What makes you say his advantage is less after the early States? And less than who, Edwards or Clinton or both?  Do you realize the depth of the organization he has in the Super Tuesday states?

Advisers to Bill Clinton, who has been campaigning for his wife this week in Iowa, were expressing concern over the performance of the campaign team...

----

Bill Clinton still has political advisors?

Interesting....

And just focus on herself --tell people what her plans are, connect with people, defend misconceptions, and why she is the best candidate, why Dem policies are better than the Republicans, etc.

Obama, Edwards are already defined. Stop focusing on them. --You can talk about experience but nothing else about them.

I'm a Clinton supporter, but even if she were somehow to pull out Iowa and New Hampshire, I still hope it goes to February 5th.  I reject the idea that Iowa should decide the nominee, even if it turns out to agree with me.  It's still no way to choose a candidate.

Jerome,

That is pretty insightful. You brought some points I have not thought about. Those who underestimate Bill Clinton, do so at their own peril. I am really looking forward to seeing more of Bill.

I really think this campaign is like 1984 with Hillary as Mondale & Obama as Hart.  The difference is that Obama has the Jackson voters too, most of them, and he has real money & a real national campaign.  Hart was the most underfinanced campaign in history.  Also, for history junkies out there, Hart's affair with Donna Rice was in 1987 NOT 1984.  Hart's personal life was not an issue in 1984 but emerged in 1987 when he was the early frontrunner.  

Jerome is looking beyond the blogcycle.  I do think you have identified Obama's challanges.  Timing is everything in these compressed primary cycles and Obama's timing is good but we will just have to see what happens with the full force of the Hillary counterattack and...we ain't seen nothin' yet.  The Shaheen slur is just the mild beginning.  

...will it be damaging to the Clinton campaign. Their tactic of throwing mud then hiding behind staff (or Campaign Co-chairs) is not very subtle.

I thought they had a more sophisticated oppo. operation that this. Kind of disappointed in the old Clinton machine.  

bring it on. i can't wait.

i liked what bob franken had to say. any attacks on obama for drug use would end up like a boomerang right back round to the accuser. would raise questions about the fingerpointer's past history of drug use and expose hypocrisy.

so...jerome, what drugs did you indulge in when you were young?

he without sin cast the first stone.

Wow, Jerome is quiet for weeks and then all of a sudden now that Obama gets back in this thing and has a lot of momentum, he is non-stop posting.  I know you don't like the guy's positions, but this is getting ridiculous.

I don't think we've ever seen a grassroots mobilization campaign for a Presidential candidate in a primary on the level of Obama's campaign.  It doesn't appear Jerome is up to date in how deep the organization is or how long they've been putting it together.  Poplulista talks a little bit about it here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/12/211 139/73

Something which I don't believe has been mentioned is that in New York State, which has a proportional distribution of delegates, Obama is the only other candidate who will be on the ballot in every county of the State.  That involved organizing people throughout NY to collect local signatures very early on.  To think that the Obama organization is putting everything on the Early States and then will have to scramble on Super Tuesday is to be ignorant of the Camp Obama organizational teaching sessions which were held throughout the country all summer long.

A great post--I (as a Hillary supporter) don't like the recent tone of her attacks.

My question with Obama is:  Where's the beef?
But I think this will be a drawn-out primary battle which will be good for the Democrats.  It's better to get this right.  Not only is it essential for a Dem to win this time, he or she has to be able to govern and get a health-care plan passed and bring the troops home from iraq.

this boomerangs badly on Hillary.  She sure deserves it.  

this boomerangs badly on Hillary.  She sure deserves it.  

distances himself from one of his staff --- such as with the 1996 questionnaire --- he's throwing his staff under the bus...  but whenever Clinton distances herself from one of her staff, such as Shaheen on drugs, or the memo on abandoning the fight in Iowa, she doesn't take the same heat?

I think that's a bit of a double standard.

Obviously Obama's views on the death penalty, which he has repeatedly addressed in public on multiple occasions, especially while working on the death penalty in Illinois, are not described by the word "no" and never have been.  He's argued repeatedly for maintaining the death penalty in extreme circumstances, but is troubled in the extreme by the extraordinary injustice and unevenness of its application.

In his first race for state senate in 1996 as a political novice and one-time community organizer, what in the world kind of campaign manager would he have had the resources to hire?

I still don't see how Michigan or Florida, with no delegates and thus not being contested will give anyone momentum, especially if a candidate wins 3 of 4 or sweeps.  Please share your rationale on this.

But that Florida pledge could kill her there. If the fate of FL is left entirely up to positive coverage that comes with early state momentum, assuming Obama does win a bunch of the early ones, seems like FL would go his way too. But I agree that the media has a vested interest in this thing going well into Feb 5th, so FL could then be spun as her comeback kid moment. But without the ability for her to have a real presence there, seems like it could be difficult.

Hillary has many prominent endorsers (Vilsack, Shaheen, Albright, Wes Clark, Robt. F. Kennedy Jr., Joe Wilson, and many others.  They are all
campaigning for Hillary now in both Iowa and NH and their involvement over the next two weeks will be intense.  Obama's drug use in the past; his "present" votes in the Senate; his healthcare plan; his ultra-liberal voting record and other issues will be discussed at every opportunity by Hillary's big supporters and this will create headlines (just look at the headlines about Obama today, alone).  

Hillary must alter perceptions about Obama and that means informing voters of all his weaknesses.  I only wish she had done it sooner.

I wish the Clintons would stick to more substantive attacks. Does anyone seriously believe cocaine use in college is going to sink Obama in the general?

Their problem is that there just isn't that much daylight between their positions on too many issues. The best they can do is try to point out differences in approach on things like health care - but, as worked up on some have gotten over the mandate distinction, I'm not sure it's going to sway a lot of people. In an area where's there's a clear difference in approach - foreign policy - Clinton comes out the loser.

Combine that with Obama's success in defining himself so clearly (meaning the character issue has trouble sticking), and you can see why he's a difficult target to hit.

I agree 100%.  I still think it's a good possibility that Hillary could win by a few points in Iowa and then run the table.  However, even if in a (just about) worst case early-state scenario, she loses 3 or even 4 of the first six states, the media will still be pushing the horse race through Feb. 5, and she's in a great position in the huge states of California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention smaller states such Arkansas.  I think that's why she still has an almost 2 to 1 lead in the betting polls, because she has lots of diverse paths to victory.

Let's say Clinton's negative personal attacks work and Obama falls.  Edwards benefits.  So now lets say Obama determines to return the favor, support Edwards by dropping a ton of negative ads on Clinton so that Edwards wins NH.  A scenario could easily develop where Edwards ends up winning two or all three of IA, NH and SC.

BTW, tonight I read that Edwards response to the Clinton smear was "I reject that type of politics. I reject it.  I reject it."  I think Edwards brings it up at the debate.

Geez Jerome, for months you have been telling us that Obama is not a progressive.  Now he is an "ultra-liberal" who can't win a GE?  Seems to me you should get your story straight.  

It also seems to me that it is really about time you stop schilling for Hillary, because Hillary is the only one truly benefiting from your constant Obama-bashing.  

Whether you, or I, like it or not, JE is highly unlikely to make it.  The real choice is Obama or Hillary.  So when are you going to get over your denial and stop bashing?

your second one doesn't open.

I'd be very surprised if Michigan gets more than a 10 second blurb on the nightly news. With no one on the ballot except Clinton and Dodd, it's not really an election. No candidates, no delegates, no story!

Florida, though, will get covered as an actual contest. But I don't understand why you think it's unlikely for Obama to win there. If he wins all the states prior to Florida, the momentum will be unstoppable.

The best Clinton could hope for, if Obama wins the early contests, is to set up a final firewall on February 5th, like New York and Arkansas. After she wins a few states there, she can try to regain her footing in February in time for the March primaries.

If anyone wins the first four contests, they will be near impossible to stop. The Democratic primary is getting the coverage of a Presidential election (in a way, many believe it is). I think that if one candidate wins IA, NH, NV, and SC, they win the nomination.