Tuesday’s political round-up

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A new national USA Today/Gallup poll shows the Democratic presidential race narrowing considerably over the last month. Hillary Clinton still leads, but her margin has been cut nearly in half. According to the results, published this morning, Clinton leads the field with 39%, followed by Barack Obama with 24%. The 15-point margin is still large, of course, but Clinton’s lead was 28 points in the same poll as recently as early November. John Edwards was third with 15%, and no other candidate was above 5%.

* The same poll also shows a Republican race very much in flux. Rudy Giuliani still leads the field, but his support has dropped considerably, and now stands at 25%. Mike Huckabee, fueled by the backing of religious right activists, has shot up to second place with 16%. John McCain and Fred Thompson are right behind them at 15% each, while Romney is fifth with 12%. No other candidate was above 5%.

* Push-polling on Mike Huckabee’s behalf in Iowa has been exposed as a project of a group called Common Sense Issues, which conceded its attack tactics yesterday: “The group’s executive director, Patrick Davis, dubbed the calls ‘personalized educational artificial intelligence,’ and admitted they are designed to promote Huckabee.” Huckabee denounced the calls, but Davis said he will not stop his efforts.

* On Sunday, the Clinton campaign went after Obama over an essay he wrote while in kindergarten. This morning, Clinton adviser Mark Penn told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that the press release was “serious,” but the kindergarten bullet-point was a “joke.” I really doubt that it was, but I get the sense the campaign is probably embarrassed about it now.

* Some evangelicals have complained that Fred Thompson hasn’t been nearly theocratic enough for their tastes, prompting the former senator to defend his religiosity on CNN yesterday: “‘As far as faith is concerned, I have not made any secret as to where I am. I am a Christian,’ Thompson said, noting that, while he doesn’t attend church while at home in McLean, Virginia, he did attend church with his mother when he visits in Tennessee.” He concluded, “I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me as far as I can tell.”

* As part of the Clinton campaign’s hyper-aggressive new style, the New York senator continued to go after Obama yesterday in Iowa, accusing him of being inexperienced, overly ambitious, uninformed, inattentive, and cowardly. The Obama campaign responded, “The truth is, Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president.”

* On a related note, the Obama campaign seems anxious to use Clinton’s latest round of attacks to boost his fundraising.

* On a more substantive note, Obama campaigned in Iowa yesterday, emphasizing what he sees as a need for a “Credit Card Bill of Rights” to “crack down on predatory credit card companies using deceptive practices to make big profits while driving families deeper into debt.”

* Rudy Giuliani is doing his best to cozy up to Abramoff-tainted activist Grover Norquist. The Americans for Tax Reform chief wrote to the former mayor, noting a recent letter he received from Giuliani. “The information you put in your letter certainly more than achieves the spirit and letter of the Americans for Tax Reform National Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” Norquist said.

* We won’t be able to watch it, but Iowa Public Radio will host a debate for Democratic candidates today in Des Moines. There will be no audience and no cameras, though NPR will stream the event online.

Thompson said. . . “I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me as far as I can tell.”

I’d have actually considered supporting him if he had stood up and started belting out an impromptu cover of the Doobies’ “Jesus is Just Alright With Me.”

  • A new national USA Today/Gallup poll shows the Democratic presidential race narrowing considerably over the last month. Hillary Clinton still leads, but her margin has been cut nearly in half. According to the results, published this morning, Clinton leads the field with 39%, followed by Barack Obama with 24%. The 15-point margin is still large, of course, but Clinton’s lead was 28 points in the same poll as recently as early November. John Edwards was third with 15%, and no other candidate was above 5%.

    Wow, if you just paid attention to the unreliable polls the national media picks out to trumpet, you’d think Hillary was doing bad or something.

  • “There will be no audience and no cameras, though NPR will stream the event online.”

    God, how I wish there were more of that. Paying attention to the spoken word? Thought independent from ocular bedazzlement? Why, it’s practically un-American.

  • Watching Triangulatin’ Tilly flail away while she circles the bowl makes my heart glad. 29 days till her public imposion begins and the SS Clinton takes down all the pinstriped beltway rats who didn’t abandon the sinking ship.

    Let her go run as the Republican she is.

  • Every time Hillary hits Obama on his supposed inexperience, he’s going to hit back on her well documented bad judgment. I think he wins this one every time.

  • When Hillary hired Mark Penn, I knew she’d stoop to his level. That new NIE makes her look bad, really bad.

  • When Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, let’s all send Keith Olbermann thank-you cards for his monologues and his show, since they probably played a big part in keeping this nation from going insane over the past few years.

  • Rick wrote:

    When Hillary hired Mark Penn, I knew she’d stoop to his level. That new NIE makes her look bad, really bad.

    How so?

  • Fred Thompson on CNN: “I’m OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me as far as I can tell.”

    Fred Thompson praying at home: “Oh, Lord, if you think I should continue being an insufferable douche and lazy-ass politician who should just have the presidency of the United States handed to me by a leggy actress wannabe on behalf of the Academy of Arts And Sciences, please let me know by doing absolutely nothing…(mutters under breath) one thousand two, one thousand three, one thousand four…(aloud) all right, big guy, Thy will be done. Nighty nighty (turns off lights via “the Clapper.”)

  • LOL, slappymagoo.

    I guess Freddy of Hollywood thinks the Lord will actually tell him he’s a douchebag now, not just wait til they meet in person? This looks like the religious attitude that rich people often have: If I wasn’t a good person, why would God let me be so fat and happy?

    Camels, eyes of needles, etc. Freddy probably sleeps through church when he goes with his mom anyway.

  • Rick:

    That is, do you think Hillary got the NIE and the Hadley warning when Bush did? If so, what’s your source? If you have a source, then do you think all the Senators should have been breaking the classification of that report to rebuke the President in front of America?

    If you don’t think Hillary had the report, what’s your point? That despite not having the info, she shouldn’t have had the position she did on Iran prior to the release of the NIE? If so, what do you think Iran’s supporting terrorists in Iraq (this is what Hillary stood up against- she wasn’t saying anything about WWIII or invading Iran) has to do with the nuclear weapons program it used to have, which is the only thing the NIE focuses on? How does opposing terrorism against U.S. troops in Iraq make Hillary look anything other than good, and why does the NIE make any difference?

  • Swan,

    Finally, I have found a Hillary supporter. Woo-hoo! Her recent slip-ups have either sent most of her supporters running or into one-line cheer mode for online posts.

    I have would agree with Rick that these latest round of attacks make Hillary look really bad. However, I suspect that I just don’t understand her overall strategy. Specifically,

    1. Does she really expect people to believe that Barak’s conversations with colleagues and kindergarten aspirations should have influenced the spending patterns of his PAC?

    2. Does she really think a couple of “present” votes reveal a hidden side to Obama?

    3. Does she expect exaggerated healthcare and PAC claims to really fly in the Internet era?

    I know that I sound like an Obama fan boy right now (to a certain extent I am). But these arguments are poor at best. Such poor reasoning gives the impression that she is flailing for attack points, and (importantly) weakens her valid claims about Obama’s lack of experience.

    I am sure Hillary is better than this, she must have a master plan. I don’t get it though, do you? Please, enlighten me.

  • Rick is just trying to stick Hillary with the NIE since we’re all mad at Bush for the NIE. Nice try, you misogynist Hillary-hater. Here’s hoping you’ll like having Hillary as president of your country.

  • Chris Stewart wrote:

    Finally, I have found a Hillary supporter. Woo-hoo! Her recent slip-ups have either sent most of her supporters running or into one-line cheer mode for online posts.

    Chris, check this out:

    A new national USA Today/Gallup poll shows the Democratic presidential race narrowing considerably over the last month. Hillary Clinton still leads, but her margin has been cut nearly in half. According to the results, published this morning, Clinton leads the field with 39%,

    You must be hanging out with the neurotically-wrong crowd.

    Your attacks on Hillary are really strange and substanceless. You’re going to have to put them in a lot more context, instead of just phrasing them as open-ended questions, for anyone to consider them.

  • Let me just repeat that:

    Clinton leads the field with 39%. Her next follower is Obama with 24%, and the strongest Republican only gets 24% in a poll of Republicans.

    That Hillary has something wrong with her or is a bad candidate is only a bizarre Internet hoax perpetrated by mentally disturbed Republicans, it seems.

    If they hate America so much, they should move out and live as hermits in Norway.

  • Clinton leads the field with 39%. Her next follower is Obama with 24%, and the strongest Republican only gets 24% in a poll of Republicans. -Swan

    How do you explain the 13% slide in her support and the overall downward trend she’s established in most national polls?

  • What I would like for Obama supporters to do is explain why they are for Obama and not for Hillary, except for him ‘not being Hillary’ (which you all seem to be unable to convincingly explain why it’s important).

    I think a lot of Obama fans have bought into the anti-Hillary Republican non-rational smear that obviously has been making its way onto TV news and on to the front pages of newspapers ever since the Clinton White House. It’s either you think he’s about as good as Hillary and it’s more important to have an Africam American president than a woman president, or it’s that.

    Here’s a hint: picking out somebody because they are the ‘alternative to’ something or because of an opponent’s crazed smear of them is not a good way to pick someone to fight for you. If you can’t articulate a strong rationale, maybe, just maybe, you’ve been manipulated and your psychological defense mechanisms are keeping you from backing off from it (from the stance you’ve already overtly taken).

    doubtful wrote:

    How do you explain the 13% slide in her support and the overall downward trend she’s established in most national polls?

    doubtful, it could be it’s just a natural shift as more people become more attuned to what’s going on. Maybe a lot of people who would really like to see an African American president, except the recognition/credibility desparity between Clinton and him has been too great up until now, because they’ve only just started paying more attention to the campaign coverage. Or maybe it’s just a result of the media having smeared her and blown a few meaningless things out of proportion– the tip scandal, etc.

  • I wrote: picking out somebody because they are the ‘alternative to’ something or because of an opponent’s crazed smear of them is not a good way to pick someone to fight for you.

    Except, of course, when you know the person they’re an alternative to is someone who doesn’t meaningfully share your goals at all, like say a single Democrat on a municipal ticket as opposed to a single Republican.

  • Hey Swan,

    Maybe Hillary is losing support because people are getting a good look at her record (such as the Patriot Act, AUMF in Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman) and her rhetoric (for example, the Global War on a Psychological State).

    Or do you consider reviewing a candidate’s record and past statements as being misogynistic?

  • A good thing and a bad thing about Hil’s deep deep deep dive into Obama’s history:

    1) THIS is the best she’s got???? The GOP may now commence soiling their shorts.
    2) Holy crap! This woman went through his KINDERGARTEN records? Is this a woman who can pry her fingers of data mining technology? Would she voluntarily disarm herself of intelligence tools? Does this creep anybody else out besides me?

  • Also, I think a lot of people are subconsciously motivated to punish Hillary for being a woman and seeking the presidency, but they just can’t admit it to themselves because consciously, they’re such good feminists or such good liberals that they think they’re too perfect people to be influenced by patriarchy in this way.

    Maybe if she looked just like Angelina Jolie, they’d let her go, but since she has a more typical older woman’s body, it doesn’t slip past the internal sexism radar- whether you’re a woman who was raised to idealize beautiful fairy tale princesses and getting married, or a man who was raised to think of women in very large part as sex objects and as means to men’s ends.

  • JKap, I just can’t say everyone’s on the same page with you there. In fact, people’s disgust for the Patriot Act, the AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, and advocating fighting the war against terror seem like something more just made up by you than something that reflects the average Democratic voter (note: JKap’s link to support Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric on the war on terror was just a link to Google with “Hillary Clinton” and “war on terror” as the terms searched for- so, JKap doesn’t have anything specific to back up Hillary Clinton’s having said anything wrong as regards the war on terror- he just wanted to put a link in his post so he could make it look like there is something wrong she said out there that you just don’t know about- if you didn’t check out his link, his scam would probably have fooled you).

    -Patriot Act: How many Americans are against the Patriot Act? Patriot Act is a good thing, it just also happens to make it easier to abuse law enforcement, especially if a bunch of fascists are in power. When we are fighting real enemies (Al Qaeda) who want to kill us, it just makes you look stupid to a lot of people if you don’t support the Patriot Act. This is besides the point that Bush is an idiot who shouldn’t be in charge of a bunch of ultra-conservative people exercising extraordinary military and law enforcement powers.

    -AUMF: A lot of people voted for that. Kerry voted for that. A lot of people (maybe over 50% of non-politician Democratic voters) were convinced the conservatives might be right there were WMD in Iraq. Colin Powell went on TV and vouched for it. No pro-Hillary voter requires Hillary to be perfect every time more than we expect any other Dem politician to be infallible. We stopped wanting stuff like that when we stopped believing in fairy tales or when we grew past adolesence.

    -Kyl-Lieberman: This is about the very real fact of Iran supporting terrorist bombings in Iraq that have already happened and already took troops lives. It doesn’t authorize an invasion and not supporting it would make Hillary look weak or stupid. Having Lieberman advance the resolution was a clever Republican tactic to get Democratic law-makers worried about what their base would think of them, and to reflexively put themselves on the wrong side of an emotionally charged issue. It was only secondarily about getting us closer to war with Iran, and trying to stop war with Iran at the Kyl-Lieberan stage was only jumping the gun, anyway.

    -Rhetoric in the war on terror: You couldn’t link to a single specific thing Hillary said that goes above-and-beyond (in the direction of being stupid) what any other particular Democrat has said. Al Qaeda is a very real enemy who killed almost 3,000 Americans in a murderous attack on September 11, 2001. The people who have been telling us that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist are a bunch of bizarre morons who should never lead anything political, and in all honesty we might be better off if they were all committed to an insane asylum. George Bush and other Republicans should not exploit the war on terror to try to advance their political fortunes or to try to get things done that we don’t need done, and they’re definitely too stupid to be deciding what we should do to fight the war on terror. But any leader who does not acknowledge Al Qaeda is an enemy that needs to be fought is worthless.

  • Swan,

    You know finally it comes down to whether we can win the war on terror, not just the battles, and that requires we face squarely our longer-term challenge of putting the US on the side of dignity and progress and making it clear we do oppose tyranny and violations of human rights.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1233

    Obviously, according to your logic there is nothing “wrong” with this statement. But I wonder, how does a nation go about winning a “war” on a psychological state?

    This is truly priceless: Patriot Act is a good thing…it just makes you look stupid to a lot of people if you don’t support the Patriot Act.

    I wonder how many self-identified liberals and progressives at the Carpetbagger Report would agree with you on the Patriot Act? I’m guessing a minuscule percentage.

    And let’s not forget that the “Patriot” Act has been challenged and continues to face challenges as to its constitutionality.

    As far as AUMF in Iraq is concerned, apparently you think our elected representatives should get a second chance regarding life and death decisions such as war. Hey, that’s your prerogative. I just think that our leaders should be held to a higher standard and demonstrate leadership when making difficult decisions. Just look at where Hillary’s vote on AUMF in Iraq (and that of many other congresscritters’) has gotten us today.

    Personally, I’d like to avoid another Iraq, Vietnam, etc. in the future and that our leaders would demonstrate the judgment and leadership to resist waging unending war and occupation before being elected to office. Call me old-fashioned.

    You’ve shown your true colors, Swan. Thanks.

  • Swan,

    I certainly don’t think the Patriot Act is a good thing.

    In fact, people’s disgust for the Patriot Act, the AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, and advocating fighting the war against terror seem like something more just made up by [JKap] than something that reflects the average Democratic voter… -Swan

    It is probably easy for you to write off criticism of your favored candidate as anonymous woman-hating or pure fantasy, but several regular commenters, some of whom identify as women have made the same arguments.

    Accusing everyone of making up arguments against her or harboring latent misogyny just makes you look consistently foolish.

    To me, your post at 3:04 pm stating that if Clinton “looked just like Angelina Jolie, they’d let her go, but since she has a more typical older woman’s body, it doesn’t slip past the internal sexism radar-” is by far the most sexist post in the entire thread.

    When we are fighting real enemies (Al Qaeda) who want to kill us, it just makes you look stupid to a lot of people if you don’t support the Patriot Act. -Swan

    Are you sure you’re a progressive or a liberal? Sounds a lot like neocon rhetoric there. Someone will always want to kill us. Why should we give up civil liberties because of that? You’re fearmongering.

    A lot of people voted for that. Kerry voted for that. -Swan

    A lot of people do a lot of bad things. That’s a silly argument that does not make her support of it the right decision. Everyone who voted for it was wrong.

    [Kyl-Lieberman] doesn’t authorize an invasion… -Swan

    Yes, it does. Everyone has been over this before, you’re simply not comprehending purposefully ignoring what you read.

    2) Holy crap! This woman went through his KINDERGARTEN records? Is this a woman who can pry her fingers of data mining technology? Would she voluntarily disarm herself of intelligence tools? Does this creep anybody else out besides me? -toowearyforoutrage

    It came from an AP report:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813267/

    Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama’s kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. “He wrote an essay titled, ‘I Want To Become President,'” the teacher said.

    Of course, I find the whole thing suspect, and assume the Darmawan just painting his former student in a good light. Darmawan was approximately 22 when Obama was in kindergarten, and most kindergarten curricula don’t include essays.

  • i think i’m going to live in chad! that comment about punishing hillary for being a woman was just TOO much. guess it’s just me being black, but please remind me of the period is US history when women were lynched, bombed, and used in std testing because they were women. and america is more concerned with punishing hillary for being a woman? and just what was it that the feminist movement fighting for while these things were occurring; was it for more power for white women within a white supremacist system? and that REALLY brought about a greater distribution of equality, opportunity, and justice in this society, didn’t it? tell me, please cause i was born here and have lived here all my life, and ain’t seen it yet, when was it that america -white men, women, and children- accepted afro-americans, or any other minority for that matter, as being their equals? is it that i’m too lazy to see it? or too uneducable?

    so, is it that those who have chosen hillary instead of obama’sare punishing him because he’s black? and, is it only folks who don’t share your perspective that aren’t thinking for themselves, or are you maybe acting out somebody else’s agenda too? last time i checked, the best way to make a difference in the world was to do something yourself, not by transferring that responsibility to someone else by voting. in a way, i’d like to see hillary become president, just to hear all the self-serving rationalizations that are presented when she follows a misguided quasi neo-con policy that she has indicated is her inclination by supporting every hawkish bill sponsored by dick cheney! get y’all excuses ready!

  • Comments are closed.