For the moment, it seems that the question of the Democratic horserace is this: how negative will Hillary Clinton go?
A prominent Clinton campaign adviser tells me that the Hillaryites are worried about the calendar--and worried enough that her attacks on Barack Obama may well get sharper. If--just if--Obama wins in Iowa, this Dem says, the five days between the caucus and the New Hampshire primary might not be enough time for Clinton to derail Obama. Then a nightmare (for Hillary) scenario is possible. Independents and Republicans (who want to hurt Hillary Clinton) turn out to vote for Obama in the New Hampshire open primary. Then the next place truly to stop Obama will be South Carolina on January 26 (a week after the Nevada caucuses). But one word about South Carolina: Oprah. In the Palmetto State, the fight will be for African-American voters. Clinton has done well there so far, according to the polls, and she has racked up critical endorsements from African American leaders in the state. But if the Diva of All Entertainment tours with Obama in South Carolina, she could win the black vote for him. Imagine the impact it might have if she appears at rallies with Obama and simply remarks, "Finally." She wouldn't have to say much more. And if South Carolina falls....
This sort of what-iffing is a sport for the politerati. But it's what campaign planners have to do. "We once thought he had to win Iowa to stay alive," this Clintonite says. "We now think that we might have to win to stay alive." Will the fight get even more nasty as Iowa approaches? "There's still plenty of time for that," this person says. "And that's how things go in politics. There may be no choice."
No doubt, the Obama campaign is gaming out the possibilities and calculating how far to go in slamming Clinton, as is the Edwards camp. Yesterday Edwards, who weeks ago was slashing away at Clinton, disparaged candidate-on-candidate sniping, complaining that such political discourse ignores the problems of real folks. Perhaps he has concluded his best shot is to try to sprint past the carnage created by a Clinton-Obama battle. Given the short space between Iowa and New Hampshire--last time there was eight days in between--there will be no time for any campaign to try a series of different tactics. They will have to be ready to roll on January 4 with whatever strategy they have cooked up for what will likely be the five most intense days in modern political campaigning.
So will Hillary, should she come up short in Iowa, continue to blast away at Obama (or denounce Edwards if he manages a surprise win in Iowa)? A former top Clinton White House official, unaffiliated with any current campaign, points out that one thing that Hillary Clinton does not do well is attack: "She's much better when she's being attacked." This person's advice for Clinton if she happen to lose in Iowa: "She should flirt. She can charm. I've seen her do it. Not like Bill. But she should not get her back up. She should be gracious. She doesn't do sarcasm well. She looked bad when she mocked Obama for saying he had gotten foreign policy experience by being a kid in Indonesia. That's something a surrogate should do, not her. She should resist the urge." Can she? "Well," this former Clintonista says, "that may depend on whether it's a 2-point loss in Iowa or a 5-point loss."
Comments
"She's much better when she's being attacked."
And that makes for a candidate that can play the victim better than the leader.
I think she needs to go positive - who among the candidates will go positive first and rise above the petty attacks will prevail.
Thanks
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 9:27 AM
Clinton helper quits over Obama 'stealth' email
A volunteer coordinator for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has resigned after forwarding a chain email that suggests Barack Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the United States by being elected to its highest office.
Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ and has never been a Muslim.
A hoax email that has been widely circulated suggests Obama is some sort of stealth candidate for Muslims.
Judy Rose, a Clinton coordinator and Democratic Party official in Jones County, Iowa, forwarded it without comment to eight people on November 21. Rose referred requests for comment to one of the recipients, Grace Zimmerman, who serves with her on the Jones County Democratic Central Committee.
Zimmerman today said that Rose sent it to the members of the committee to "show people how dirty politics is" and did not agree with the content of the email.
"Oh heavens no," Zimmerman said in a telephone interview. "She just wanted the people who were concerned with the politics of Jones County to be aware of it."
Zimmerman said the Clinton campaign never talked to Rose about why she sent it but simply demanded her resignation after another recipient decried the email in a post on the liberal blog Daily Kos.
"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said in a statement today.
"A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain email. This was wholly unauthorised and we were totally unaware of it."
According to a release on the Clinton campaign website, Rose is from Anamosa, Iowa, and served on Clinton's Women's Leadership Council.
Obama's advisers said they accept the Clinton campaign's word that they did not authorise the email. Obama told the Waterloo Courier in an interview that Iowa caucus-goers are focused on issues.
"If other folks want to engage in those kinds of small-time tactics then that's their prerogative, but that's not what we're going to focus on," Obama said, according to a transcript provided by his campaign.
The email that Rose forwarded points out that Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim and that Obama lived in Indonesia for part of his childhood.
But other parts of the email are false - Obama attended public and Catholic schools in Indonesia, not a radical Islamic school.
It also is not true that Obama used the Koran instead of the Bible when sworn into office or that he ever "admitted" to being a Muslim.
*****
Oh my, this can’t be good news.
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 9:33 AM
Tomgram: Dilip Hiro, Bush's Losing Iranian Hand
*****
Tom's preface is better than the article - but a good piece either way.
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 11:25 AM
How far?
I guess we'll see.
Posted by: Neil
| December 6, 2007 11:32 AM
New Intelligence Estimate Calls for Credible Diplomatic Option to Extend Iran's Nuclear Weapons Halt
[…]
Time for Diplomacy Is Now
The National Intelligence Estimate finds that Iran "probably would be technically capable of producing enough [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame." The report states that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013 "because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems." The NIE goes on to state that all of the intelligence agencies agree that it could take until after 2015 for Iran to attain a nuclear capability.
Iran hawks argue that attacking Iran yesterday might be too late. The NIE's 3-to-8 year best-case-scenario timeline, grounded in technical expertise, clearly articulates there is no imminent threat from Iran and demonstrates that the time for diplomacy is now. It is now clear why the Iran hawks in the Bush administration spent a year trying to stop this report from seeing the light of day. It blows a devastating hole in any argument for military action.
With the right mixture of diplomatic tools, the National Intelligence Estimate presents an opportunity to break the deadlock for resolving the challenge of Iran's nuclear program without reducing ourselves to the false choice of war or capitulation. The Bush administration should seize upon this opportunity and engage in direct, unconditional negotiations with Iran to resolve all outstanding issues over its nuclear program.
*****
We all know the warmongers will create a new issue, a new condition, something - anything to promote fear and war.
“Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”
~ Aesop (620 BC - 560 BC), The Wolf and the Lamb
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 11:42 AM
I say let the venom fly. She still has too much power, no one can do a better job at stopping her campaign than herself.
Posted by: eyes_open
| December 6, 2007 12:08 PM
Democrats Responsible For Entire Disastrous Bush Administration Reign, Says Rove
Karl Rove today said that George Bush's presidency would have been a great success if Democrats had not forced Bush to make countless numbers of flawed decisions that have led the country down the path toward national disaster.
"We wouldn't have invaded Iraq, we would have saved New Orleans, we would have staffed FEMA," said Rove. "It's all the Democrats' fault."
Rove went on to say that if voters wanted a change from the disastrous Bush years, they'd have to vote Republican. "It's sad how these Democrats mishandled the Bush Presidency."
Rove also blamed Bill Clinton for having "come before" Bush. "It's just awful the way Clinton directly preceded him," said Rove.
Rove went on to blame the flawed policies of the "Democrats' Bush Treasury Department" for the decline of the dollar and the Democrats' "ridiculous love of the subprime mortgage" for the downturn in the economy. "I'm genuinely shocked at how the Dems let this housing bubble expand," he added. "It's too bad the Republican White House and the Republican-contreolled congress couldn't stop the powerful Demcratic juggernaut."
He also blamed Democrats for failing to prevent 9/11. Condi RIce agreed, saying, "Only the Democrats foresaw that planes might be used as weapons. If only they had told us."
The Washington Post and other great American periodicals subsequently reported Rove's remarks, saying that there was a "difference of opinion" about who was in control of the White House, the Congress and the country the past seven years. Republicans claim that it was the Democrats, while Democrats -- perhaps spuriously -- claim that the President and a majority in Congress were Republican during most of that period.
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 12:32 PM
Hardy, Har Har -bad news for 08
War 40, Congress 20
The War is twice as popular as Congress.
Under Democratic leadership, the 110th Congress is the least popular Congress since pollsters began measuring this. Various polls peg the disapproval at various numbers at various times. But one thing doesn’t change: Worst Congress ever.
Democratic apologists say that this is because Congress has failed to end the war. Well, that may explain the low marks on the Democratic end. But the 63 votes so far this year on the war obviously are turning off independents and Republicans.
Let us review. In November, Gallup pegged the Congressional job approval at 20% with 69% disapproval.
In December, Gallup found that 40% of Americans think the Surge is working, 39% say not working.
And while 57% now say going into Iraq was a mistake, 41% say it was not a mistake.
Apparently 69% say electing this Congress was a mistake. Only 20% apparently believe this Congress was not a mistake.
While obviously the questions are slightly different, the pollster is the same: Gallup.
Posted by: LBH
| December 6, 2007 6:22 PM
More bad news for libs
BUSTED
KGO's Bernie Ward Nailed In Child Porn Bust
In a shocking development from San Francisco, longtime liberal talk show host Bernie Ward has apparently been indicted on charges related to child pornography, according to several sources in Baghdad-By-The-Bay.
Posted by: LBH
| December 6, 2007 6:24 PM
Really LBH? Copying a Rush Limbaugh transcript and reformatting to make it look more like an article?
Posted by: eyes_open
| December 6, 2007 8:16 PM
Anatomy of a Turnabout
Why the Bush administration decided to make the new Iran nuclear intelligence public.
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:17 PM ET Dec 5, 2007
The Bush administration decided to release new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) extracts reporting that Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003 at least in part because some officials feared leaks and accusations of a cover-up if the material were kept secret, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
The unexpected release of the new NIE on Monday comes just over a month after retired Adm. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, issued a written order to all agencies under his supervision directing that it would be his office's policy that NIE extracts "should not be published." McConnell's order followed the government's recent publication of declassified extracts of several recent NIEs on contentious issues like the Iraq war and terror threats to the United States. McConnell declared that the "possibility that KJs [key judgments] or other positions [sic] of an estimate will be leaked is not a sufficient reason for preparing unclassified" NIE extracts. The order said that NIE extracts in the future would be declassified only if it could be done in a way that would protect intelligence sources, if the extracts would include a "nearly complete presentation" of the logic behind a declassified intelligence judgment, and if there were "compelling reasons"—such as the need to inform the public or police about looming terror threats—for making the classified analyses public.
*****
The IAEA, the Pentagon and all sixteen intelligence agencies are waging a coup against Crusader Bunnypants and president Cheney.
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 8:44 PM
Countdown Special Comment: The NIE Reflects An “Unhinged, Irrational Chicken Little Of A President”
OMG - KO deserves a medal. A must see.
Posted by: capt
| December 6, 2007 11:29 PM
LBH,
Dropped in just to say hello to you! Not as much time to fart around as the old days.
You get a chance, drop by The Nation....there are some pretty civilized (God-damned) Liberals/Progressives/Commies there one can actually debate and have some laughs with! There's even a lefty Canuck and a righty Aussie regulars.
Posted by: HAPPY
| December 7, 2007 12:05 AM
Military Families Question Iraq War as Support for Bush Slips
Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Kent Fletcher, an Iraq war veteran, says he enthusiastically voted for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, he is a registered Democrat who questions the need for the war, the way it has been managed and the treatment of returning veterans.
``Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat and the culmination of my career was that war and it wasn't necessary,'' says Fletcher, 32, a financial analyst in Bluffton, South Carolina, who served almost 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Fletcher's skepticism about the war reflects a growing disenchantment within the broader military community, long a bastion of support for the Bush administration and Republicans. Among active-duty military, veterans and their families, only 36 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. This compares with an Annenberg survey taken in 2004, one year after the invasion, which showed that 64 percent of service members and their families supported the war.
The views of veterans and their families are now closer in line with overall public sentiment. The poll shows that 32 percent of the general population supports the war.
*****
Seems like the ones making the sacrifices are the ones we should be listening to.
Even the righties no longer support Bunnypants. Well, the honest ones anyway.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 7:18 AM
Military families oppose Bush's war
New poll shows majority want their loved ones home
Military families, long a source of support for wartime Presidents, have had it with George W. Bush's illegal and immoral war in Iraq and want their husbands, wives, sons and daughters brought home before any more die in vain.
A new poll by The Los Angeles Times shows nearly sixty percent of military families don't support Bush's war, believe invading Iraq was a mistake, and want the conflict ended now.
Opposition to the war among families of military personnel is only slightly less than the overwhelming public anger towards Bush's war, the poll found.
Results from the poll adds to the ever-increasing and overwhelming loss support for Bush's failed war from a wide cross-section of Americans. Even die-hard conservative Republicans are distancing themselves from the President and his war which evidence now clearly shows was based on lies and deception.
*****
Only the most mindless Bush supporters continue their support for failed policies and the miserable failure in the WH.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 7:24 AM
White House Quietly Admits Bush Lied About When He Learned That Iran Had Suspended Its Nuclear Program
The White House has quietly admitted that George Bush lied to reporters at a news conference on Tuesday when he said he was not informed by intelligence officials that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been suspended in 2003.
On Tuesday, Bush denied he knew the program had been disbanded when he warned the American people in October that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could unleash World War III. Now, as we reported last night at Pensito Review, Bush press flack Dana Perino confirmed off-camera to reporters that, in fact, Bush learned about the suspension of Iran's weapons program in August.
*****
No biggie, everybody with half a brain knows Bush is a liar - and not even a very good one. Sad that America loses credibility every time Bush opens his mouth.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 7:36 AM
Former CIA Officials: Bush Iran Claims "Preposterous"
Four former CIA officials who provided intelligence information to past presidents described as preposterous President Bush's claim that he was unaware until very recently that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
"It's unbelievable," said Melvin Goodman, who worked for the CIA from 1966 to 1990 and now is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.
Goodman's assessment of Bush's assertions were very similar to those of Larry C. Johnson, who worked at the CIA from 1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1993 served as Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism; Ray McGovern, a former CIA official who gave daily intelligence briefings to George H. W. Bush while he was vice president; and Bruce Riedel, who spent over two decades at both the CIA and National Security Council and is the former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs
*****
Those in the know, know.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 7:46 AM
Webb: No permanent presence without Congress’s consent
Bush recently announced a new, “enduring” occupation of Iraq, to be implemented without Congress’ approval. Today, Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Bob Casey (D-PA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) warned Bush against committing the U.S. to a long-term presence without congressional consent:
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 7:53 AM
Paul Sets Sights on Conquering District’s Ballot Threshold
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may be able to raise record amounts of money online, but his dark-horse campaign is struggling to muster the 300 signatures he needs to get on the primary ballot in the District of Columbia.
In an e-mail message to supporters earlier this week, the Texas congressman wrote that his campaign had only 106 signatures. Calling the situation urgent, he beseeched local backers “to work together for one final push” before the Dec. 11 qualifying deadline.
His plea for help seemed a bit strange for a campaign that has startled the political establishment with its rabid band of supporters and tremendous online fundraising success. In one 24-hour period last month, the Paul campaign raised more than $4 million over the Internet.
But raising money and making headway in early primary states may prove to be an easier challenge than finding enough supportive Republicans in the liberal Democratic stronghold of the District.
According to a September survey by the District’s Board of Elections and Ethics, only 7.7 percent of the city’s voters are registered Republicans.
Still, the Paul campaign is brimming with can-do optimism. “We expect to have no problem,” said Darla Maloney, Paul’s D.C. ballot access coordinator.
The ballot campaign, Maloney said Thursday evening, is now up to 178 signatures and counting.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 8:03 AM
Plame takes on Bush policies in speech
PROVIDENCE — Valerie Plame Wilson, whose cover as a covert CIA agent was famously blown by top Bush administration officials, told a Brown University audience last night she is pleased that the U.S. intelligence community has released an assessment concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons campaign in 2003.
“I’m pleased that they have some gumption and have pushed back” against the Bush administration, which has often pointed to Iraq as a rouge nation that is developing a nuclear arsenal, Plame told a packed house on campus last night .
While the new intelligence report appears likely to make President Bush’s “case for war somewhat more problematic,” Plame said, his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a boon to Iran’s government.
“We have done grave damage with our policies in Iraq,” said Plame. “We’ve taken care of Iran’s enemies — the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.”
*****
A real American heroine.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 8:39 AM
Dan Bartlett Exposes the Reichwingnuttia bloggers as dupes for their cultivated message
That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.“
*****
No wonder the trolls are so weak as to avoid the issues while concerning themselves with personalities.
Pathetic.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 8:59 AM
Electoral vote measure fails to make June ballot
The Republican-backed initiative in California, which could have favored the GOP presidential nominee, did not garner enough financial support.
A proposed initiative that drew national attention for its potential to affect next year's presidential election will not appear on the June ballot, organizers said Thursday.
Republican backers of the measure, which could have tilted the presidential contest toward the GOP nominee by changing how California awards electoral votes, conceded that they were unable to raise sufficient funds.
Sacramento consultant Dave Gilliard, the campaign manager, said that even if a financial angel were to shower the campaign with $1 million, there was not enough time to qualify the measure for June.
"I was surprised that more people that finance these types of efforts didn't step forward," Gilliard said. "We had strong supporters and good supporters but didn't come anywhere close to making the budget."
*****
So little support is a telling thing, eh?
Time to celebrate - the slugs are losing on every front. Nobody wants more of the same - it is time for a change.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 9:12 AM
Bring Them Home
It is increasingly clear that the invasion of Iraq was the worst military miscalculation in US history. It was based on specious connections with the 9/11 terrorists, an assumption that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and, more importantly, it was based on a neoconservative theory that ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq would show the Arabs who was boss and cause Western-friendly democracy to bloom throughout the Mideast.
The American public recognizes the whole thing stinks. It’s time that Democratic leaders face up to it as well.
George W. Bush recklessly ignored the warnings from Arab and Islamic leaders of the dangers of toppling Hussein’s regime. Bush wouldn’t listen to his own father, who stopped the US military drive to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 because he recognized that the chaos after the fall of Saddam could be worse than his brutal but secular regime. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s prediction that the Iraq war would create “a hundred bin Ladens” was, if anything, too optimistic.
The invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the US — and which, it turned out, had no weapons of mass destruction, as UN inspectors tried to tell US officials — was relatively easy. But the occupation has been disastrous, starting with the Bush administration’s decisions to allow mobs to sack everything except the Oil Ministry and oilfields.
Posted by: capt
| December 7, 2007 9:16 AM
Post A Comment