It is too far out from the actual primaries for trustworthy polling. Worse, any tiny little blip or change in the numbers leads to the sort of horse race reportage that newsrooms seem to love…and on which spinmeisters like to pounce.
That said, there does seem to be a bunching up across the board in poll numbers in Iowa for a lot of the candidates. As Chuck Todd details, Iowa has become a focal point for the Democratic primary season:
…The reason this has become the central battleground in the Dem contest: It’s the only place where Clinton isn’t leading by a substantial margin. And her campaign…seems to be worried: It has doubled its staff, is increasing its advertising in the state, and promises that rarely a day will go by without either Clinton or that OTHER Clinton stumping in the state….
No shortage of Democratic horse race stories at this point. Here’s the thing, though: after the first vote, people can switch to another candidate in the caucus before the final tally – and I’ve seen a decided lack of coverage of potential second-candidate leanings. If anyone has seen reporting on this, please let me know, because it is in that horsetrading that upsets are made.
The pollster who conducts the Des Moines Register’s statewide polling says it is the most wide-open race in generations — on both sides of the aisle.
…Republicans Romney and Huckabee are locked in a two-man race, with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson fading but alive, and Ron Paul a wild card. Failing to win would be a huge blow to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has bet a fortune and his candidacy on winning Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Democratic contest remains a dead heat among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Clinton, the national front-runner, has been weakened in recent weeks by her opponents’ stepped-up attacks. Those attacks were honed recently at the Iowa Democrats’ annual Jefferson and Jackson Dinner, where Obama–who needs a first- or second-place finish here–accused Clinton of taking poll-driven positions, particularly on issues of national security, because she is “worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say.” He offers himself as an antidote to partisanship stoked during the Clinton administration. Edwards, whose future hinges on winning Iowa, criticized the former first lady for failing to deliver on her 1990s healthcare initiative. Electing Clinton, he told supporters at an event in Dubuque last week, would be “trading a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats.”
Except, who knows if it really will be down to the wire or a total blow-out. Or which piece of campaign rhetoric will come back to bite someone in the general election. Which leads me to a piece of advice for all the Dems: listen to Markos.
…In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won’t work, you shouldn’t be surprised when government stops working…. (emphasis mine)
As Scout Prime points out, Gulf Coast recovery — or lack thereof — is exhibit A of the use of inaction as a policy initiative. (H/T to Douglas Brinkley) But this is not simply Bush failure. His administration’s problems are symptomatic of the larger application of conservative philosophy: government as an irritant to be brushed aside, except in cases of crony payola. The key is to make certain the entire electorate understands that…in spades.
Winner take all works in an individual race. But that is no way to govern for the long haul. Isn’t it time we picked a president who believed that government ought to DO something for the public…the WHOLE public and not just a select few cronies? (For more on government as crony ATM, see the fantastic chat with Naomi Klein from Sunday.)
(Photo via Heraklit.)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Good morning, Christy!
Doesn’t seem like Edwards is getting much visibility. The pundits all are talking about Hillary and Barack. Too bad, that.
Good Morning Christy!
Elizabeth Edwards coming up with Morning Mika and Schuster.
Hardballs hosting Huckabee tonight.
G’mornin’ Chirsty, msmolly, and Elliott.
msmolly @ 2
When your paycheck depends on…..
I let the “early pups” downstairs know that the action has moved upstairs. Last day of work before a long holiday weekend, and I am READY. How about you all?
Good Morning all :)
Perhaps a little blunt, but it really is up to us and we need to make a stand and chose..
Stupid Git Says: – posted at Crook and liars – Dennis Kucinich at the global warming debate thread.
‘Anyone who says he cannot win is the epitome of a “Cut and Run” Democrat. Maybe you could try supporting a candidate that you believe in for the primaries instead of just assuming good always loses? If enough people stopped accepting they’re always going to be on the losing side maybe they wouldn’t be anymore. If Kucinich doesn’t get elected and we’re stuck with a “lite” Republican as our Democratic candidate it will be because of the pessimistic whiny brats who’d rather vote for a “winner” instead of a real leader.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…../#comments
Morning Christy, morning all. Is it OT to ask how is everyone preparing for the biggest eating/traveling/family political discussing days of the year?
I am in NYC, so Rudy is no problem. All I have to say is “more days at Yankee Stadium than at Ground Xero,” and “you can look it up”* in the Village Voice, and the band stops playing.
I also need some good anti-anti-Hillary on the basis of character answers to get me through my eating/family discussing. Basis of positions I can handle.
* Yogi Berra, ergo Yankee, ergo true in my NYC family.
Suggestions?
Meanwhile, Bush has another year to do as much damage to this country has he can.
msmolly @ 2
This is just criminal: the MSM’s failure to cover ALL candidates.
Let’s see coverage of IDEAS, plans, proposals, philosophy. Not this “horserace”/who’s up, who’s down.
Maybe the MSM like the latter form of “coverage” because it allows them to appear “insightful,” clever, in the know — to generally project an image of “we know more, so you should read/listen to us.”
In other words, it’s all about THEM [Chris Matthews, I’m looking at YOU].
A good reporter provides the facts and context. That ain’t happening here.
Yes, the pundits are all talking about Barack and Hillary thanks to the Prince of Darkness’ column and his “information” he just pulls right out of his ass.
jackie @ 8
thanks! I didn’t even know about it
I see Huckabee coming on a bit (10%) which I would expect, but Freddy T @ 19% is a joke – not to mention Rudy still on top at 28% is crazy. I was a little surprised to see Romney all the way down to 12%. That means I HEART HUCK could well overtake Romney this week if the bad news for Rudy leaks some votes to Huck and not the others. Also seems likely that Fred will lose some support when he falls asleep at a rally or something.
On the other side I guess DK is just 2% behind Edwards which is interesting to say the least. It seems lots of people that are in the know really do not like the top tier candidates.
I like Edwards so its a bit to bad that Obama is now in 1st place for both 1st place & 2nd place votes in likely Iowa caucus goers. I had thought some of this foolishness between Hillary and Obama would give Edwards a bump this week or next. I think Obama is a bit better than Hillary but really prefer Edwards or an outside strech to DK. I have also had a bit more interest in Dodd & Biden – to me they speak well at the debates and to me won the last two debates though with limited questions (but I do not trust them for some reason, maybe the insider thing, or hailing from such a rich state). The other guy with experience Richardson is not bad, but I don’t like him for some reason to me he seems to ramble.
Was interested the other day when a show/article mentioned that all the candidates with experience we getting hosed by the media for some reason. For instsance Edwards has a bit more experience (6 years) and been through the race already and as former VP nom would get a front runner spot (though now we have alledged insta-polls) – then even more stark with Biden & Dodd each with 30 years, and Richardson with 14 in Congress, Amb to UN and other Fed experience, and Gov of NM.
Here’s the thing, though: after the first vote, people can switch to another candidate in the caucus before the final tally – and I’ve seen a decided lack of coverage of potential second-candidate leanings.
P_lukusiak at Swampland notes
IOW, if it’s bunched up like this among the top three, second choice doesn’t matter.
not sure we have that on offer… except maybe kucinich, and i see him more as running to get ideas discussed rather than someone who has a plan to govern.
maybe that’s the trick – to figure out who each candidate would, if president, act for the benefit of…. how wide is their circle of concern and responsibility – who’s included and who’s excluded? and how capable/competent are they?
ultimately i don’t think president bush really cares about anyone but himself.
I don’t know. The Republicans seem to paint all the Democratic candidates as extreme liberals. The think Hillary is just as crazy as Kucinich and Michael Moore and, you know the drill.
Do any of you really think that Hillary is going to be a right wing President? That would be irony; Hillary, the right wing Democrat most hated by the right wing.
btw – I think the 1st place & 2nd place for Obama in Iowa lead was reported yesterday on Hardball. I had an extra 10 minutes and caught that segment.
Took a tour of Nashua, NH town and saw all of the candidate HQ’s. The Edwards people are starting to gear up lawn signs. Also the mail is really starting to hit in NH.
Got my first one or second one from Edwards, first from Richardson. Have about 20 from Romney, 2 from McCain.
Either one or none from Hillary – but she is on the TV a bit. Obama is on the TV all the time. I do not think I have seen an Edwards commmerial. This is within the last 1 – 3 months, there were a few ads before that.
Mauimom @ 11
Well, I don’t think not covering Kucinich, Biden or Gravel is criminal. Biden’s to the right of Clinton, and can be written off. Gravel is just running to be on the teevee. Kucinich isn’t in the running, at all, way to the left of the party as a whole.
Richardson is the only governor in the race, and governors win generals. Dodd is right down the party’s center with his positioning and has taken very strong leadership positions and had a money spike.
But what is shocking is the non-coverage of Edwards, who still has a very good chance to win Iowa, who is the equivalent of Dole–former VP candidate running in the following cycle.
It really reinforces the idea that there is a predefined narrative. Clinton Obama horse race. Clinton takes a lead. Obama comes up on the rail. Clinton fights him off as we hit the backstretch…..
George Simian @ 17
yes. but competent.
however, you may want to discount my opinion as i consider bill clinton the best republican president of my lifetime.
Good morning Christy, thanks for the post.
OfT, but the New York Times has a headline above the fold on the front page: “Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves.” The article that follows is not quite that bad, but I wouldn’t even link to something as obscenely inaccurate.
snark
Sounds to me as like a Bush trial balloon at declaring
VictoryMission Accomplished for the second time, and start redeploying North to help the Kurds protect our oil./snark
hmm jayackroyd,
Is anyone here familiar with elections that regularly use Run-offs as it were?
It seems a better way to get to the candidate most agreeable to most voters
(and I don’t mean personally agreeable — and just for the record I never ever wanted to have a beer with George Bush)
redx @ 18
What does a tour of Nashua consist of?
I was born there, have spent a lot of time there, but cannot imagine a tour.
I suppose you just mean you were checking out the signage. Or shopping at the megamall. (Sales tax free Nashua is on the MA border.)
The MSM is horribly delinquent in getting the candidates and their positions in front of the people. They’ve turned it into a stupid horse race as usual, declared a front runner and focused all the attention of he(r)… in a self fulfilling phenomena. This is irresponsible and is yet another thing destroying the political / eloection process in this country.
We need to have public finance of all elections… and to limit the time any media outlet can devote to these cycles and mandate that the time devoted to all candidates is equal.
This entire thing is so distorted and there seems to be no way back. Running a big campaign is corrupt as any large corporation and money is raised and spread around like it’s water.
The entire process sux.
The love of money has ruined this nation.
To me the fascinating thing about Iowa is that it’s not a secret ballot situation. So you have interpersonal pressure as a factor. People in one group, literally able to recruit other people into their group, right there on that evening. So think about the power of a neighbor or a good friend, versus your own conscience. That kind of situation can be very fluid, regardless of what you were thinking prior to the meeting.
So, Iowa is not just a demonstration of the pull of any candidate. It’s also a demonstration of social influence. Especially since a group needs to have 15%, I believe, of the total who came to that particular caucus in order for their candidate to have viability that evening.
That’s why polling for Iowa can’t really be totally accurate, cuz who can predict the weather that night (and it’s hours you may be spending there!), whether gramma or your kid got sick (so, who shows up), what arguments your neighbors may bring to bear, whether you may be forced to pick another group to join…. and so on.
Actually I find that fascinating as a social experiment. But I’m sure the campaigns and reporters are driven nuts by it, especially the latter who love to make a prediction correctly!
Boo Radley @ 21
The article was probably written by a “journalist” that never even left the Green Zone…
NPR has been pretty crap at covering the issues as well (along with some crazy talking points on the Econ & War).
Actually yesterday the old classic horserace topic of when did so and so get in the race and why. Where did they poll when they got in the race — yada yada yada. The only way issues get into any of these things from NPR to MSNBC to FOX is the back door – when they are talking about the bull horserace & associated crap.
Elizabeth Edwards with Morning Mika [to be repeated in later dayparts]:
We have enormous faith in the process.
And saying it’s going to come out who’s behind the whispering campaign/push polling that John should just go home and take care of his wife in her hour of need….
You go, John and Elizabeth. We’ve enormous faith in you. Your demonstrated personal courage. Your forthrightness and ideas. Your passion for what matters.
Sorry Edwards people, I will find it hard to forgive him if in his attempt to stay relevent, his rhetoric results in saddling us with a nominee who is unable to effectively fight back against the GOP. He has adopted GOP language manipulation tactics with a vengeance. It’s very Liebermanesque. Desperation will make you do nasty things but in this case, he can not win. if he truly cares about the party, he ought to think about a positive message and stop helping the Republicans.
Elliott @ 22
That’s how mydd’s been doing its polling for years now.
But because you’re not looking for one winner, that kind of reasoning doesn’t really apply. It looks to me like the caucuses are going to be split three ways across the big three, and that, as p_l points out, the real question is who the Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich second choices are. But even that only represents a fifth of the caucusers.
So this purely expectations, which are still not set. And paradoxically and ironically, the non coverage of Edwards may help him. A close second may shift the narrative.
And, of course, Arrow long ago showed that there is no good voting system–none, for example that is transitive–when there are more than two alternatives.
Speaking of polls
Polling Project
jayackroyd @ 23
It means stopping in at the campaing HQ’s of the Dem’s and peeling out on main street in front of Sunnunu & Gregg’s senate offices.
portia.vz @ 29
Examples?
portia.vz @ 29
could you give me something specific with links to evaluate? thanks!
BlueStateRedHead @ 9
actually, it was casey stengel, not yogi berra. you could look it up.
am also an nycer. earlier this year found myself listening to my brother prattle on about 9/11 being clinton’s fault, not bush’s; his son — just graduating college no less — chimes in that and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack here since.
stunned silence — it’s ugly when loved once declare themselves to be absolute frickin’ idiots.
i told them, a) you’re wrong; b) anthrax; c) i lost friends on 9/11 — don’t you dare try to score cheap politically expolitative points on the bodies of my friends. and when you get back to planet earth, please understand this family gathering is not the time or place to pick losing fights. then i wouldn’t speak any more with them on the subject. how about them mets?
that may not work in your case, i understand. i’m no hillary fan, but you could, if pressed, note that if your family doesn’t want to vote for her, then don’t vote for her. but they don’t know her any better than they know any other stranger, and to believe they do means only that they are a bit too credulous and believing of the media. or do they believe everything they see on fox news too?
portia.vz @ 29
Yeah, because open debate really is a terrible thing.
thank you jayackroyd!
George Simian @ 17
she’s as corporatist as the repubs, just not a lunatic.
selise @ 20
selise,
Obviously, this is no longer the case but at one time there was quite a bit of overlap between the two parties. When I was growing up, it seemed the “Liberal” Dem was out on the left while the “Conservative” Rep was out on the right with a “moderate” Rep pretty much equal to a “Conservative” Dem and a “Liberal” Rep equivalent to a “moderate” Dem.
Given all this, I do still see Clinton as in many ways having been a traditional moderate Dem but since there is no longer any such animal as a Liberal Rep, the aspects of support for big bidness and such are that much more glaring than they would have been twenty-thrity years ago.
YMMV
it’s kinda frustrating to watch primary campaigning on iowa, nh, .. and think that the choice will already be made by the time i get to vote.
Long piece this morning on NPR about how much better it is in Baghdad these days. Feh.
My divorced son and I are invited to his neighbors’ for dinner Thursday. I’ve met the neighbors, but not anyone else who may also be invited. It will be interesting to see whether politics comes up and what is said. My son is also very progressive, no idea where his neighbors fall. I am gearing up to bite my tongue a lot since I will be a guest at their table.
selise @ 40
selise,
For those of us here in Indiana, we already KNOW the choice will be made by the time we get to vote. That still won’t change my vote, though.
It’s really hard to know what Hill thinks because she likes to please all the people all the time and that feels wrong.
She knows how to play this game and claims she can kick back if swift boated. That’s she’ll be and it remains to be seen how she would actually govern. My sense is that she understand the powers behind the curtain and has signaled that she won’t rock their boat.
This is the disturbing aspect to Hill that she is not really for the people, but has a big ear for corporations and the MIC. And the MIC own a huge part of this nation and is not going to give it up without a big fight.
Who is going to take on the MIC?
selise @ 34
portia.vz @ 29 = Chris Mathews?
selise and I are still waiting for those examples…
selise @ 40
bugs the hell outta me, too
Thunderbird @ 42
I’m in Indiana too, and it won’t change my vote either!!
Prairie Sunshine @ 6
That said, media exposure (or over exposure) is likely unproductive at a certain point in a place like Iowa. It’s gonna be the organization and personal contacts that make the difference.
I really don’t know who is leading in Iowa simply because most of the folks we have coming on here seem to be immersed into their candidate. So they will perceive the other candidates backers as loud and juvenile, while the cheers and whistles for their candidate are musical.
It does sound like the race in Iowa, in particular, will likely be decided after the second polling as folks shift away from their preferred, but struggling candidate.
How many times does the caucus allow counts. Until there are only two candidates left? Three? How does Iowa distribute the Electoral delegates? Is it winner take all, or proportionate in some odd manner?
‘morning, all… coffee is ready – hold out your cups.
I think the Iowa primarily is further away that it first appears.
jayackroyd @ 30
What p_l misses, though, is that statewide polling numbers are dangerously unreliable when predicting precinct-level support.
If, for example, Richardson is polling at 11% statewide, but has his support bunched in several places, he would easily be “viable” there.
Three words sum up the Iowa Caucuses: turnout, turnout, and turnout — at both the precinct level and statewide.
History is made by those who show up, and every campaign will be working hard to get their folks out. I will be especially intrigued to see if Ron Paul can throw a monkey wrench into the GOP’s machinery.
portia.vz @ 29
yes, by all means let’s forget that he is merely the only dem out there saying the right things, doing the right things and with a good chance of winning and returning the country to some semblance of the nation we thought we were living in.
shame on him for pointing out flaws in an opponent’s campaign.
dakine01 @ 39
but weren’t the old style “conservative” dems socially conservative instead of orientated in support of corporations and $$ instead of labor and the poor?
selise @ 40
I really enjoy being in NH as we get to meet every candidate face to face (if we want to that is. I have no desire to meet any of the goopers) and make “personal” evaluations of them.
I do feel badly for people in other states that do not get the chance. It is a shitty system.
jay at 15 — The thing is, though, that often it is the person who comes in a surprise and very strong second — or who comes close to toppling off the perceived front-runner who comes out of Iowa with the momentum. It can suck all the air out of coverage for the actual winner if the media decides on an “underdog makes good” narrative.
So the second votes can make a difference. But there are so many factors in play that you never know until about two hours after the caucuses to see how the media storyline is going to emerge and grow. The candidates have more than one race to run — and the spinners will be laying that groundwork for the next 40-odd days.
imagine all the talk that will happen over turkey and Christmas presents.
portia.vz @ 29
Well maybe the “front runner” should quit taking Republican positions on the war and on Iran. Edwards has not used any Republican talking points like Rose Law Firm billing records, or illegal campaign donations, Etc…… He has pointed out the vast amount of PAC money HRC has received as well as her Neo-Con positions on Iraq and Iran and he should continue this rhetoric with more zeal. It is a campaign, not a coronation.
I’m tellin’ ya, with the expectations so high for Hillary (based on national polling) the media may declare her the “big loser” and talkin’ about how she “lost her momentum” and things could really be up for grabs the rest of the way.
Or not.
But hey, O/T, but quickly, another NJ Republican Congressman announced he will not seek re-election. Mike Ferguson. He voted to override the SCHIP veto and that’s what I expected from more NJ Republicans but it didn’t happen. Anyway, I just hope we get good candidates and win this seat and Saxton’s – although Saxton’s might be a reach.
I posted this at Politico.com this morning (see below). It sums up for me how this election has been covered by the media. When we have a three way tie in Iowa and only two of those candidates are covered as front runners there is a problem for all of us. For those people who support another candidate other than Edwards I would submit that what is happening to Edwards should concern them as well. Because in the next election it could be their candidate that the media pushes out. Now I realize that if a candidate is not showing strong support that they will get less coverage. I’ve supported a few candidates in my life who weren’t considered a top tier candidate and while I didn’t like that my guy was not covered as much I could understand it a little better because they were much lower in the polls. This year my candidate of choice is right up there with Clinton & Obama according to the polls the media touts and yet he is treated like he is not. I can’t remember this kind of thing ever happening in another primary. Does anyone know of another candidate in a primary who was basically tied with the perceived front runner who was written out of the narrative? I can’t.
Here is what I wrote at Politico.com.
What a shame that Politico and the majority of the media didn’t say this right after the debate (see below), when it REALLY counted. I guess I should say better late than never but this unfairness seems to be a pattern by the media when it concerns Edwards.
I think a lot of people in the media are going to look really bad when this campaign is over and the press coverage is analyzed and shows how you covered a three way tie in Iowa as a two way tie. Shame on all of you for so blatantly interferring in our elections.
Peterr–
Yes, you’re definitely right about that. But this was meant to respond to Christy’s question about second choices. You’re simply adding another reason to not treat them as very important.
With groups of people this small, many of whom know each other, in this kind of complex social networking situation, I don’t think polls are helpful, at all.
I always forget how big Iowa is, though. Five Congressional districts. I was thinking the campaigns must have a pretty good idea of what they’ve got at this point, given how low the turnout is. But, not so. The state’s too big. The meetings too small. It’s really a crap shoot.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 53
I hadn’t read this post and basically just said the same thing. Sorry Christy. But it wasn’t plagiarism. I support Edwards, not Biden.
(Alright, alright. Cheap shot at Joe. Just the kind of thing we complain about, right?)
nomolos @ 52
In addition…. We, certainly the people I know, take our position as early determiners very seriously. Many of my friends volunteer in various campaigns, we attend scads of meetings, have candidates in our houses, we ask them pointed questions and demand answers. Hey, we do our best for you though it is still not a good system.
ps digg it
George Simian @ 17
I’m with you on this, and I think it’s critical. Support who you wish in the primary, but stay away from the name calling and bright red lines. Dividing Democrats is the only way the Republicans can win in 2008.
I will strongly support the Democratic nominee, whoevever they are, and I won’t have to shuffle my feet or hold my nose to do it. Each of the candidtates offers the only possibility of undoing the damage of the last seven years.
selise @ 51
For the most part, you are correct, but IIRC, they were still the ones most likely to work with the R’s on the business legislation. Consequently, they were able to temper out a lot of the nastiness that the R’s would throw into the legislation.
Patty Morlan @ 57
he is being shut out precisely because he is mounting an effective challenge to the status quo.
that’s why it’s absolutely critical he does well in iowa — and i will be sorely disappointed if he doesn’t at least take second.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 53
I don’t really follow your reasoning here, Christy.
I agree that the standard thing to happen here is the “surprising” result. In this case, that would be an Edwards win, which wouldn’t be all that surprising if you’ve been following this outside the MSM frame of Clinton vs Obama. I don’t think the other candidates have enough boots on the ground.
But the second choices don’t matter in a tight three way race, because none few (thanks Peterr) of the caucuses are going to need to turn to second choices from the big three, if the polls are accurate and the organizations equally good at identifying and turning out supporters. So if you’ve got 20-30% for each of the three, then the only second choices that matter are the third tier candidates.
(that’s another weird thing. There is no second tier at the moment.)
Mechanics of the caucus, from wikipedia:
Because I have restricted myself from discussing the presidential campaign specifically here at FDL, let me just say…
Chuck Todd is a hack! I find it very difficult to listen to His Smugness.
nomolos @ 60
thank you. i’d rather have you asking lots of questions instead of a nationwide primary that depends on massive media buys.
please hammer edwards on his sometimes hawkish foreign policy language. if he would get a clue about that i’d feel better about supporting him. that last thing i want is another lbj who has visions of a great society while killing millions of people in a country we have no right messing with.
jayackroyd @ 65
Didn’t Clinton come in 2nd in NH? And from that become “The Comeback Kid”. If somebody finishes second and it could result in alot of media attention an infusion of money.
Jay — Last time around, just as an example, Kucinich and Edwards had a deal that if they weren’t pulling in a certain percentage in a particular caucus, they would throw their delegates votes to the other person. I heard that Kucinich decided to do this because Edwards treated him with respect, because they had a few good talks about the needs of poor and struggling Americans, and because too many other folks in politics were treating Dennis like a sideshow — Edwards treated him like a respected competitor. I suspect Edwards made the deal because bumping his support to Kucinich would have sent a big message to the establishment Dems that needed a big shake-up.
In the end, Kucinich didn’t pull in a lot of support, but he stuck to his word and his delegates moved into the Edwards column, giving him solid results coming out of Iowa and a bit more momentum going into NH and SC. It wasn’t enough in the last election, but it did shake things up enough to put Edwards in the Veep slot in the end.
It’s not just winner take all chess involved — it’s also ideas and issue placement, and ability to rattle the others. Peterr is correct that it may not make a difference in every precinct — but it can make an enormous difference in close precincts and as bunched up as things are at the moment, if say the Kucinich and Dodd voters both have a deal to switch to Edwards second (and I honestly have no idea if that is the case or not — this is merely a hypothetical on my part) that 5 percent here and 8 percent there (or whatever) begins to really add up where there is decent turn-out for the person to whom they are switching in the first place.
In other words, there is a very good reason that everyone is amping up in Iowa, including the Clinton camp. Then again, it could all be a downplaying of chances and Hillary could win it in a walk and the momentum coming out of Iowa could be enormous for her. It just isn’t looking like that from everything I’m hearing…but it’s way too early to know anything for certain. It’s going to be an enjoyable few weeks of political watching, I can tell you that.
Chuck Todd on MSNBC actually said this morning that Edwards should be worried about the new Washington Post poll (that by the way still shows this as a 3-way tie) because people might start looking at this as a two personn race instead of a three person race. Yeah, he really said that.
HELLO — the media HAS ALWAYS covered this as a two person race. What BS spin. I guess this is their new “narrative” for Edwards and the excuse they will NOW use so they can sleep at night while they continue to marginalize Edwards. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
selise @ 68
Frankly no one I know believes any of the idiotic polls.
And yes. Next time I see him I will ask him.
dmg @ 64
Unfortunately the media will continue to marginalize him even if he takes 1st. If he comes in a close 2nd they will not credit him for it like they would another candidate.
nomolos @ 72
thank you! it might help to remind him of all the the things lbj could not do because of the cost and social strife that came from escalating the war against vietnam.
kdh — Chuck Todd isn’t my favorite either, but he’s right that the Clinton camp has been amping up their staffing in Iowa (although, really, isn’t that expected 45 days out from the caucus?). And the paragraph that I quoted above was so indicative of how the media is reporting all of this — it was almost like a cookie cutter storyline straight from Todd’s paragraph across the board.
kdh22 @ 67
Good gravy, yes, agree whole-heartedly.
Forced to watch Press the Meat this weekend while visiting the in-laws — and there’s UpChuck Todd. Bleccchhh…
Made worse with the useless presence of Byron “Needs Notes” York and almost as useless Gwen Ifill and Ron Brownstein.
All of it horse-race coverage, blah-de-blah-blah. Extremely little on issues.
Nevermind the recently published Shorenstein Center report indicating the public was sick of the horse race and personal crap, and wanting information on the issues. If Chuck Todd had to talk about the issues, well, he wouldn’t.
dmg @ 50
IrishJim @ 55
Edwards position on Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians
And there is not a damn bit of difference between Edward’s and Clinton’s positions on Iraq withdrawal.
Edwards wants to leave between 5000 and 7000 troops in Iraq to protect the
VaticanAlamoEmbassy and to defend humanitarian and reconstruction workers.He wants to leave some troops behind to train the Iraqi military.
And then he wants to place a sizeable Strike Force across the border in Kuwait…to attack al Qaida forces in Iraq, and to embroil ourselves back in there if there is a civil war that results in a humanitarian crisis.
Let me say that any such strike force or group that is involved in defending civilians or brokering sides in a civil war isn’t going to be commuting every day back and forth to Kuwait. They WILL be based in Iraq in order to fulfill the mission.
The same Divisions can be used in Iran….and if you don’t believe that Edward’s would use them to protect Israel or attack the “greatest supporter of terrorists in the world” just read Edward’s Herzliya speech above. So if Clinton’s positions are Neo-Con, just what is Edwards calling for Israel to be admitted to NATO! Essentially saying that they have done plenty for the Palestinians!
cinnamonape @ 77 –
edwards has changed his rhetoric considerably since his herzliya speech – at which time he caught a lot of grief from blogs and progressives in general (for example, he has renounced the wot frame)…
still… edwards hasn’t changed enough to suit me, but clinton hasn’t changed at all (as far as i can tell – would appreciate being corrected if i have that wrong).
Be wary of these polls.
The Iowa caucus is very different than a primary.
It is exceedingly difficult to figure out who is going to show. This is going to be particularly true this year as a result of the
unfortunate January 3rd date and the extraordinarily strong organizations the top three Democrats have built.
The other thing that befuddles the polls is that at the caucus many are literally forced to caucus with their second or third choice. Any number of Dodd and/or Biden supporters are going to have to move to another candidate because of the Byzantine caucus rules.
Lastly, remember a poll is private. The caucus is a public event played out in front of family, friends, neighbors, customers and bosses. It makes a real difference as to what
people do.
I wonder why the Edwards camp does not emphasize his ability to smackdown the GOP? If I recall, John handily defeated Cheney in their one and only debate. Had Kerry taken the position on Swiftboating that he is now, John would be out campaigning for his second term as VP and Hillary would be postioning for Senate Majority Leader.
ot – lukery has another good post on the sibel edmonds case up at daily kos. this one is especially good for folks who haven’t been following it… lots of summary info to catch up with.
After reading through the hard, no retreat, positions in these comments, I’m beginning to feel we just need to pass the Vasoline, ’cause here comes Rudy.
Re; Edwards, smart nice man, lovely wife, but WHY did he NOT fight at all after the last election? That’s why I’m not for him.
Hillary, I have a lot of respect for her as a woman, she handled the whole Bill(Monica), witch-hunt with true grace under pressure, but she voted for the Patriot Act and The War and is tied too closely to big corp etc.
(full disclosure here. If at 19, Bill Clinton have shown more than a passing interest in me it would have been completely and immediately consensual;) Sorry Hillary, but Bill is charming and sexy smart ;)
Obama trips my ‘be alert’ wires and not in a particularly good way and he has yet to vote on anything really substantial and that bothers me.
Just my 2 cents…
Selise,
I think talking tough is a signal to the MIC and their minions to hold their fire and hopefully wait and see. A peace candidate will be under siege, even though that’s what would get me going.
The media likes to create a winner so that they can take them down. it sells ads.
Amazing that revenue in media is not about selling newspapers anymore, but selling advertising… weird that is.
I’m an Edwards supporter but I try not to get into the my candidate is better than your candidate type arguments at FDL. I will talk process and my strong feelings about what the media is doing but I don’t want to campaign here. I’d really like to have one place to come where I can talk with other progressives about a number of issues. I have all kinds of places I can go to argue for my candidate. But that’s just me.
Thunderbird @ 12
It’s very Rovian to pin gender against race and try to divide the vote to weaken the Dems as a whole. It would be best if the Dems simple stayed on the issues, presented their stances and not even enter the “game” of smashing their “own party opponent”. A debate where they build on each others ideas/solutions for real problems in our country would be much stronger and coherent. Language such as, “I respect that Sentor ___ has strong perspectives on the issue, I would however move in ____ direction….”
Trying to make the Dems look petty and immature through a lacking unity and lots of mudslinging gives the appearance of overall weakness which then plays into the Reps holding up the “fear card” to trump. The “See they cannot even have reasonable dialogue on real concerns. Dems don’t care about you,” type of rhetoric.
Iowa would come off much strong for them Dems to stick unified on issues and dialogue about how to change current Rep created issues to be compliant to the Constitution. Dems would also benefit from a stance of being the party that reflects “real” America. “Look at us as we stand up here as party candidates. The American dream is up here with a candidate pool that says, ‘Yes, you are American no matter your race, gender, culture or religion.’ ”
Rep candidates look like they are lacking the true face of the American voter when on stage for a debate.
Dems should promoting their whole pool of candidates as more “user friendly” Constitutionally.
Rove wants to build the idea, “See Dems cannot get anything done.”
We need to counter the negative spin with positive, proactive concepts.
jayackroyd @ 58
I wasn’t trying to say that second choices aren’t important — just that the precinct-level polling is much more critical than statewide.
In fact, I think second choices ARE critical. Turn it back around on the top tier for a minute. Their support is likely to be good across the state, but not uniformly good. I can easily imagine a scenario where Clinton might be on the edge of viability in some precincts — say, next to Illinois. Her supporters have two choices: bail on her and jump to someone else, or convince some other folks to join their group. I’m just guessing, but they might have a rough time getting Kucinich voters to join them to make HRC’s group viable.
So, the question in that precinct becomes this: who do HRC’s folks support as their second choice?
Statewide polls give a guestimate, but every campaign has folks working the ground precinct by precinct. THAT’S where the real polling is beind done.
IrishJim @ 80
Excellent point!
I love Sibel Edmonds and wish she would call their bluff and spill the beans.
We could circle her and not let them lay a hand on her. Wouldn’t that be cool!
The way Richardson has been defending Hilliary lately I think he may direct his supporters to back Hilliary. But I don’t know if his supporters would listen or not?
Sorry to get in on this discussion late. My take on the early polling is that it has the validity of a Magic 8 Ball. Unfortunately, the press response to them is more informative about the press than the candidates. I really liked the Global Warming Forum debate format — its a shame that only 3 Dem presidential candidates participated. It was refreshing to have each candidate talk for an equal and extended amount of time with a few thoughtful questions at the end.
Patty at 90 — I think it is a good possibility that Richardson will try to bounce supporters at the Clinton camp. But not a certainty at this point. The fluidity of all of this is really fascinating, isn’t it?
when you’ve lost code pink…..
A Clinton campaign stop in Los Angeles was interrupted by Code Pink peace activist Tyghe Berry on Saturday.
Asks Berry of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), shortly before being ejected from the Wadsworth Theater: “How can you say you’re for the environment when you are always voting for war?”
Asks Sen. Clinton in response: “Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?”
beerfart liberal @ 88
Ditto.
I would also like to see Gore meet privately with the whole group of Dem candidates and hammer out a Dem Energy policy that would be the presidential platform on energy no matter who ends up the candidate. I think this could also strengthen the view of the party as “roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of preserving, protecting and upholding American for the people.”
If we continue to insist on treating the horse race as the main story we are all in for a monumental disappointment next election day.
Those enthused while following the race-centered coverage are ignoring the fact that its logical end is rewarding the behavior of democrats who did nothing to further the aspirations of the people who voted them into power in the 2006 elections.
If we do nothing in the next year to force the democrats to deliver an end to the war and impeach the criminals in the White House then we shouldn’t be surprised when what the 2008 elections bring us is another republican president, or America’s first woman president, who is tough enough to fight terrorists in Iran, but not tough enough to fix the health care crisis or stop the tide of fascism.
If we don’t start focusing on the issues instead of the horse race, we’re about to experience the death of progressive politics in America. The one thing that could save the democrats from impending irrelevance is pressing the issues that we elected them to resolve; the war in Iraq, and the destruction of the Constitution at home.
It’s entirely possible that the two parties could present a year of campaigns so disgusting that progressives could find no enthusiasm for any candidate, which puts us right where the likes of Karl Rove wants us.
This is not to say that Hillary Clinton could not be the avatar of change we all want and deserve, it’s just that to date she has demonstrated as little interest in the will of the American people as any democratic leader except Joe Lieberman and that should be a source of great sadness.
If we can’t celebrate the end of war and the restoration of our Constitution, celebrating the first woman president won’t mean anything, and the possibility of another republican president is not impossible to foresee.
Waiting for the republicans to lose is not a credible political strategy, we’ve got to quit arguing about the democratic horse race and start demanding a substantive change in direction, prior to election day.
selise @ 78
well i dont know if this is a ‘change’ or not but she’s certainly passionately engaging the wild-eyed dangerous members of code pink…
Wasn’t the post-election story that Edwards wanted to fight but Kerry declined (and had saved 1 – 2 million or so in cash as well)?
Not sure on that.
KLynn @ 94
what a great idea!
KLynn @ 94
Excellent suggestion. It would also be great to see some indication that the primary candidates will back the winner and that the winner has the grace and good sense to acknowledge their rivals’ strengths (such as incorporate some of the key ideas into their general election platform).
I’m kind of interested in the Republican side of the Primary.
Can any one guess which lunkhead Neo-Con Republican candidate said:
1) “Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges. Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage… Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.”
2) “The bond between Israel and the United States, which is a bond that will never be broken. For more than half a century both countries have benefited from this alliance. … It made an impact on me to see the extraordinary sacrifice made by the Israeli people everyday. They continue to make sacrifices to ensure your security and achieve peace.”
3) “The…rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel. At the top of these threats is Iran.”
4) ” Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.“
5)” For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran.”
6) ” The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats. Iran must know that the world won’t back down. “
7) The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough…We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.“
8) “As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table… I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken.”
9) Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.
10) ” What is going on in Iraq… will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”
11) “My analysis of Iran is…they are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.”
12)” The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it…Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.”
13) “I cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable… It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.”
14) “While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel “
15) “Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace… While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel.”
16) “Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel’s military strength, diplomatically and economically….”
17) “We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel’s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO’s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.”
18)” [Israel’s] challenges are our challenges. [Israel’s] future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you.”
is @100 a trick question?
hillary or edwards in actuality?
Good morning from the west coast
cinnamonape @ 100
It could be any one of them except Ron Paul. (But Rudy has the highest Israel Factor Rating of all candidates.)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 75
Excellent point, Christy. I watched him last night on Hardballs and was disgusted. His ‘analysis’ was merely MSM talking points which translates to fluff IMO. He was right about the Clinton ramp up, but he prolly got that info from the Clinton camp. It’s not like he’s out there investigating the campaign, just another talking head. Have I ever mentioned how much I love Don Henley? *g*
Anne Curry reading the news on the today Show this morning:
Oh well. I guess Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan (when it was then known as East Pakistan) before it seceded in 1971. Anne Curry unwittingly (perhaps unconsciously) dips into history.
Sorry for the OT — McClellan fingers the Prez in Plame outing?
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 96
here’s comparison from 2003 for you. (youtube of now and code pink meeting with senator clinton just before the 2003 invasion – worth a watch).
musicsleuth @ 99
Yes, a more unified view would give more power to the party and the winning candidate. The voters would be able to grasp that some of the concerns they care about will be carried on by the party, no matter who ends up the Dem candidate. Right now the average voter really sees all candidates as the same (Dems and Reps)and just in this for their own gain not for upholding my voice as a voter. Simply a game to win, not a country to protect.
The Dems have the smarts and the will to change that conception and
make the message about our ability to a unified democracy solving our concerns of the day. Only if they want to…
musicsleuth @ 106
hot damn!
cinnamonape @ 100 –
too easy.
edwards. jan, 2007 (from your link)
beerfart–
Yes, 2nd in Iowa would be a big deal for anybody but Obama
Christy–
Yes, these kind of inner dealmakings may be the difference for, again, IMO, Edwards, because I think Clinton may not frequently be second choice. The Joe Klein post that p_l was responding to noted this:
This isn’t surprising, I think–that the second choice of not Clinton is not Clinton.
I still think Edwards is best positioned here.
Peterr–
Yes, and I was going to agree with this analysis more wholeheartedly until I reminded myself how big Iowa is. Their ability to accurately assess things at a precinct level is going to be very dependent on the quality of their field people–and the depth of commitment of their supporters.
I still say with a very tightly bunched first tier and no second tier that this is just a crapshoot that, as you say, only the campaigns have any kind of handle on. And they’re not telling.
—-
Oh, and for anyone who thinks I’m plumping for Edwards, I don’t particularly like any of the big three, but the entire field is so much better than we’ve had in a long time that any of the candidates is fine with me.
If Gore is not running then he should use his perch to read the news to the pack that is running and get them on message.
Why are they playing to the MSM so much and ignoring the issues and the details that the people are longing to hear? How much rubbishtalk can we take before we refuse to participate in the nonsense called a US election
Elliott @ 109
And what did I read over the weekend. Conyers has said he is not receiving many phone calls supporting the VP impeachment. Let’s get McClellan in front of the committee yesterday. Let’s make those calls…
here’s comparison from 2003 for you. (youtube of now and code pink meeting with senator clinton just before the 2003 invasion – worth a watch).———-selise
code pink went into that meeting thinking they had a kindred spirit in office/power, eh?
hello reality!!!
I would like to hear more about all the candidates. The whole Hillary vs Barak, with Edwards coming up in the stretch trio of “front-runners” is too much.
There are NO front-runners until after the first primary or caucus. Polls change after votes are cast.
Could we please have more discussion about Issues, actions, abilities, past-performance, suitability to govern, leadership… the stuff that actually matters.
Could we please have a lot less on who raised how much money? Who is ahead this week in the polls? Inside campaign issues are fun to read about but have nothing to do with how some one will govern.
Arrrrggghhhhh!!!!
Why should I vote for any of them? Please tell me.
(Yes. of course I am going to vote. Don’t be silly.) Who is most deserving of my vote?
All this effort and money and a late afternoon ice storm, blizzard or Yukon Express, all very common in Iowa in the first week of January, could render it virtually meaningless.
selise @ 78
So far as I know, she has not repudiated her vote in favor of the AUMF. No apologies. No remorse. No second thoughts. So far as I can tell, she’d do it again if she had the opportunity.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 114
no, but i think they didn’t want to approach her as an enemy – after all they were trying to get her support to advocate against an invasion just 2 weeks before it happened. if you watch to end you will see a bit more clearly what both clinton and the code pink folks think.
SanderO @ 84
FWIW, revenue in media has ALWAYS been about selling advertising; it’s just that the paradigm used to do this has changed significantly in the last 20-30 years.
Boston Globe on reporting on all the candidates:
http://news.bostonherald.com/n…..id=1045906
cinnamonape @ 100
Can you take your name calling and mud-slinging elsewhere? Why don’t you come out and state clearly what campaign you are supporting?
selise @ 78
Yes…He’s changed his rhetoric. He attacks Clinton for voting for about the same thing that he enunciated in the Herzliya speech. Given his statements at Herzliya it seems clear to me that, if he were still in the Senate, he would have voted for Kyl-Lieberman.
The Herzliya speech was just as much a “signal” to the Bush Administration as was the Kyl-Lieberman vote. It was in January, made before the Israeli rightwing and a bunch of Neo-Cons, and actually opened the gates of all the virulent anti-Iran rhetoric spewed from Bush and Cheney. If Edwards would say this stuff, then they had a “Green Light”.
But has he actually apologized and explained his actual positions in the Herzliya speech? I have never seen any public recantation of it. Maybe you can point it out to me. It’s not on his website.
I’ve never seen him understand the difficulties of the Palestinian leadership to move toward peace without concessions from Israel (pulling out of Gaza, rather than the West Bank helped whom? Hamas or Abbas?). I’ve never heard him recognize the sovereignity of Lebanon.
He attacked Obama for suggesting that we should talk to the Iranians without pre-conditions. This certainly indicates that he’s going to take the same “John Bolton” approach to dealing with this important issue as he was stating quite explicitly, and at length, in his Herzliya speech. He expects the Iranians, like the Palestinians, to recognize Israel…before the US will even negotiate with them!
This sort of demand is simply going to lead to Iran, although willing to talk, being backed into a corner. They will, justifiably, believe that the US intends to attack them. that will encourage them to develop a nuclear weapon for deterrent purposes.
wigwam @ 103
Bzzzzzt! Nope It’s John Edwards!
redx @ 120
The Globe may be covering the candidates but you’ve linked to the Herald…
Edwards a neocon? That’s a good one. Nice try but no cigar…
New thread from Christy
Secrets and Little White Lies
Christy has a new thread upstairs.
cinnamonape @ 123
From a speech almost year ago. Why don’t you quote him from a debate this month? He has been a strong advocate of diplomacy with Iran. At least he didn’t vote for Kyl-Leiberman and is willing to criticize those who have. Any more propaganda you want to spew for your undeclared candidate?
So, to sum up this mornings lesson:
Hillary Clinton is a disguised cross between Grover Norquist and John Bolton.
Barack Obama is possibly the next Dalai Lama, but hasn’t a single specific idea.
John Edwards is an air brushed Woody Guthrie, but may be a secret admirer of Julius Caesar.
Chris Dodd is a sometimes admirable hack.
Joe Biden is a smart, egotistical, verbose hack.
Bill Richardson is an ambitious, experienced, not-too-capable shill for Hillary Clinton.
Dennis Kucinich is the forlorn hope return of Bonnie Prince Bobby.
How could I have ever thought that each of them was far superior in every way to George Bush and each of the Republican presidential candidates ? I’ve been voting since 1964 and always feel like a kid watching a parental fight during the primary season. Unfortunately, it has too often ended in splits which led to the likes of Nixon.
You are right..basically if you look at more primary data rather than repeating the “common wisdom”, the “top” three are basically the same. Obama’s position on Kyle-Lieberman was basically the same as that “bill” and as far as I know he didn’t speak against it, didn’t show for the vote and didn’t issue a statement for 9 hours. And the Edwards Herzliya statements speak for themselves.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 96
To be quite even handed I don’t recall Code Pink demanding that Edwards explain his position on Israel, his “not taking anything off the table” regarding Iran, the invasions of Lebanon, his praising of Ariel Sharon, or his marginalization of the Palestinians.
cinnamonape @ 122
It doesn’t matter what sort of demand. Iran learned the lesson of Saddam Hussein. He capitulated to every U.S. demand, and look where it got him. The U.S. will bully them until they have their own nuclear deterrent.
U.S. bullying necessitates nuclear proliferation. And neocon bullies seem to be in charge foreign policy for all leading candidates of both parties.
cinnamonape @ 122 –
hey, i’m not defending edwards – as i said, his foreign policy is a major problem for me.
here’s matt smacking edwards down for his stupid statements on iran. i will look for links for you since then to show the moderation i’m claiming i think i’ve seen.
but just to be clear – nothing i’ve seen from edwards has been enough to reassure me.
cinnamonape @ 131
You are quoting Edwards statements from almost a year ago. At the sametime, Hillary Clintons position on Iraq was the same as George Bush’s: No timelines for withdrawal. We can thank Progressive’s like John who heard our voices and became a progressive leader. He was not actively campaigning at the time you are quoting him from.
pma @ 129
So what solution do you have to better the process? A record 43 years of voting gives a wealth of insight to addressing your concern. Many voters feel as you do. As an electorate, we need to come up with the solutions and stand by them in large numbers. Otherwise, we are no better than the candidates themselves.
IrishJim @ 128
since when is it propaganda to accurately quote a candidate’s speech?
pma at 129 — At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, I’m going to say something that I think is very important: take everything you read on politics with large grains of salt, determine the motivating factors for the person making the statement, and so forth. Take nothing at face value, even if it comes from your sainted mother.
Because everyone has a bias, and sometimes it shows more than other times. But generally it is in there if you dig down far enough. Just my two cents…
Morning Pups!
methinks that hossyrace in the pitcher warn’t bein’ run in the US of A. Anyone else? That make a diff?
Nice pic tho. Carry on…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 92
Yes it is fascinating. And contrary to what the media keeps pushing, this race is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination.
I can hardly wait to see the next debate!
KLynn @ 135
I simply ask that Democrats support who they wish during the primary season, but don’t get so committed to a particular candidate that they play a role in splittling the party and adding to Republican ability appear more reliable too the “uncommitted voters” who are often the deciding factor. Sorry for the long sentence. I just see too much nasty labelling already.
selise @ 136
When that information is outdated and mis-represented. Edwards was not a candidate at the time he gave the speech. To be fair, let’s compare what other candidates were saying at the sametime. How about we hammer on HRC for declaring no timeline for withdrawals in Iraq at the sametime of this Edwards speech. That is why it is propaganda.
pma @ 129
The problem is that we already have one-party rule. We get to choose between the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. (I make exceptions for Kucinich and Paul.)
pma @ 140
i don’t mind the nasty labeling – it’s the inaccurate labeling that gets me. guess we all have our pet peeves.
Adie @ 138
No, I’d say it’s US. US races are run counter-clockwise and that looks to be consistent.
Of course, I may be an id10t.
pma @ 140
Agreed. Unfortunately, your presentation came off as the opposite of what you desire. That’s why I asked for a solution perspective. Thanks for posting one.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 137
There should be a growing market for salt in large chunks.
Maybe it can be produced as a by-product of some other process?
IrishJim @ 128
I’d like to here him repudiate what he said in that speech, just like I’d like to hear Hillary repudiate here votes for AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. Until then, I’m unable to detect a change of heart.
IrishJim @ 141
i think edwards declared his candidacy in dec 2006 from new orleans – which would definately make him a candidate when he gave the speech.
… and i’m not disagreeing with you on clinton’s iraq position (please see the code pink youtube i linked to – from 2003!). if you want clinton’s iraq position of early 2007 stated here – please add it, no one is preventing you. but i don’t think it’s fair to accuse a commenter of propaganda for making accurate statements.
selise @ 148
Is it propaganda to omit key points from the speech like this one that Edwards made?: “But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran”.
wigwam @ 142
I saw that same argument in 1968. Actually, the only similarity between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon had to do with numbers of eyes, ears, etc. Still, the perception led to Nixon’s election and everything discovered during Watergate.
FWIW, here is how Haaretz ranks the current candidates relative to what they call their “Israel Factor.”
Republican
Rudy Giuliani
The former New York mayor returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 following his comments on Israel. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 8.75
Democrat
Hillary Clinton
The Senator for New York and former First Lady supports moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.375
Independent
Michael Bloomberg
Backed Israel in the war; said it ‘continues to defend itself from unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians.’ LAST MONTH’ S SCORE: 7.75
Republican
John McCain
The Arizona Senator believes America must give Israel whatever equipment and technology it needs for defense. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.5
Democrat
Bill Richardson
The Governor of New Mexico maintains that U.S. commitment to the security of Israel is not a negotiable issue. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.875
Republican
Fred Thompson
Condemned Hamas for children’s website of ‘hateful fanaticism’, favors aiding Iranians overthrow their government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.25
Republican
Mike Huckabee
The Governor of Arkansas has made nine visits to Israel, including a trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.125
Republican
Mitt Romney
Opposed Khatami’s recent U.S. trip, saying taxpayers shouldn’t fund a man ‘who supports the destruction of Israel.’ LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.75
Democrat
Joseph Biden
The Delaware Senator says cannot expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas, which calls for its destruction. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6
Democrat
John Edwards
The former senator for North Carolina has said that Iran poses an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.875
Democrat
Christopher Dodd
The Senator for Connecticut addressed AIPAC in March 2006 on a nuclear Iran and the Hamas government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.375
Democrat
Barack Obama
The Senator for Illinois made his first visit to Israel in January 2006, where he visited the north and toured the fence. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.625
jackie @ 83
He wanted to, but Kerry vetoed it.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..rruled.php
wigwam @ 117
She, in fact, HAS…in almost the same phrasing as John Edwards. Like Edwards she asserted that she was given erroneous intelligence briefings from the Bush Administration AND that she trusted Bush to allow the Inspection process to proceed.
Both voted for the AUMF that gave Bush Authority to invade Iraq. Edwards was a Co-Sponsor and voted for it in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Both Clinton and Edwards were on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence! They were equally ranking members, with access to the same intelligence!
Afterwards. like Clinton, he admitted that he failed to read the NIE, which exposed errors and contradictions in the intelligence they were being proferred in meetings with the Administration officials. Edwards voted against the Durbin resolution which limited the use of force to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. He opposed the Byrd Amendment that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. And he rejected the Levin Amendment which authorized use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with a Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Thus both Clinton and Edwards voted against the wiser, more cautious senior members of their party to “give Bush a chance”. Maybe these senior members of the Senate read the NIE?
Edwards also opposed an Amendment sponsored by Clinton that would have limited the authorization for a term of one year. She’s since offered a resolution to decertify the war by pointing out that Bush has gone beyond the AUMF language to undertake other acts.
Essentially both Clinton and Edwards have given the SAME excuses for their votes. “They didn’t know” and “they trusted Bush”. Clinton has said that “if I had the same situation occur again she would have voted the same way”. Edwards says he wouldn’t have…but doesn’t explain how he could have changed his position given “what he knew”.
Hell, if I knew that Bush wasn’t to be trusted and that the intelligence for the WMD’s, terrorist links to al Qaida, and imminent threat were all being trumped up…then why couldn’t Edwards and Clinton see this stuff?
Frankly I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Edwards and Clinton on this, other than to attack Clinton for her prior positions when his were almost exactly the same.
cinnamonape @ 153
As I said at #147, I’d like to hear Edwards repudiate what he said in his Herzliya speech, just like I’d like to hear Hillary repudiate here votes for Kyl-Lieberman. Until then, I’m unable to detect a change of heart.
It’s interesting, however, that Haaretz sees a big differnce, per their Israel-Factor rankings of the two.
IrishJim @ 121
The one that didn’t vote for the AUMF…and who isn’t hypocritically trying to hide his/her positions on Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and Iran.
Kucinich.
Biodun @ 125
I’m just pointing out that those who called Clinton a “Neo-Con” while praising Edwards have some contradictions that they need to deal with.
cinnamonape @ 155
Do you think he stands a chance, especially after the UFO stuff?
IrishJim @ 149
no – because:
1) the complete text was linked to, so everyone could see the context
2) the quote you identify does not change the problem i have with the speech.
3) the quotes given were not, imo, misleading or inaccurate.
… it would be more accurate, imo, to characterize your statement – that edwards was not a candidate when he made the speech – as propaganda… because it was not true.
please, please i beg you – please let’s make every attempt to stick with what is true and what we can back up…. and when we make mistakes (as all of us do) to own up to it.
cinnamonape @ 156
There are some significant differences especially among their foreign policy advisors. Hillary has, for example, Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, financed by Israeli multibillionaire, Haim Saban, who claims: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Also, Michael O’Hanlon, an alleged liberal war critic who happens to be an affiliate of the Saban Center and a signatory of PNAC’s Second Statement On Postwar Iraq, published March 28, 2003, i.e., two weeks after the invasion of Iraq:
Quite the company he keeps, this allegedly liberal war skeptic.
I also noticed that on his recent trip, his travel companion, Kenneth Pollack, also billed as a skeptic on the Iraq war, had in 2002 published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Upon their return they published a NYT op-ed, “A war we just might win.” On subsequent talk shows both were commonly billed as “war skeptics/opponents.”
cinnamonape @ 153
here’s my take at the difference – which i freely admit could be full of shit, and i hope to be corrected if there is evidence to the contrary.
clinton is genuinely a hawk.
edwards voted for the war out of ignorance and political expediency.
wigwam @ 159 –
do you have list of each candidate’s foreign policy advisors? that would be very helpful. thanks!
IrishJim @ 128
Okay. How about this from his website?
”As president, Edwards will negotiate with Iranian leaders who have met a number of criteria, such as recognition of the international rule of law, recognition of the rights of Jews and the state of Israel, and a commitment to the promise of diplomacy.”
Sort of a precondition that would rule out negotiating with any Iranian currently in the government, I’m afraid. In legislation this is what is called a “poison pill”.
And that’s why Edward’s attacked Obama when he said that he WOULD negotiate with Iran “without preconditions”.
The speech in Herzliya indicates that he would have if he were still in the Senate. It contains all the same claims about the Iranians (or the IRG) supporting terrorism and supplying arms to Hamas and Hezbollah. The resolution was not an authorizing resolution, and had no legal basis for authorizing the use of force. Even Condi Rice has admitted as much.
Any more propaganda you want to spew for your undeclared candidate?
Do you mean Al Gore? He’s undeclared?
My favored candidate is Kucinich and is declared.
Edwards and Clinton are down the list…because of their support for the AUMF, the fact that they will continue to have combat forces in the vicinity for use in Iraq, tub-thumping about Iran, and their general positions that impair any movement on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation front. But I’ll support the eventual Democratic nominee in the hope that they will be more likely to listen to reason on these issues and will work to undo the effects of the Bush Administration in so, so many other areas.
selise @ 160
I think that Edwards would be a lot better than Clinton, based in part by Hillary’s choice of advisers and the differences in the Israel-Factor ratings by Haaretz, but I’m still not all that happy with Edwards. Nor Obama for that matter.
selise @ 161
I had a list of each candidate’s advisors. It was something that I’ve linked to. But last night I tried and couldn’t find it. I guess I’ll have to do more searching. Sorry.
wigwam @ 164
not to worry, didn’t mean for you to go looking for it… just thought to ask you to share, if you happened to have a link handy.
… am also very concerned about the foreign policiy positions of clinton/edwards/obama – although of the three obama sounds a bit better, i think. (not an endorsement of obama – he’s doing some other stuff i don’t like – for example saying social security is in “crisis”).
i find it very helpful to discuss how each of us think of the candidates and what evidence (if any) we have to back up our statements.
me, i’m still fence sitting. *g*
wigwam @ 157
I liked Kucinich’s answer to the one question that has been directed at him in all the debates. He could have also have pointed out that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object…as in “I don’t know what I saw and experienced”. He never said he saw or believed in little green men.
Does he have a chance? Probably not, since the MSM doesn’t treat him and his views seriously. And they are more interested in playing up several other candidates than folks like Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Gravel and Richardson. So, by the time of my Primary, I’m likely going to be left with a brace of candidates that are really about the same in contrast.
Given that, I’ll likely vote for the one who’s forthright in their campaign about their past and present positions…and who has the best chance to win against whoever is leading in the abysmal Republican race. It’ll be a very tough decision. But I’ll support them in the General Election.
wigwam @ 164
Hi Selise: here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..wonks.html
selise @ 165
Me too. So much of what Obama says seems content free. But he seems the least tied into neocon positions, and he did vote against the AUMF.
After reading blogs like this and dailykos and huffingtonpost I find it ironic that if you one negative thing about Edwards or Obama you get jumped on by 10 people but if something negative about Hillary Oh well!! Its OK…
Also the same people who complain about mainstream media are glad to take MSM talking points and run with it when it comes to Hillary.
I wish people who run this blog atleast come to Hillary’s defense once in a while. What do you think about Chris Matthews calling Hillary a “She Devil” Will you defend that for God’s sake.. Haven’t heard anything about it on any of the so called leading left leaning blogs..
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711190004
Here’s a good thought from Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..73395.html
Gujar @ 169
Using multiple screen names is reason to be banned from this site.
And while I’m thinking about it, didn’t your alter ego announce that you were never coming back?
jayackroyd @ 15
Not really. As I’ve experienced in multiple caucus states, many people voting for the less ‘popular’ candidates leave once they are convinced their candidate cannot achieve the necessary 15% – they don’t participate in the second round of voting.
Gujar @ 169
Ironic? Probably not. You can’t control what people think or say. If you try, you’ll just come to grief.
Gujar, the entire thing WAS clearly, an excuse for Matthews and the goopers to have some photoshoppe fun with Hillary. And as such, it’s the same old rightwing crap.
Matthews has never been more than a wingnut smirk away from tabloid “reality-show” television. Now that he officially has Clinton to kick around as the putative coronation-winner of the democratic nomination, you don’t really expect him to change his spots, do you?
BTW, if this puts your BP up to dangerous levels, then you’d better change the political channel for the next year or so.
They don’t like Edwards or Obama, but they absolutely loathe Clinton, and it has jack to do with her positions.
Putting up photos of Hillary with horns on her head, as the question is “innocently” (and deliciously) asked:
“Is this over the line?”
is STRAIGHT out of the FoxNews playbook.
You remember them? That rightwing media Rupert-Murdoch-trufflehog, whose 10th anniversary birthday bash Clinton so obligingly attended?
wigwam @ 159
We can go through lists of advisors and find people who are disreputable in all the campaigns. O’Hanlon is definitely a hawk and pro-Iraq, but Hillary Clinton also has some pretty great people in a long list of foreign policy advisors, Wesley Clark, for example. I’m not sure where O’Hanlon sits in the hierarchy of influence. But I imagine it’s pretty far down the totem pole. Probably more influential is Andrew Shapiro, who was a Lieberman aide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..wonks.html
Here’s a pretty good discussion of the “big three” and their wonks on foreign policy. But wonks, while they have influence, are often countered by other wonks if the candidate wants to have a diversity of perspectives. The article also discusses some of the differences in foreign policy between the big three.
Edward’s principal advisor is a fellow by the name of Derek Chollet who has been assigned the Iraq strategy. Mr. Chollet is a founder of Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He has been tasked by Edwards to identify how many American troops it would take to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing a base in Iraq, preventing a civil war from expanding beyond Iraq’s borders, and avoiding genocide and ethnic cleansing.
That is where Edwards has developed his program of keeping a brigade of 3500-5000 soldiers in Iraq, and an unspecified, but larger, Strike Force in Kuwait.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/6095/35/
Face it — any of the Democratic candidates could beat any Republican. So, vote for YOUR choice. I am, frankly, sick of hearing that Hillary is the only one who CAN win.
But, most Americans just listen to the “conventional” (Teevee) “wisdom.” And that says only Hillary can win.
This week, I spoke to some of my high school friends, living far away, in a red state. They “think” this way.
I told them, “I can’t stand Hillary.” (And it has nothing to do with Bill, or the notion that “I hate her, but I don’t know why.”) Oh yes, I know why I don’t like Hillary as a candidate and it has nothing to do with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton deal.
But, living in California (the largest, very diversified state), I have no chance. I never have. And that sucks. So, Iowa and some other goofy, whitebread state decides for us.
What is WRONG with America? Never mind, I know. And it ain’t pretty.
CinnamonApe; here’s one contradiction Edwards supporters DON’T have to deal with:
Every time Clinton say something critical of the war and occupation in Iraq, just keep in mind that the candidate speaking it, has NEVER said that it was a mistake to invade, and she has NEVER apologized for her support of the invasion.
Keep in mind that until she saw the mid-term poll-writing on the wall, no piece of self-exculpatory bushCo shitspeak was too false for her to parrot.
Keep in mind that prior to discovering her inner antiwar self about the time of those mid-term polls, she had no qualms about schmoozing with FoxNews and Rupert Murdoch.
Keep in mind that in the Connecticut primary, she eagerly, freely, supported one of the worst of the jingoes, Joe Lieberman, against a good antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont.
As we watch her try to climb out of the GOP warpimp cesspit and crawl underneath the flap of the democrats antiwar tent, I’m more than willing to talk about “contradictions”. :o)