“Well, at Least Edwards and Obama Didn’t Kiss”

Over at RealClearPolitics, Kathleen Parker begins:

“Well, at least they didn't kiss.

“Don't look at me. None other than David ‘Mudcat’ Saunders, Edwards' former rural adviser, came up with the idea when he said Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips ‘to kill this 41-point loss,’ referring to Hillary Clinton's landslide victory Tuesday in the West Virginia primary.

“Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama's front porch and anointed the Illinois senator with snake oil left over from his own campaign.

“As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- and his own anti-poverty initiative, Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

“Enraptured by his own message, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone. He finally relinquished the stage, after describing, yet again, the ‘wall’ that he says divides Americans: ‘There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.’

“There he goes again.”

I’m with Parker in wondering how he with the $400 haircuts can help the one in the suit who bowled 37 in Pennsylvania win over America’s working class.

But let Parker continue:

“Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite coverboys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Fraternal twins of yin and yang, one is the healer, the other a fighter. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to ‘do the Lord's work,’ lately pictured in front of a Christian cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.”

Parker concludes:

“Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton exudes pure brawn, unflinching and steely. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.”

Whew! I’ve a hunch Kathleen Parker has picked up on the outrage of women these days, crystallized by Cynthia Ruccia and Clinton Supporters Count Too.

John Edwards to Drop Out of Presidential Race

AP photo: In South Carolina: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards

Reuters reported this morning that according to a campaign official, John Edwards plans to announce his decision to pull out of the presidential race during a speech in New Orleans at 1 p.m. EST today.

So far, Edwards has not won a primary contest, although when Obama took Iowa, he placed second by a fraction of a percentage point ahead of Clinton. Clinton received only one fewer of the Iowa delegates than Obama and one more than Edwards. In subsequent primaries, Edwards has lagged well behind both Obama and Clinton.

The pundits will all be abuzz now over whether Clinton or Obama will benefit the most from Edwards supporters. I’m thinking it will most likely be an even split whether or not Edwards decides to endorse one of his former rivals.

It’s Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in South Carolina

You can sometimes tell more about a person’s character when they lose a contest than when they win. Barack Obama has still not offered a word of congratulations to Hillary Clinton for taking Nevada and in fact has continued to deny that he lost there.

In contrast to Obama’s poor sportsmanship and evident frustration over the past several days, Hillary Clinton graciously called Obama this evening to congratulate him for his victory in South Carolina where she placed second and John Edwards placed third. Sen. Clinton later released the following written statement:

"I have called Senator Obama to congratulate him and wish him well.

"Thank you to the people of South Carolina who voted today and welcomed me into their homes over the last year. Your stories will stay with me well beyond this campaign and I am grateful for the support so many of you gave to me.

"We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.

"In the days ahead, I'll work to give voice to those who are working harder than ever to be heard. For those who have lost their job or their home or their health care, I will focus on the solutions needed to move this country forward. That's what this election is about. It's about our country, our hopes and dreams. Our families and our future."

As the polls were closing, Sen. Clinton left South Carolina on a flight to Tennessee, one of 24 states holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, when 52 percent of all pledged Democratic delegates and 41 percent of the total Republican Party delegates will be at stake.

The latest national poll average shows Clinton leading Obama by eight points.

Clinton Wins South Carolina Debate; Obama and Edwards Tie for Second

Photo credits: Associated Press

The eruption of Barrack Obama’s frustration in last night’s debate in South Carolina should have surprised no one. He has been noticeably sullen since his loss to Hillary Clinton a few days ago in Nevada. Instead of the customary concession speech, Obama issued a brief statement that withheld any word of congratulation to Sen. Clinton and focused on the allocation of delegates rather than the actual votes.

The media has largely amplified Obama’s sore-loser spin on his loss by including the temporary apportionment of delegates – 13 for Obama; 12 for Clinton - whenever the outcome of the Nevada caucus has been mentioned. Chris Cilizza at least attempted to set the matter straight in The Fix (Washington Post) by quoting Jill Derby, chairwoman of the state party: "The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

It’s telling that the matter of delegates did not come up earlier in the campaign. After Obama’s much trumpeted win in Iowa, he failed to mention the tight delegate spread: Obama, 16; Clinton, 15; and Edwards 14. And Edwards in fact claimed second place with a fraction of a percentage point lead over Clinton and one fewer delegate.

Hillary Clinton could easily have used the apportionment of Iowa delegates to chide Obama for claiming a “big” win in Iowa and to challenge Edwards for claiming second place. But instead of taking the low road, Sen. Clinton has demonstrated far better sportsmanship throughout the campaign than either Obama or Edwards.

Obama and his followers were still refusing to acknowledge Clinton’s Nevada win yesterday morning ahead of the South Carolina debate. And in a preview of his debate performance, Obama attacked Bill Clinton in an ABC interview in response to Clinton’s earlier challenge of Obama’s verifiably inconsistent record on the Iraq War.

I’m one viewer who could easily see that Obama was spoiling for a fight Monday night at the onset of the debate when Hillary Clinton interrupted his rant to remind him that Bill wasn’t there.

That didn’t stop the surly Obama. He continued to assault Sen. Clinton by questioning the honesty and integrity of both her and Bill in ways reminiscent of Obama’s and Edwards’s clumsy personal attacks on Clinton last October during the Philadelphia debate.

This time around, though, Clinton gave as good as she got. Obama was reduced to stammering when she announced with a confident smile that she was proud of Bill’s passionate support of her candidacy. She also mentioned that Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards have been strong supporters of their husbands.

In the exchanges that followed, Obama was forced to waste considerable time explaining and trying to justify apparent glitches in his record, including his relationship with Antonin Rezko, an Obama fundraiser under indictment for corruption charges.

John Edwards jumped into the fray between Clinton and Obama by pressing Obama to explain how and why he avoided an up or down vote by voting present on 130 issues as an Illinois state senator.

When Obama complained that his opponents had combed thousands of his votes as a state senator to find even one to challenge, Edwards nailed him for previously using the same tactics against both him and Sen. Clinton.

Once again, on matters of substance, Sen. Clinton easily surpassed both Obama and Edwards. I’m in complete agreement with Steve Clemons who remarked in today’s Huffington Post:

“I have to go with my own filters, not those of others -- and to me, regardless of who one supported tonight, it's clear that each scored points but that Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none. She hammered Bush on the semi-secret deal he's trying to rig with the Iraqi government to commit American troops and bases indefinitely -- something the others did not mention. She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be.”

Regarding the housing crisis, Clemons noted that Sen. Clinton did not join Obama and Edwards in the false claim that “African-Americans were perniciously targeted by lenders…That's about as untrue as one can imagine. The subprime crisis is an outrage -- but it was a systemic problem -- and everyone who wanted credit got it.”

Clemons credited Clinton with offering the best proposal to assist the ailing economy and for understanding “the problem is not only with homeowners but with the entire financial network.”

After discussing comparisons in the debate of the three’s healthcare plans and commenting on individual foreign policy positions, Clemons concluded that “Hillary Clinton turned in the best performance tonight {Monday}. Then came Barack Obama, and close after though not enough came John Edwards.”

I agree with Clemons that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of Monday night’s debate, but I would give Obama and Edwards a second-place tie.

Clinton Hits the Jackpot in Las Vegas Debate

Candidates Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards sat around a table at the Cashman Center in Las Vegas this evening for a civil and substantive two-hour debate.

In the opening round, Tim Russert failed in several attempts to bait Obama and Clinton on race issues that had arisen in the past few days. The two had earlier declared a truce, which they respected throughout the evening. Obama took the opportunity to acknowledge publicly that both Clinton and Edwards are long-time, dedicated supporters of civil rights.

All three candidates comported themselves well, providing detailed answers to policy questions. Clinton starred when the candidates were given the opportunity to question one another. She asked Obama if he would be willing to co-sponsor legislation to restrain President Bush from making a prolonged commitment of American resources in Iraq, and Obama graciously agreed to help her.

Clinton was obviously the most experienced and well prepared in discussing both foreign policy and domestic concerns. She hit the jackpot for the most presidential performance.

Krugman's Economics 101: Clinton Knows What She’s Talking About; Obama Leans Right

Photo credits: AP

Reminding readers of the potential for a recession, Paul Krugman, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, critiques what the leading candidates have to say about economic policy in his op-ed column in today’s NY Times. Below are abbreviated versions of Krugman’s responses to each candidate's economic proposal (to read his original column, go here):

McCain:

But shouldn’t we worry about a candidate who’s so out of touch that he regards Mr. Bubble {Greenspan}, the man who refused to regulate subprime lending and assured us that there was at most some “froth” in the housing market, as a source of sage advice?

Giulani:

...his answer to the economy’s short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn’t.

Huckabee:

...well, what can you say about a candidate who talks populist while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich?

Romney:

He’s still offering nothing but standard-issue G.O.P. pablum about low taxes and a pro-business environment.

Edwards:

...he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Clinton:

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar {to Edwards’} but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

Obama:

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

Krugman concludes with an appropriate jab at the superficiality of media coverage of the 2008 campaign:

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

The Polls and Pundits Were Wrong: Clinton Defeats Obama in New Hampshire

The polls were nearly unanimous in predicting a double-digit win for Obama over Clinton today in New Hampshire. And if you’re a news junkie like me, you’d heard enough from media pundits to last a lifetime as they shook their heads and made condescending remarks about Clinton for the past 24 hours.

I once relied on PBS’ News Hour for balanced and fair political coverage. Yesterday, I heard Jim Lehrer, with his crooked half smile, sardonically refer to Clinton’s moment of “weakness” in the restaurant when her eyes momentarily welled up as she explained to her listeners that her campaign was not just political, but very personal for her.

You probably wouldn’t understand, Mr. Lehrer, but that was a moment of strength for Hillary Clinton that made winning the New Hampshire primary all the more meaningful. It was a tight race, but Clinton maintained her lead of 3 or 4 percentage points over runner-up Obama throughout the evening with John Edwards remaining 17 points behind in third place. For full New Hampshire primary results, go here.

There was no gloating on Clinton’s part in her victory speech tonight as she mentioned warmly the other candidates and thanked her family members and hundreds of supporters gathered at her campaign headquarters in New Hampshire. But make no mistake. She was clearly charged up for the long road ahead to the presidency where we all know she'll continue to work her heart out for the country she holds dear.

Obama leads in Des Moines Register Iowa poll

The Des Moines Register has announced the results of its latest Iowa poll, which show that "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has widened his lead in Iowa over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards heading into Thursday's nominating caucuses.

"Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucus goers, up from 28 percent in the Register's last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent."

The Register's numbers and its analysis can be found here. And a summary of the most recent poll results in Iowa can be found at RealClearPolitics here and here

According to RealClearPolitics, an average of all polling data for 12/26-12/30 still gives Clinton a 1.6 lead.

Clinton Leads in Aggregate of Latest Iowa Polls

clinton-webcast-hillary

Breaking News: The Des Moine Register will post the results of its latest Iowa poll online at 10:00 pm tonight.

The Los Angeles Times reports an aggregate of the results of the Reuters/Zogby, American Research Group, and McClatchy/MSNBC polls show Clinton with 30% support, Edwards 27% and Obama 26%, a statistical dead heat.

Individual poll results showed:


In the Reuters/Zogby poll, Hillary leads Obama by four points and Edwards by seven points.

The American Research Group's latest poll shows Clinton leading both Obama and Edwards by seven points.

McClatchy/MSNBC differs from the other two polls by showing Edwards, Clinton, and Obama with only a one- or two-point spread.

(The aggregate did not include A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released last week that showed Sen. Hillary Clinton leading in Iowa at 31 percent, followed by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 25 percent and Sen. Barack Obama at 22 percent. The poll was conducted from Dec. 20-23 and Dec. 26-27.)

NY Times/CBS Poll of Voters Shows Startling Results

A nationwide NY Times/CBS telephone poll of 1,028 voters taken from last Wednesday through Sunday provides some startling results, highlighted in an article in today’s NY Times by Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee.

War in Iraq remains the leading issue for voters

“Americans, the poll found, think the economy is bad and getting worse. A vast majority think the country is heading in the wrong direction. More people cite the Iraq war as the most important issue facing the country than cite any other matter, and though 38 percent say the dispatch of extra troops to Iraq this year is working, a majority continue to say that undertaking the war was a mistake.”

Clinton viewed as far more electable than either Obama or Edwards

“Not one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate before in contrast to the Democrats who they say are happier with their field and more settled in their decisions: “For all the problems Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be having holding off her rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire, she remains strong nationally, the poll found. Even after what her aides acknowledge have been two of the roughest months of her candidacy, she is viewed by Democrats as a far more electable presidential nominee than either Senator Barack Obama or John Edwards.”

More Democrats see Clinton rather than Obama as someone who can unite the country

“Not only do substantially more Democratic voters judge her to be ready for the presidency than believe Mr. Obama is prepared for the job, the poll found, but more Democrats also see Mrs. Clinton rather than Mr. Obama as someone who can unite the country.”

Clinton viewed favorably by 68% of Democrats

“More than anything else, the poll underlines sharp differences between the Republican and Democratic electorate in how each views its candidates. Democratic voters, on the whole, see their candidates considerably more favorably than Republicans see theirs.

“Mrs. Clinton is viewed favorably by 68 percent of Democrats, followed by Mr. Obama, viewed favorably by 54 percent. Mr. Edwards is viewed favorably by 36 percent.”

Giuliani viewed favorably by only 41% of Republicans

“On the Republican side, in contrast, Mr. Giuliani is viewed favorably most frequently, and that is by only 41 percent. Senator John McCain is viewed favorably by 37 percent, and Mr. Romney by 36 percent. Mr. Huckabee is viewed favorably by 30 percent, and 60 percent say they do not know enough about him to offer an opinion, suggesting that he may be vulnerable to the kind of attacks that his opponents have already been mounting against him.”

Democrats more committed than Republicans to their choices

“Seventy-six percent of Republican respondents say they could still change their minds about whom to support, compared with 23 percent who say their decision is firm. Among Democrats, 59 percent say they may change their minds, as against 40 percent who say they have made their decision.”

Clinton Reclaims Lead in Iowa

After all of the media uproar and the premature celebration of the extreme left on behalf of Barack Obama’s short-lived three or four point lead in Iowa, you’d think Clinton would at least get front-page coverage for the recent AP-Pew telephone poll results showing her now five points ahead.

The coverage of her success is much more muted than that of Obama, the darling of the extreme left – no screaming headlines for Clinton on the front page of the Huffington Post. But here’s the score from the new AP-Pew poll for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina:

Iowa:
Clinton 31
Obama…26
Edwards 19

New Hampshire
Clinton 38
Obama 19
Edwards 15

South Carolina
Clinton 45
Obama 18
Edwards 10

I believe that means Clinton leads Obama in 49 of the 50 states. Evidently, he's still ahead in Illinois.

On Universal Health Care, Obama Gives Aid and Comfort to the Enemies of Reform

As a former employee of one of the world’s largest insurance companies, I recall sitting in on workplace sessions in which management gave us talking points opposing the latest government-sponsored health insurance program to present to our state legislators. And of course, we were warned of the perils of socialized medicine. As I recall, we were even shown a film negatively portraying medical care under the Canadian system.

Later on, I began receiving notices of regular incremental increases in the cost to employees of our group health insurance at that same company. It’s my understanding that costs for both employees and retirees who opted to continue their group health insurance there have continued to rise.

That’s just one reason why health care coverage has become a major issue among Democratic candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign. In today’s NY Times, Paul Krugman describes how the left wing’s preferred candidate, Barrack Obama, has been resorting to right-wing rhetoric, akin to that of the corporate world, to promote his health care plan over those offered by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards:

“From the beginning,” Krugman says, “advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.”

Krugman continues:

“Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.”

Krugman summarizes:

“What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

“Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.”

That’s all we need this time around when true progressives in America have the opportunity to take back the White House and our country from the agenda of the radical right wing.

A Public Wiser than the Punditry

A week after the Philadelphia debate (watch debate on YouTube from this site) and the media’s hysterical attempts to justify the unrelenting assault endured by Hillary Clinton have somewhat abated.

In the meantime, I’ve cringed at such uninformed remarks by supposedly respected commentators as “Feminist means anti-male.” Since when? Just to set the record straight, the feminist movement has always been about fair and equitable treatment for women, including such mundane issues as equal pay for equal work.

Next on my list have been the pseudo-psychologists throwing around the phrase, “playing victim.” That’s long been a favorite response of conservatives to anyone who dares to complain about blatant discrimination, obvious abusive treatment, or even hate crimes. I fear that Clinton’s critics on both the extreme left and right are now finding the phrase useful.

Incidentally, a friend of mine noted yesterday that of the candidates pressing Clinton about her position on the immigration issue during the debate, not one had the courage to reveal where he stood.

All is not lost, however. Recent polls show the public is a lot wiser than the overeager pundits who predicted that Clinton’s responses during and after the debate jeopardized her frontrunner status.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

And according to staff writers John Cohen and Dan Balz, the latest Washington Post-ABC poll shows Clinton leads the race for the Democratic nomination with 49 percent, followed by Obama at 26 percent. Edwards has 12 percent.”

Cohen and Balz indicate that Clinton's national front-runner status is built on her advantages on several key attributes, all of which may yield dividends in the state-by-state contests. They explain:

Three-quarters of Democrats view Clinton favorably, which is somewhat higher than the results for Obama (67 percent) or Edwards (62 percent). More than twice as many have a "strongly" positive impression of Clinton as have that view of
Edwards. And most of those who would back Clinton in their state's primary or caucus, "strongly" support her.

A majority of Democrats see Clinton as the strongest leader of the three top candidates, and she has the edge over Obama and Edwards as being best on the issues and the closest representative of the party's core values. Notably, given
the increasingly sharp debate among the candidates over foreign policy, Clinton is seen as the best able to handle the situations in Iraq and involving Iran, by margins of better than 2 to 1.

Despite their personal attacks in Philadelphia on Clinton’s character, the poll shows she leads Obama by five points and Edwards by 16 points as the Democratic party’s most honest and trustworthy candidate.

Finally, Cohen and Balz report:

A large and growing lead on "electability" also propels Clinton's candidacy. More than six in 10 Democrats now see her as the candidate who has the best shot at winning next November -- up 19 points from June.

Clinton Ranks First on Issues

Let's put aside for the moment the personal attacks and assorted 'isms regarding the top tier Democratic candidates and focus solely on their policy positions. This graphic in today's Boston Globe shows poll results ranking Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on three critical issues facing the country: Iraq War, economy, and healthcare.

Hillary Leads in Iowa

THOMAS BEAUMONT AND JONATHAN ROOS -- Des Moines Register October 7, 2007

Hillary Clinton has climbed into first place in a new Des Moines Register poll of Iowans expected to participate in the state's Democratic presidential caucuses, with John Edwards and Barack Obama both in striking distance. Read More