun debacle began...  I removed Sitting VPs and Presidents.  In the Republican ones, a sitting VP actually lost (Bush 41 in 88).

2004 - John Kerry (38%) defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%) - Won

1992 - Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%) - Lost

1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%) - Lost

1984 - Walter Mondale (19%) defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%) - Won

1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry Jackson (1%) - Lost

1972 - Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry Jackson (1%) - Lost

2 wins and 4 losses... unless you count Carter in 1976 then its 50-50.  Its worse on the GOP side.  I'm just saying is there isn't overwhelming evidence that winning Iowa sets the table for a win.  It certainly isn't a BAD thing, mind you.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Iowa and NH will play an important role but I think moving the other primaries to February changes the picture tremendously. I would not be surprised in 2012 if candidates decide not to put as many resources in Iowa and NH and instead start with some of the larger states. We could very well start seeing more candidates from Cali, NY, etc. as well in the future.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

I think you are jumping the gun quite a bit. This isnt January you know. I don't think anyone has put much money/resources into any of the states beyond the first 4 yet, if they even have staff in those other states. Right now no one has the groundwork in those states.

Based upon polls now, you are assuming who will be viable then and who will have money. I think its much too early for that and much too early to understand what kind of bounce Iowa will have.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

True, remember when Joementum had the nom locked in 2004.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree

Stomping on Bubble wrap is fun!!!

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

He's also behind in Nevada according to polls... but it IS early.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:17PM | 0 recs
Dean and Clinton

I don't think Dean is too happy with the Clinton's and it's clear he is from a different wing of the party.  I'm sure however that he is under a ton of pressure from Clinton friendly hacks that try and bully the party.  He wants to be a neutral and fair referee but because he won't play Hillary's game Carville goes for Dean's job and wanted to replace him with who?  Oh yeah Harold Ford Jr. the new chairman of the  DLC whose last major rally for his Senate race  Clinton used to try to talk the party back to the "center" so his wife would be able to look "centrist by association".  I doubt Carville would have went after Dean unless he had the Clinton's permission.  Just like people forget that Hillary would not have voted for the war that both her and her husband claim they would not have started unless of course her husband told her that it was the smart thing to do.  Anyone who thinks that Bill Clinton didn't essentially vote for the war is fooling themself.  He did a lot of good things but NAFTA, doing nothing about Rwanda, and not speaking out against the IWR were not among them.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean and Clinton

carville is a joke. lets ignore him

he is really pathetic..

him and his wives little comedy skit on meet the press makes me yak every time.

by serge in dc 2007-03-11 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

"With Edwards still in the thick of it from his '04 operation, I don't think it too sacrosanct to say that Obama is way behind in New Hampshire."

As the only one of the "Big Three" who hasn't been running for president for the last four years (or more), it's probably fair to say that Obama is way behind everywhere.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-03-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

For being behind, he is polling pretty well though.  The star power and the message that connects with some people might be enough to keep him viable while he builds his campaign.  Hell, Edwards had to build from the ground up in 2003 and despite being an fairly inexperienced Senator at the time (hadn't finished 1 term) his message connected with voters and he rode it to a 2nd place finish... and  I still say had he apologized for the war (or not voted for it in the first place) in 2003 before the primaries, he would have won Iowa and the nomination.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:10PM | 0 recs
Jerome did it ever occur to you that you are being spun into the inevatibilty. Facts are facts and endorsements are not that big a deal anymore, Obama has closed to almost even with HRC
in most state and national polls, as the campaign gets personal, HRC is not going to get new converts in the door to door type stuff that goes on in New Hampshire and Iowa, if she goes negative she plays into a negative image about about her, Obama's stump speach about the war being wrong in it's conception not it's execution is something she can't even hope to match among dem primary voters. In addition  if her national disapproval numbers remain in the high 40's the arguement will be made that dems are about to nominate a surely unlikeable loser an  arguement I agree with if the GOP nominates McCain or Rudy.
by nevadadem 2007-03-11 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: re

Don't underestimate the power of door-to-door political activism.

by adamterando 2007-03-11 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: re

But also don't forget what comes with endorsements.  

No shit that people don't make their voting choices solely upon who's endorsed whom (though it does matter)...but endorsees have political networks that can be leveraged.  That is the most important thing in Iowa and New Hampshire as far as endorsements are concerned.  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
yes and no

Harkin and AFSCME endorsed Dean last time. A lot of people I know who normally love Harkin were really mad at him. I don't know how much of his network went for dean because of that.

I think the volunteer armies are more important than the endorsements, and here Edwards and Obama will be miles ahead of Clinton.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-11 02:48PM | 0 recs
New Hampshire Break-in

Anyone know what was taken when the New Hampshere Democratic Party office was broken into? /

I feel some dirt, some real dirt...?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-11 11:15AM | 0 recs
Us stubborn Yankees
who elected Carol Shea-Porter, when no one outside of the 1st District of NH, including MyDD, would even look at her, will take this pronouncement with a saltceller worth of salt!
And many of us are the real Deaniacs, not the staff of the campaign.  And Edwards supporters and Clark supporters.  When you are guys going to stop looking at the ancient "top" the party and start looking at the heart, soul and shoe leather?  Who do you think took NH from over a century of Republican domination to a Democratic landslide this year?  We did.
Don't hand us over to Hillary just let, especially if you don't live in NH!
by bloomingpol 2007-03-11 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Us stubborn Yankees

DO people in the North East REALLY call themselves Yankees?

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Us stubborn Yankees
Northeast no.
The reference was to NH where some do.
Also, Maine.
by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Us stubborn Yankees

Really?  Wow, I'm shocked they would call themselves that.  I thought it was just southerners who did it.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Us stubborn Yankees

It is not a reference to civil war.
It's just that they have pie for breakfast
and don't talk much except to say "aayuh".

"Buried my wife the other day.
Had to....she died. Aayuhh."

That's Yankee.

by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 01:51PM | 0 recs
See Yankee Magazine, Dublin, NH

by Ma Joad 2007-03-11 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

At long last Jerome has understood that Senator Clinton's support and advocates are quite committed and quite substantial.  She was never the enemy, and the bloggers have been routinely misdirected to label her as such.

I witnessed the C-Span broadcast of the New Hampshire 100 Club affair.  She was supremely motivated and the affection for her--inasmuch as it presages a return to a Golden Era of Clinton leadership--was quite genuine and most potent.

Indeed her vote on the Iraq incursion was a grave mistake, as were the votes of the vast majority of the Senate members, an exclusive club to which now Senator Obama did not then belong. It is futile to argue that he would have voted otherwise; one simply can never be certain. Hindsight is always an easy perspective.

What is certain is the fact that Senator Clinton has had a demostrated track record of championing all manner of Civil Rights, from her college years and beyond.  It is also a fact, not a judgment, that she is easily the most seasoned of the candidates on a presidential level of any of her current Democratic rivals.  

She has withstood investigations that would have made candidates like former Mayor Giuliani wither under such scrutiny.  Her negatives are high because there is virtually nothing either she or her husband have not already been accused of.  

And that is why her negatives are also her strength, inasmuch as the brilliant oratory of Senator Obama is not unto itself sufficient for him to be easily redfined by what is certain to be a very brutal opposition.  Again, his short period in the Senate makes him far too green for this early leap into the Platinum round of United States politics.

I find all the current crop of Democratic camdidates to be most alluring.  However, the Clintons (indeed they are ever a tandem) have mastered our political process to the point of diamond-laser brain surgery.  They perceive intricacies and foresee obstacles few in their realm are capable of comprehending.

by lambros 2007-03-11 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

"However, the Clintons (indeed they are ever a tandem) have mastered our political process to the point of diamond-laser brain surgery.  They perceive intricacies and foresee obstacles few in their realm are capable of comprehending."

I want a transformational leader, not just a skilled tactician that revels in process victories.

by adamterando 2007-03-11 11:49AM | 0 recs
Her vote on the Iraq incursion was a grave mistake


by joejoejoe 2007-03-11 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

"Golden Era of Clinton Leadership"

I like President Clinton, but let's not kid ourselves here.  I think the man himself said it: he was more an Eisenhower Republican, not a Democrat.  We can do better.

by LPMandrake 2007-03-11 02:15PM | 0 recs
HRC is not for me

What are you on.  Clinton has not "withstood" anything.  She would be nothing without her last name.  She is a terrible speaker and if you think she can win a general elction (especially with at least 6% going to as lame a progressive independent option as Ralph Nader) you are fooling yourself.  We all know that if Democrats don't bring up her husband's "issues" in the nomination fight and if Democrats are snowballed by her "vote for me, my husband was president" guilt trip and she makes it to the general then the GOP will detroy her with Bill's issues there.  Do we really think that the media will lay off of this unless something is new?  Bill lied about Flowers, he lied about Lewsinsky and tehn he cries "mea culpa" when he has to.  Team Hillary is trying to prepare us for the next revelation of infidelity by saying that "they began a conversation a long time ago (Bill and Hillary) and haven't stopped talking since" trying to imply that they are guud friends.  Then when they are asked directly her communications people say "it's his personal business". HAH!!! I agree with that but the average voter will not.  The media is driven by ratings.  They build up to tear down, and they are just waiting to pounce on Senator Clinton.  They desperately want her to be the nominee so they can play the first woman vs. first African-American card on the way and then they can go back to their marriage.  Bill admitted numerous affairs to his aides in 1988 when he considered running.  Maybe they have a mmarriage of political convenience.  Sure looks that way.  Most progressives would stand by her anyway (if she stood for our values, which she does not) but she would need to be honest about it with the American public to even have a chance.  She is not doing that.  She claims she can't speak truth about a Iraq because then she can't keep playing that "look at me, I'm a hawk" game.  She can't bring up universal health care until 2016 (when she would have little to no chance of passing it) because she wants to bury the circa 1994 Hillary.  How many free passes does one candidate deserve?  Come on.  I am so tired of dellusional Clintonistas.  She is in the lead in the polls because of her last name and name recognition.  She offers nothing of substance.  If she was not married to Bill she wouldn't stand a chance.  Edwards and Obama at least offer something.  If Edwards loses (a lot of dedicated people are going to do all that they can to keep this from happening) he will able to be proud of his campaign.  The same goes for Obama.  But what could Clinton be proud of?  Guilt tripping everyone to look past her obsession with calculation and focus instead on her gender and her last name?  Come on.  Talk about being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple.  Get off of it you DLC hack.  

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 07:10PM | 0 recs
Learn from American Idol

When someone talks about how she has so much experience, it shows you how out of touch they are with the American voters.  Polls and actual election results show, Americans don't care how much experience you have, or else the best resume would win all the time.  What they want is the X factor (ala American Idol), a gut reaction on how you feel about that person and wether or not you feel you can trust that person. Some of the best singers and more experienced ones lose early because they just don't have it. Unfortunately, Hillary lacks instant likeability and trusthworthiness.

by exLogCabin 2007-03-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

The polls show experience to be a major issue. It was part of what hurt Dean in 2004 and allowed Kerry and Clark to rise in the polls with Kerry taking control of that issue after Iowa.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

Yeah, but does she really have that much experience... People count first lady, but while it does involve campaigning experience and HRC was involved more than others, it still isn't the same as being a cabinet member or elected official.  In truth none of the big 3 has a lot of experience...  Obama is still in his first term, Edwards has only held one term in elected office and HRC is just starting term 2.  In fact from purely elected office standpoint, of the big 3, Obama has the most experience, albeit MOST of it is at the state level, which doesn't count as experience in the publics eyes.

The unfortunate truth is if she wasn't a Clinton, and if Bill hadn't won two terms, she wouldn't be a legit candidate at all.  Which is what scares me with her in the generals.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

She has a very extensive resume as an attorney, advocate, and in government. She had hands on experience with major issues and as an adviser for the 6 terms that Bill Clinton was Gov. of Arkansas and the 8 years in the White House before ever being in the Senate. Experience in the executive branch is completely different than the Senate. I would say Clinton and Richardson have the most diverse and extensive resumes of any of the candidates in the race both going back some 30 years or so.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

That's a fair point... I guess I equate experience as an official position, since there really isn't a quantative way to measure her roll as an advisor... I mmean we don't know how many hours a day, etc.  

I agree Richardson does have an extensive resume.  I was just including the big 3.  

But my other statement still stands.  If she wasn't a Clinton she wouldn't be viable.  Of course one could make the same argument with W.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

I think she would still be viable but probably not at the top of the pack.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Learn from American Idol

If her best claim for experience is being around Bill, then she's in a lot of trouble. And there are also any number of people that could make the same claim. Proximity to a president does not equal being qualified to be president.

Especially since her main foray into policy during the Clinton years (health care) failed so misrably. I'm not so sure thats the kind of experience she wants people to remember her for.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 01:33PM | 0 recs
The real question is does New Hampshire matter

What with the National Primary on Feb 5.

I just can't see that there will be some "big mo", from Iowa, NH, that will unduly influence voters for  what will basically BE the election on Feb 5.

While the metaphor for political junkies is the "horserace', with the winning in one state, then going to the next state, etc, like winning days on  the Tour de France, that metaphor is really lacking for 2008.

Figure that if someone wins Feb 5 BIG, that person has won the election - period.

Clinton could win all 4 races - Iowa, Nevada, NH, South Carolina - and if Obama wins big on National Primary day - well those 4 states won't mean much.

by jc 2007-03-11 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The real question is does New Hampshire matter

If Clinton wins all 4 of those, Feb 4th wont matter for Obama or Edwards.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The real question is does New Hampshire matter

Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case.  Of course I hope you (and myself) are wrong if she did win all 4.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The real question is does New Hampshire matter

oops, should be the 5th in my post. I'm still optimistic she could lose at least 3 or the 4. I think NH will be hard to take from her though unless she places poorly in Iowa and Nevada (assuming they are still before NH).

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 01:37PM | 0 recs
Why is that so?

What is the delegate count?

by jc 2007-03-11 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The real question is does New Hampshire matter
True to an extent - candidates will need the funds to compete on Feb 5th, without them any early victories won't matter. However, if a candidate who can compete does particularly well or particularly badly in the early primaries, particularly in terms of victories, they get a definite boost on Feb 5th. If they win all four, they're going to sweep the primaries then.
by Englishlefty 2007-03-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
Just Depends on the mood in Dec. '07 & Jan. 08

If NH Dems and independents are happy with state & national Dem. leadership in the month before the primary in 2008 (or even 2007 the way things are being pushed back) then the endorsements will mean something.  If, however, voters are in a foul "let's send them a message" mood then the big name endorsements will backfire & be a liability.  Nobody knows that better than Jeanne Shaheen who was an insurgent when she was one of the NH leaders for Gary Hart in 1984.  One thing is certain, for better or worse, H. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic establishment, it's a double edged sword.  Frankly, if I was running I'd want to allign myself with the new leaders of tomorrow, not the leaders of the 1980's, but if she does everything right she can peobably blend the old & the new.  

PS -- who is the only certain winner?  WMUR and the Boston TV ad salespeople!

by howardpark 2007-03-11 12:39PM | 0 recs
Edwards in Iowa

One problem I see for Edwards is the strong expectations now for him in Iowa (at least now). Who knows how things will change, but at least for now he is expected to win. But if he does win, will it be a big one or a squeaker?

If its a squeaker, its going to be hard to get a real bounce, though it might happen. The story might be more about the 2nd place finisher, and how close they came. So at this point anyways, I think its in Hillary and Obama's interest to downplay Iowa expectations and either go all out there quietly or put more into other states if they see that Edwards is this years Tom Harkin so to speak.

A big win for Edwards, especially if Hillary does a poor 3rd place, will have big ramifications for in the other states I bet.

As things get closer, I wonder if there will be any talk between the Edwards and Obama campaign about delegate sharing like Kucinich and Edwards had last time. Seems like they would both have an interest in lockiing Hillary out.

by okamichan13 2007-03-11 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Iowa

I think you were right on about this.  Edwards and Obama supporters like each other's candidate a lot more than we like Clinton.  I know many Edwards supporters (myself included) who would be thrilled with Obama as the nominee.  Obviously we feel Edwards would be a lot better but by the same token Obama would be miles ahead of Clinton.  I do think that the expectations game is what the Edwards camp has to deal with.  I think that Team Hillary is planning to declare victory in NH even if they come in second.  Kind of like Bill did.  I'm sure she will call herself another "Comeback Clinton".  If she comes in third in IA, then she might come in third in NV (if it's still second) and if that happens then a third place finish in NH would probably finish her off.  I woud love if it came down to Edwards and Obama.  That would be good for the party.  It's the definition of a win-win situation, especially if the ticket ends up being Edwards/Obama.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 03:03PM | 0 recs
To "robliberal"

I'm sorry but I have to confront your notion that Kerry campaign was viable" in New Hampshire before it was in Iowa.  I respect your right to support whoever you want but some of your pro-Clinton arguments are distorting the truth.  You know what they say, "like candidate like supporter." We could argue for ever about the shape the Kerry campaign was in prior to Iowa but the Kerry campaigns strategy was to spend all of their resources in Iowa and use a win there to slingshot into NH.  If they would have thought that NH was where they were stronger they might have tried to lower expectations for IA and put the resources in NH.  After all, some people who witnessed 04' think that winning in IA always leads to winning NH but the two states go in different directions more often then they are in unison.  What I'm trying to say is that the Kerry campaign had reason to beleive that they could withstand a loss in IA and recover in NH.  Sure, Kerry is from right next door but to argue that Kerry was more viable in other parts of the country(including NH) than Edwards is now is well ...I'll just say it's very off base.  Regarding state wide polls - Besides Iowa (where Edwards has won 9 polls, every poll but the thoroughly discredited American Research Group polls that give Hillary a 20% bounce compared to the other polls every time they come out) most of the other states are all over the place.  If you look at some of the southern and midwestern states like TX, GA, KS, NE, and OK you will see that Edwards is closing in on Clinton.  It's also worth remembering a couple important things.  Gore's inlcusion in national polls skews the results.  More importantly, the national polls do not make a lot of effort to identify actual primary voters.  If they magically could identify who is going to take part and who is not, without Gore in the race I imagine the numbers would be something like Clinton - 27% Obama - 25% and rising and Edwards - 18% but of course at this stage, many are open to switching candidates.  The last thing to remember is that it is still relatively early and when the focus turns to substance Edwards will be on better footing.  Iowa voters however like to make up their own mind.  The fact that Edwards is not the "media" candidate or the "big money" candidate or even the "front runner" is more likely to help him than hurt him.  I think Obama would be rising even if he wasn't recieving free media but you have to acknowledge that Clinton has recieved so much free media that if she wasn't way ahead among the casual Democrats and "Democratic leaning independents" that are polled there would be serious problems with her and her campaign.  Wait until the media does what they always do.  After they build you up they tear you down and there is plenty to tear down Clinton with.  Even if Clinton can keep herself afloat until Iowa the voters there (judging from the little contact I have had with them)seem to take way too much pride in their role in the process to let polling be a factor.  It appears that a substantial amount of them break towards electability in the end and if you look at the totality of head to head polling (since your argument is that national polling will hurt Edwards in Iowa) against the GOP's "big 3" Edwards is by far the best Democrat in a general election setting.  The belief that Edwards is the best Dem vs. the GOP is even stronger in Iowa where Des Moines Register polls show that Clinton is the only Democrat they included in polling who loses to every candidate (yes, even Romney) of the opposite party among the entire Iowa electorate. If you think that Iowa voters will abandon Edwards for Clinton based on polling (national or otherwise) then can you please send Rush Limbaugh some of what you are on?  He makes himself out to be an even bigger ass (if that's possible) when he's high.    

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: To "robliberal"

The January 15-17, 2004 ARG poll in New Hampshire done on the eve of the Iowa caucus showed Kerry as viable. Kerry and Clark were in a tie within MOE for 2nd place and Dean was still ahead in 1st place. Edwards was a weak 4th. Kerry got a bounce from Iowa and won NH but Edwards still finished 4th behind Clark.

Braun  0
Clark   20
Dean  28   
Edwards 8
Gephardt 3
Kerry     19
Kucinich 1
Lieberman 6
Sharpton 0 demtrack/demtrack04-21s.html

I have contributed to the presidential campaigns of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for 2008.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 03:28PM | 0 recs
Clinton Staff

One minor correction: Sarah Nolan wasn't Dean's Seacoast organizer. She volunteered in the Seacoast office regularly, and worked hard in her home town, but the office was run by Ben LaBolt.

I also think the entire premise is flawed: there are  scores of talented Democratic field organizers in this country, and many more still to be discovered. Karen Hicks was great for Dean, but there's no guarantee she'll be any better for Clinton than whomever Obama and Edwards have/get.

by James Gatz 2007-03-11 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Staff

Beat me to it on Sarah Nolan.  Good for her moving up the ranks so quickly.

The Edwards operation was a shadow of the Kerry and Dean crews, but strong in spots.  They have great continuity and a smart guy in Paul Dunn running the field (if I remember right).

It is a little scary for me as a probable Obama supporter to see all the Gephardt people being picked up.  Matt Rodriguez is sharp, and Gep had a very tough row to hoe in NH, but with the kind of campaign they're trying to run?

Lots of low- and mid-level Kerry and Dean people seem to be on the sidelines so far.  It's surprising Hicks hasn't recruited more of her old staff (culture conflict, I guess?) and that none of the others have been successful either.

by scorekeeper 2007-03-11 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Staff

Thanks for the correction. I think Warner would have had a lot of the NH Kerry and Dean people on board, that was what I was getting feedback on last year. It will be interesting to see if NH even heats up, as I think Obama and Edwards are much more focused on IA and SC.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-03-12 03:42AM | 0 recs
To "robliberal"

Interesting that you would site American Research Group polling because much of it has been discredited.  For instance, Edwards wins the first 5 Iowa polls.  Then ARG comes out with one that shows Hillary up by 10%.  Then 2 more polls come out that show Edwards winning (by around 10%).  Then Hillary announces visits Iowa for the first time.  ARG then releases a poll (that got a lot of pres) showing Hillary up by 20%.  Her campaign endlessly brags that this is proof that all Iowa needed to do is get to know her for her to take the lead.  Carville even takes her position in what then was the most recent non-ARG poll (down by 10%)and adds her position in the second ARG poll (up by 20%)to try to argue that she recieved a 20 poin bounce from one visit.  One problem.  While the next non-ARG poll shows Edwards and Hillary tied subsequent polling has rreturned Edwards to the lead.  Edwards has won every non - ARG poll (he tied with Obama for first in one but that poll included Gore unlike the others and he tied with Hillary in the first non-ARG poll after her announcement)that has been released while ARG polling has been off by 20% in Clinton's favor both times.  ARG does try to poll many different states to get a picture of where the candidates are state by state by they have been way off in their polling of arguably the most crucial state.  It looks like Obama will get a bounce (all 3 have got post announcement bounces) and he very well could tie with Edwards again in a legitimate poll.  But Iowans gravitate towards Edwards and with Vilsack gone and almost 50% of the county chairs and co-chairs in his camp (with Clinton and Obama both below the 15% mark) I stand by my assertion that Iowa looks like it's Edwards country.  Things can change but they haven't since assessments of the Democrats in the state's 2008 leanings that go back to March of 06' all have Edwards in the lead.  As for your rebuttal to my argument that the Kerry campaign had to win in Iowa to slingshot into New Hamshire,citing an ARG poll is nice but I don't see any motivation for the Kerry campaign itself to lie about this, especially after it was over. Your central point is that Kerry was further along in other parts of the country than Edwards is now and that if national numbers  don't pick up for Edwards he will lose strength in Iowa.  Iowa voters are not that concerned with national numbers, and like I said before once Gore is taken out of the numbers and the debate turns to substantive issues it is likely that Edwards' numbers will rise.  Even if they were to stay relatively the same (which I doubt) Iowa voters would be more likely to be concerned with the head to head polling against the GOP.  There Edwards is clearly the winner.  The Democratic electorate broke towards electability at the end of the 04' race (the entire reason Kerry was nominated) and after losing twice in a row they are going to look for a winner.  If you look at the totality of 2008 polling (vs. Republicans) you will see that Edwards has scored better than Clinton (and for that matter Obama) since polling for the race began in late 04'.  I don't think that a 2 year trend like that can just be dismissed.  While Clinton and Obama have had their moments of polling supremacy and polling can be wrong and is often fluid the fact remains that the general trend is strongly in Edwards' favor.  I respect your ability to support all three candidates.  However I feel that you might have paid to much attention Carville or Wolfson or some other Clinton spin doctor.  You asserted that I had said that IA and NH were in the bag. I had really said that they seemed that way.  Simple misunderstanding.  You asserted that Edwards needed to do better in national numbers or lose support in Iowa and I offered a rebuttal in which, out of frustration, I joked that you were taking the same ride down happy time alley as Rush Limbaugh (I also claimed that you were about as factually accurate as he is).   You offered some ARG polling which made me chuckle, which I thank you for.  I'll cede the point that an ARG poll showed Kerry with support in New Hampshire.  Not a hard thing to do.  Maybe you can consider that national polling might not effect Iowa Dems as much as you earlier thought, or even as much as their percieved ability to win will.  In the end I hope you find a candidate to support whole heartedly.  There are substantive differences between the three of them.  If there was one piece of advice I would offer you (you probably wouldn't take  it but I offer it just the same) it is that while the Clinton's have done some good things and they have been treated unfairly by Republicans's, the Clinton's have also done a lot of things that hurt the party and it's identity.  Ricky Ray Rector, NAFTA, Rwanda, enforcing the lie that Dems just love "big government" when really we are for effective government, being deceptive in general, Dick Morris, being extremely self centered, three letters - DLC, Hillary's vote for the war that we all know Bill signed off on, Bill's public back and forth over the war, sometimes speaking truth sometimes giving Hillary and therefore Bush cover, Hillary's deceptive campaign and their guilt trip on the party.  I can go on.  The point is that although most people's introduction to politics tacitly tells them that they stand by their party's "leaders" parties are nothing without values and Hillary is not motivated by the values at our party's core.  She is motivated by the need for power.  Just because they bash President Bush does not mean that they stand in opposition to his worst policies.  The differences between Clinton and Edwards and Obama on Iraq and Universal Health Care alone should make the big differences apparant to you.  Hopefully you'll go with the candidate who speaks to your values.  If you do that you will have made the right choice.  Commence cheasy after school special moment.

P.S. - If I was a Howard wolfson (translation - a dick) I apoligize        

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: To "robliberal"

ARG had one of the best track records in 2004. I do not know why Iowa may be different but in other states there are other polls that confirm the ARG numbers for the 2008 primaries.

I am looking at 2008 differently than I did 2004.
In 2003 - 2004 I worked for Clark. Much of the time back then of the netroots and main stream media was spent talking about anti-something (i.e. anti-Dean, anti-Kerry, anti-DLC, etc.) I would speculate there were probably a lot more anti- posts about Democrats from Democrats than there were about Bush.

What I want to see is a Democrat win the White House. I am not anti- any of the Democrats who are running. There are good things about every single one of them including those who have no chance to be the nominee.

We are all on the same side. One of these candidates will be the nominee and will have a good chance at being the next leader of the world. What I hope we will see before the first vote is cast is more of a sense of how we will get the GOP out so we will not have 8 more years of a national nightmare. That is more productive that attacks on our own candidates.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 07:43PM | 0 recs

Damn one handed typing...

I meant 30 point bounce.  Carville argued that she recieved a 30 point bounce.  And if you had doubts, he is definitely on Team Hillary.  I'm sure Zell Miller just loves Hillary.  In fact he probably wants to introduce her to his "little Zell".

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 05:34PM | 0 recs
Correction Part 2

Damn, not again...

In my last post I talked about Zell Miller's "little Zell".  Some might be left with the impression that I was refering to his...uhhh...Howard Wolfons (translation - his dick) but I was not.  Rumor has it that good ol Yeller Zeller has fallen so deep into the depths of dementia that he has an imaginary friend...little Zell.  Hope I clearled up the confusion.

by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 05:37PM | 0 recs
Recent Poll on what matters

To Roboliberal...

Here is a recent poll.  Experience does not matter to be.  Character does, followed by issues.  And on those factors, Edwards and Obama are miles ahead in the Democratic field.  The experience meme is pushed by the same people who first pushed the now discredited "electibility" one.  Out of touch.  But trying to spin the discussion in their favor.

by exLogCabin 2007-03-11 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Recent Poll on what matters

Actually the poll you cited shows Hillary Clinton miles ahead of both Obama and Edwards. She is far ahead of any of the GOP candidates as well.

Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.

Clinton leads Obama among voters who mention honesty and strong character, compassion, intelligence and stance on issues. The former first lady is tied with Obama among the small number of respondents who value experience, a surprise given Obama's short stint in Washington.

Despite the poll I do think experience will be a major factor. It was in 2004 and times are worse now than then. If it gets to the point that experience and qualifications do not matter we will be looking at President Britney Spears.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New
Hillary has declared herself the new JFK today in New Hampshire.  This shows a woman who is trying to find herself and some message to ring with voters.  A woman who is not inevitable but, mired in yesterday with the old party elites and not much excitement or any of the new blood.
Hillary is off track and losing ground.
by vwcat 2007-03-11 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

At this point no one can predict what message will work. So far the messages of Clinton and Obama are working best but others are not catching on as well. There are "old party elites" supporting each of the top 3 and some backing some in the second tier.

by robliberal 2007-03-11 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train would start in New

Hillary has always had a base of support.  Her place in the polls isn't necessarily a result of her message.

by jallen 2007-03-11 08:17PM | 0 recs
"We're all on the same side"
Yeah you might want to tell that to Hillary and the DLC.  I feel a whole lotta ramble comin' on.  She even tried to elevate herself by claiming that some of the Dem candidates (of course she would not name names) and Dems in congress do not take the war on terror seriously. Thanks a lot for re-enforcing GOP B.S. If you were really so concerned with dealing with the GOP you wouldn't be an apologist for a candidate who repeats their talking points so she can look tough.  Are you really that hooked on the Clinton Machine's B.S?  Are you one of Bill's mystery lovers?  Get off of it.  She feuled the whole "we can't leave Iraq because if we don we will betray the sacrifice of those who died" B.S.  She was basically saying that because some soldiers died more must follow.  She (and regretably her husband) have displayed time and time again that it is power, not progressive values, that motivates them.  She will say or do anything to get elected.  And what happens if she guilt trips people like you into nominating her.  Think of the congressional majorities. 2008 will go from an opportunity to expand them to an opportunity for the GOP to take them away.  Do you really want your favorite progressive congressperson to have to run as a "Hillary Democrat".  I'll admit it.  I am anti-Hillary and I am proud of it.  You want a woman president?  Great!  I've been impressed by what I've seen from Amy Kolobuchar but I would have to know more.  You want a former first lady?  Great, wait a while and then nominate Elizabeth Edwards.  Hillary Clinton is bad for the party, period.  She will put her career way before any concern for our party or it's values.  And if there is a third party progressive independent I don't know what I would do.  If the war was over by then (from our lips to God's ears) that would help alot but I would also be concerned with the Supreme Court.  But these concerns cut both ways.  Hillary will hurt our candidates in 08'.  It took Bill 2 years to lose our majorities is both houses of congress and the governor's mansions.  Hillary could do the same. Feingold is up for re-election in 2010.  So are the governors that got elected last year.  That same year the electoral college changes because of the new census. There goes the neighborhood.  And what about our new guys (Brown, Webb, Tester, ect) when she runs for re-election in 2012?  I'm seriously concerned that nominating or electing Hillary would do so much damage to the party's identity that it might be better if she loses if she's the nominee.  I'm not sure about that, and supporting a 3rd party challenge would be a very serious decision.  But it could send a message to the DLC wing that we have another option that we can excercise.  Dumping all of our donations to the congressional candidates is better than funding Clinton/Bayh.  Think of what that ticket says about the party.  Bayh can get elected in red state becuase of his daddy's name. Yippee!  But he's so boring that they call him Evan "Beddie" Bayh for a reason.  Hell, put him and Vilsack on a tour to support the ticket and instead of Dean's Sleepless Summer you could call it the Sleepytime Summer Tour and have Ambien sponsor it.  That would be grrrrrrrreat! What are the Hillary people thinking?  Sure she's better than McCain but what about the long term effect to our party.  Bill damaged out party's identity He has a lot to do with all the people my age -25- who think there is no difference between us and the GOP. Remember the "Billionaires for Bush...or Gore" sign.  You can thank the DLC for that.  I'm glad that Edwards never joined the DLC.  People think he did but he was called a "New Democrat" because he reminded many people of Clinton.  Though he was heavily courted he said no.  He was  more moderate in the Senate but at least he was not DLC.  And Obama told even rejected their advances.  He made it clear without being a Howard Wolfson (translation in case you don't know - that means being a penis)about it.  I'm so tired of those who support candidates who throw our party under the bus every chance they get (like Clinton with the war on terror crap) talking about "party unity".  Shove it up your James Carville (translation - I'm talkin about your ass buddy) you piece of Mark Penn (translation - he's her deceptive pollster and he resembles a piece of poo poo).  As for ARG they might get it right sometimes but they sure don't get it right in Iowa.  If you think they are credible then fine but then why they hell are they always 20 points off in Clinton's favor in their Iowa polls?  Something tells me that they don't know how to identify likely caucus goers.  And it's interesting that all though you claim that you just want any Democrat in the white house you seem to have a hankering for some HRC.  It's okay just admit it.  Are you watching a video of her right now?  I bet you put on Fleetwood Mac and clap along with her in your matching pantsuit.  Nominating Edwards is reason to celebrate.  Nominating Obama is reason to run down the street naked yelling "thank you Moses" but nominating Clinton is a reason to...cry.  Shed a tear for the castration of the Democratic Party will commence shortly.  You might be waving your Clinton / Bayh - At least she's better than Bush! sign but I don't think you will have accomplished anything other than spliting the core of our party and uniting the core of the GOP.  As far as your "all three candidates are cool, let me hide behind party unity while I support the party's female Judas" koom-ba-ya crap goes, I have a little scripture for you from the bible of liberal quotes.  
"The middle of the road is where chickens get run over."    
And Hillary is not a "hawk", nomatter how hard she tries. She is most definitely a chicken.
by raginglibdem 2007-03-11 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: "We're all on the same side"

"...claiming that some of the Dem candidates (of course she would not name names)" is exactly what Edwards did when he critizied members of Congress without naming names (most pundits identified Hillary as his target).

Tout your own favorite by pointing out his attributes, but quit dumping on the other candidates.

I intend to support any of the Democratic contenders, including Edwards (although he's my 3rd choice), but I think your post does his campaign and my party a disservice.

If YOU don't support the party nominees in '08 it will be you who splits the party, and John Edwards would be among the first to tell you that.

I'm so tired of those who throw our party under the bus when they don't get their own way.

by fschmitz 2007-03-12 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Shorter Raginglibdem

As Atrios would say, Shorter Raginglibdem: Hillary Sucks.

As a Hillary supporter, I have to say I am more amused than offended by the many aspersions cast upon her in the netroots.  Your rant, not so amusing, in fact very offensive.  She has 7yrs in the Senate, 8yrs as First Lady in the White house, 8yrs as First Lady-Arkansas, and many years as a lawyer.  She therefore has an extensive voting record and numerous events to use to support your position, but you've chosen  to make a mostly personal attacks.  This, in my opinion, is very lazy. Let's not roll out the predictable "I hate Hillary" talking points, we've heard them all before.  If Hillary doesn't win the Democratic nomination, I will support whomever is selected.  Given Edwards 3rd place positioning in almost all of the national polls, I suggest using your comments to advocate for Edwards.

by Kingstongirl 2007-03-12 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

Hillary has only just begun to stump in N.H., and she is doing very very well, thus far.  She also has the best campaign team and most prominent N.H. politicians on her side.  Iowa will be slightly more of a squeaker due to Edwards who practically lives there!  Hillary will finish in the top three - either first, second or third, in Iowa.  

HILLARY CLINTON was a "100 Club" hit.

At big party events like the annual fund-raising dinner Clinton addressed on Saturday night, the question is simple: Did the candidate leave the audience impressed or underwhelmed?

Those I talked to came away impressed -- and judging from the response she got from the party establishment, that was clearly the overall verdict.

Here's what's interesting. Clinton did so with a speech that didn't have the crowd popping out of their seats like political jacks in the box at adrenalin-pumping applause lines.

Instead of the sort of fire-breathing indictment an era of hyper-partisanship rewards, the senator kept her tone conversational and measured, focusing on working and middle-class Americans she said were invisible to the Bush White House and casting herself as a bipartisan problem-solver.

Hillary has been staffing up with political talent -- and pressing hard for early commitments. With the February hiring of Nick Clemons, who had been executive director of the Democratic Party, as her state director, and party spokeswoman Kathleen Strand as her communications director, she has won notice for the team she's building. Last week, the House majority leader, Mary Jane Wallner of Concord, endorsed her, as did Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli of Nashua.

On Saturday, state Representative Martha McLeod of Franconia told me she has decided to back the senator as well.

And an endorsement by Bill Shaheen, husband of popular former governor Jeanne Shaheen, and a valuable veteran of many winning New Hampshire campaigns, appears likely. Shaheen, a much-sought-after operative, says he still hasn't talked to all the candidates, but has met with Hillary twice and is impressed with her.

"I'm leaning towards her -- that's a fair statement," said Shaheen, who expects to decide in the next week or so. "She understands this isn't going to be easy," he added.

by marasaud 2007-03-13 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's inevitable train

Make that 12 years as First Lady of Arkansas. Hillary was working on behalf of Americans long before anyone even heard of John Edwards.  In fact, she began doing important work in the field of education in Arkansas 30 years ago, when Obama was 15 years old!  

Edwards and Obama will fight very hard for votes in the early primary states but they don't have the resumes, nor the quality of staff that Hillary has.  

Time to (maybe) stop bashing the woman and actually check out her credentials.

by marasaud 2007-03-13 12:18AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads