Clinton Double Digit Lead in Iowa
Surprise, surprise. According to the latest ARG poll, Hillary Clinton has pulled ahead in Iowa in the last week or so. The results of the poll? 34% of Likely Democratic Caucus Goers say they’ll vote for Clinton, against only 19% who say Obama and 20% who say Edwards.
This polls comes only a couple of days (a week or so) after a poll that showed that Obama and Clinton were virtually tied.
As Joe Gandelman points out, “this is a highly fluid election year.” At this moment Clinton’s in the lead, but will she hang on to it? Nobody knows, it seems that the political world changes daily.
The poll is, of course, a surprise. But, I think I can explain it:
- Obama was relatively unknown, and when people came to know him, he presented himself a great, positive manner. But, there’s more to him – and to every person – than that.
- Many people thought very highly of Obama when they first came to know him. Until Clinton started bringing out negative information about him, that is. People say they don’t like negative ads but those ads work nonetheless.
- Although Obama and Clinton have battled with each other for a while, we now see that Obama and Edwards are suddenly going at each other’s throat. Once again Clinton plays the senior stateswoman role, which she plays very well indeed. Voters like that.
- The Oprah-surge was temporary.
Does the above mean that Clinton has won Iowa? Of course not. As said, these things can change. At the moment she makes an error she’s in trouble again. What’s more, at the moment Obama and Edwards attack Clinton relentlessly, she may very well lose support as well.
For now, however, she’s the favorite and clear frontrunner in Iowa.
That is… if this poll is part of a trend and not an isolated event (as Joe points out) that is.
The situation is changing among Republicans as well: suddenly, Romney and Huckabee are virtually tied again, with John McCain following closely behind. If he keeps his surge up in Iowa he could win there, or at least finish as a very close second or third. That would probably help him in New Hampshire, which could very well result in a victory for him there. If he wins in New Hampshire, and Romney wins in Iowa – which is certainly possible – we’ve suddenly got two clear frontrunners.
This poll is suspicious, shallow, and definitely false. There is no authoritativeness to it, and should be shut down quickly.
London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama’s shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama’s supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush’s "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with "intuition" or expertise in the conduct of my nation’s foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions. After he came to Washington, Obama’s views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama’s record identically matches Senator Clinton’s–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama’s vote was typically passive.Senator Clinton for President, because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.
Sen. Obama sees no hypocrisy in his wife’s post at a firm that does business with Wal-Mart Barack Obama made national headlines last month when he loudly enlisted in the campaign to get Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to treat its workers better. told members of a union-backed coalition that they have "a moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the big retailer. "The battle to engage Wal-Mart and force them to examine their own corporate values and what their policies and approaches are to their workers . . . is absolutely vital," the Associated Press quoted the U.S. senator as saying. Which raises a question — not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama’s values. Specifically, while Mr. Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of a Chicago-area company that pays its executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in an economically deprived area, a company whose No. 1 customer is — you guessed it — Wal-Mart? In early 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, TreeHouse Foods Inc. Stock in Westchester-based TreeHouse began trading on June 15, 2005. Elected to its board of directors on June 6 of that year was Michelle Obama, who receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama’s Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock options this year, company filings show. At the current price of TreeHouse stock, she has a paper profit of about $60,000 on the options. it announced plans to close its La Junta, Colo., pickle plant, a move that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic — a big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. "Prior to the closing, they told us this plant was as efficient as any, that they had hardworking and loyal employees," says La Junta Mayor Don Rizzuto. The firm even spent money on an expansion a few years earlier, and the town paid for needed roadwork. Adds the mayor: "In Chicago, 150 jobs is a pebble on the beach. In La Junta, it’s a slice of the beach." TreeHouse is rumored to be in the market to buy other food firms, our largest customer, Wal-Mart (including its subsidiaries, such as Sam’s Club), represented approximately 11.7% of our net sales." Michelle Obama, vice-president for external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, says she was asked to join the board — five months after her husband took office — after putting out feelers indicating she’d like to get some corporate management experience. says she’s not cashing in on anyone’s fame. "My income is pretty low compared to my peers," she says, meaning other Harvard Law grads. "You wouldn’t ask that question if, like some people in politics, we had trust funds and were rich." Mr. Obama also rejects any suggestion that his family is improperly benefiting from his fame. Although a recent land deal with political insider Tony Rezko raised such questions, Mr. Obama has spent the bulk of his career working as a civil rights lawyer, not as a partner at a lucrative LaSalle Street firm. On the question of whether there’s any hypocrisy in his bashing of Wal-Mart
“Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.”
~ PAUL KRUGMAN on ?State of the Unions?, Op-Ed Column of The New York Times, published on December 24, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
To give you more insight on Barack Obama, read the feature on the New York Magazine
http://nymag.com/news/features/39321/
Facts do not lie.
Do the most realistic thing.
Vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She has the guts, the skills and the wits.
She is the best human rights activist among all the presidential candidates since her college days to date.
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/24/krugman-attacks-obama-ove_n_78110.html
I am a progressive Democrat and I am very fearful of Barack Obama and what he is doing to the Democratic Party. I hope either Hillary or John Edwards can prevent him from being the nominee.
Deleted by MvdG.
I used to like Obama, but preferred Clinton because of the times we’re living in.
I recently read an article entitled, Obama’s Church; Cauldron of Division. It was written by a reporter who attended Obama’s church and witnessed the preachers’ sermon on
"white arrogance". I now see Obama as a manipulative.
12/24/2007State Senator Jack Hatch Endorses Hillary ClintonAs Momentum Grows in Iowa, Senator Hatch becomes the 21st Iowa Legislator to Endorse HillaryDES MOINES, IA – As the Clinton campaign’s momentum continues to build in Iowa, State Senator Jack Hatch of central Des Moines, Senate District 33, endorsed Hillary today, citing the superiority of her health care plan. Senator Hatch is the 21st Iowa legislator to endorse Hillary. The endorsement comes on the heels of endorsements from prominent newspapers, including the Des Moines Register, Quad City Times and Burlington Hawk Eye, as well as Secretary of State Michael Mauro, over 100 Iowa women elected officials, and Iowa labor leaders. “This is a historic election that will have an enormous impact on the direction of our country,” Senator Jack Hatch said. “Hillary Clinton is an agent of change who will enact universal health care and open up great opportunities for women, like my 18-year-old daughter, by making the dream of being president one day a real possibility. I trust Hillary to change our country because she has the strength and experience to enact real solutions to our big challenges. ” Senator Hatch is serving his second term in the Iowa Senate after winning reelection in November 2006. Before that, Hatch served in the Iowa House of Representatives from 1985 to 1993. Senator Hatch is a committed advocate for affordable, quality health care for vulnerable Iowans. Senator Hatch is the co-chair of the legislature’s Commission on Affordable Health Care for Small Businesses and Families. “I greatly admire Senator Jack Hatch’s commitment to providing affordable, quality health care for Iowans,” Senator Hillary Clinton said. “This election is about delivering change and I am honored to have the support of someone who is so deeply dedicated to improving the lives of Iowans.”
Deleted by MvdG
Deleted by MvdG
Deleted by MvdG
Is Russ Limbaugh helping the Demarcates take the White House again in 2008! This time he has additional help…. Does the 2008 election look a lot like the 1992 election? Is Rush Limbaugh selfishly trying again to influence voters away from other conservative candidates the same way he tried to influence Ross Perot voters away in 1992. Well, it did not work then and it will not work now. In 1992 Limbaugh handed the Presidency over to Bill Clinton, but then continuously cried for months that the defeat was due Ross Perot and his supporters, not Limbaugh trying to shape the election with his Kool-Aid drinking followers. The only difference this time is Limbaugh has the help of people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham to help the conservatives get their heads handed to them by the liberals at election time. The conservative voters who are supporting Mike Huckabee are not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham Kool-Aid club members. They are hard working, God-fearing Americans who do not need elite talk show hosts to filter their candidates through the Wall Street elite Boardrooms before elections day, as Limbaugh did in 1992 when Bill Clinton took the White House away from President Bush. P.S., was Ross Perot Right about immigration and NAFTA? “Well, the historical lesson is clear. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports, "Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect." Post-NAFTA, companies looking to exploit those low wages relocated factories to Mexico. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of NAFTA was the elimination of 1 million American jobs. Can you hear that “sucking sound” of jobs going to Mexico and over seas that Ross Perot was talking about? America’s Elite Talk Hosts’, If you don’t have the “set” to run for President your self, then shut the #^@$% up! You are hurting America with your preconceived selecting of Wall Street candidates. Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
Top Contributors:
Ernst & Young: $255,200
Elliott Management: $228,400
Credit Suisse Group: $166,450
Merrill Lynch: $150,275
Bear Stearns: $147,866
Source:
Center For Responsible Government — data through Sept 30. For more information go to: OpenSecrets.Org. Mitt Romney (R)
Top Contributors:
Goldman Sachs: $181,225
Merrill Lynch: $145,050
Marriott International: $115,050
Bain Capital: $112,200
Morgan Stanley: $109,550
Source:
Center For Responsible Government — data through Sept 30. For more information go to: OpenSecrets.Org.
I love watching the True Believers of the assorted campaigns spreading out to fear-monger and demonize. Always makes me chuckle. Hey, it’s a race to the bottom, and everyone is winning!
Remember that the only poll that counts is the one they take at the ballot box.
Tully: absolutely amazing. Where do these people come from suddenly?
O, and they should learn to leave a bit more intelligent and coherent comments: this way, nobody’s reading them.
Um, what’s the deal with all the Clintonistas commenting on this blog? Looks orchestrated to me.
What you smell, Pete, is the scent of desperation. Very much like what you get whenever you summon the Only Honest man in Government, or whatever the Ronulans are calling their savior these days.
This must have been a poll of cows… because this is certainly not what is happening in Iowa ! Are you a real news organization ?