How Hillary Wins – Open Advice from Political Night Train

How Hillary Wins Hillary Clinton is down, but not out.  Can she be the next Clinton “Come Back Kid”?  And how does she do it.  Many weeks ago, before the Iowa caucus, Political Night Train set out a strategy whereby Hillary would go negative on John Edwards, rather than Obama.  The strategy was designed to draw off much of Edwards support.  Seems no one in the Clinton campaign took our open advice, and now they long for those delegates that are pledged to Edwards.  Had Clinton gone extremely negative on Edwards, she would now be ahead, may have won a few additional states, could have avoided having Bill Clinton inject the “race” issue in South Carolina.  As a side thought, Bill Clinton’s injection of racism probably did more to damage Hillary personally than any other single event.  Although the Clinton’s are most likely not out-and-out racists, they are perfectly capable of using racism to win an election.  This willingness to use racism went down bad with black leaders, and blacks in general, not to mention whites.  Just when a young generation of whites were willing to go to the polls and say race doesn’t matter, along comes an old fart like Bill Clinton to say race does matter. So how does Hillary win in Texas and Ohio?  Hillary’s last chance, and Political Night Train’s open advice to her campaign is to go negative not on Barack Obama, but on Michelle Obama.  What you say?  Yes, go very negative on Michelle.  Hillary should use herself as an example and say that Michelle would be overly influencing on a Barack Obama administration.  Point out the statements that Michelle has made about whites, especially those ignored by the main stream media during the days in Iowa.  Point out the significant influence the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church has had on Michelle.  Point out that Michelle’s agenda is blacks only, blacks first, at the expense of other minority groups. Hammer over and over again how Michelle would overly influence Barack to put a black agenda ahead of all other issues.  Everything in an Obama administration would be tinged with black overtones.  All as the expense of other minorities.  This strategy would work since Bill Clinton has already introduced the racism issue.  Hillary would have to use her shills, people like James Carville to promote these stories while she stays above the fray.  In other words, Hillary needs to Swift Boat Michelle Obama.  Hillary could even use Michelle’s senior thesis at Princeton against her. 

Hillary Clinton A Bust In Iowa!!!!

As Political Night Train predicted, Hillary Clinton finishes 3rd in Iowa.

Tension in Hillaryland Grows as Plan Goes Awry: Albert R. Hunt

Political Night Train believes the following analysis by Albert Hunt is one of the most revealing about Hillary Clinton.  This is a must read . . . 

Tension in Hillaryland Grows as Plan Goes Awry: Albert R. Hunt By Albert R. HuntDec. 10 (Bloomberg) — To appreciate Hillary Clinton’s fundamental political problem, consider the 11 Democrats from Philadelphia who gathered last week to discuss the U.S. presidential race, almost all of whom would vote for her in a general election. The focus group was moderated by an expert on such forums, Democratic pollster Peter Hart. The participants were informed and enthusiastic about their party’s prospects, had no interest in the Republicans or third-party candidates, and were about equally balanced between front-runners Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. When Hart pushed the group during a two-hour conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, a different picture emerged. Obama, they worried, can’t win the nomination; voters aren’t ready for an African-American president (a point expressed most directly by the two black women participants), and he may not be sufficiently experienced. A couple of victories in Iowa and New Hampshire would cure most of those problems. The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics. Those are a lot tougher to overcome. It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their “boss.” Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton’s experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary. Driven by Polls Candor and authenticity were repeatedly cited. “I don’t feel like I look at her and see someone who’s telling me the whole truth,” says Allison Lowrey, a 30-year-old human- resources consultant. “I’d like to see her approach a problem without the polls” helping her make her decision, says Andrew Alebergo, a 39-year-old tanning-salon operator. Even strong Hillary supporters acknowledge the electorate’s deep-seated concerns. “She is walking a fine tightrope now, because she is such a divisive personality,” says Lynda Connelly, a thoughtful 58-year-old Red Cross manager. She plans to vote for Clinton while fearing that, if elected, “the right- wing noise machine is going to do everything it can to derail her.” This isn’t an anti-Hillary crowd. She gets high marks for her experience, intelligence and toughness; these qualities, they suspect, are what voters demand. Their hopes and dreams, though, are with Obama, 46. If he can dispel misgivings about his electability or experience, the formidable Clinton forces may be powerless. Crying Out for Obama After the session, Hart, who has done scores of these focus groups across America this year and directed major polls, summarized the challenges facing the front-runners. “Obama fits the year in terms of aspirations and hopes,” he says. “When these voters talk about America today, they want a picture that almost cries out for Obama. But post-9/11, these voters may not be willing to take a chance. They need reassurance that Obama will be ready from Day One.” Conversely, Clinton, in trying to get to the top of the mountain, Hart says, “has only looked at one face of the mountain — her experience, the emphasis on strength and toughness. She hasn’t recognized the other side of the mountain; she hasn’t allowed voters to see who she is and her personal dimension.” Evaporating Lead The Clinton camp has similar research; things are tense in Hillaryland these days. Her once-commanding advantage over Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire — the two critical initial contests — is evaporating. She has gotten the worst of recent exchanges over Iran and health care. There are also political strains with her greatest asset and surrogate, Bill Clinton. The former president was quoted last month as saying he had really opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning; he later claimed he was misquoted. Top Clinton campaign officials were privately furious at the former president, saying he had revived the complaint that the Clintons lack credibility, unfairly tarnishing his wife in the process. For his part, the former president, one close associate says, has been bouncing off the walls at the campaign’s ineptitude in the past few weeks. (It is not known if the Clintons shared any of these sentiments with each other). The anxiety being felt by Bill Clinton, America’s most skillful politician, is understandable. Hillary’s campaign is off-balance. Turning Negative After falling behind in the Iowa polls, Senator Clinton, who earlier condemned attacks by other Democrats, turned negative on Obama. Fair enough. Except her attacks were neither focused nor effective. This strategy raised more questions about her than Obama. And her campaign has a near-obsession with what it perceives as a hostile press. They were incensed at a New York Times story that reported skepticism about Hillary’s contention that her proposal to overhaul health care would help a lot more people than the plan of her rival. The best advice to them: Get over it. It’s a good bet that Clinton, encouraged by her husband, is weighing a shakeup, such as bringing in former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta to direct the overall campaign. The question is whether it’s too late and too awkward before those first contests, which are to be held in 3 1/2 weeks. Plan A Failing The Clinton organization had a clear plan A: It envisioned the candidate, as the choice of the party establishment and natural heir to the presidency, to so dominate 2007 that she would be able to corner, not have to capture, the nomination. It worked perfectly for most of the year. The strategy has imploded. In a similar situation, Bill Clinton would have changed plans on a dime — he could have gone from B to E during a rest stop. Hillary has all the strengths cited by those Philadelphia Democrats and much more discipline than her husband. If she can’t adjust and rise to this challenge, however, she may well finish third in the Iowa caucuses and lose to Obama in New Hampshire. In the past 30 years, no candidate has lost both these tests and won the nomination. (Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News.) To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net .

Panic In the Hillary Clinton Camp

 Just as Political Night Train predicted, the Hillary Clinton campaign is sensing a terrible loss in Iowa.  Internal polls show Hillary coming in 3rd, behind Edwards.  Their “crash and burn” plan is to step up the attacks on Obama, but this will only lead to greater loss.  The key is to attack Edwards, draw off his supporters.  A second place finish in New Hampshire, where Hillary has a good organization would spell significant trouble.MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) – Hillary Rodham Clinton’s backup plan if she falters in Iowa can be summed up in two words: New Hampshire.

Clinton’s Democratic team is preparing television ads here criticizing Barack Obama’s health care plan and working to build what campaigns call a firewall. If the Obama presidential campaign ignites in Iowa, she wants to be ready to cool him off in a state where her organization is strong and her support has proven durable.

This past weekend, the Clinton campaign already had volunteers going door-to-door with fliers criticizing Obama on health care, and possible TV ads against him were screened for focus groups.

Advisers to the New York senator acknowledge there’s been uneasiness as Obama has risen in national and several early state polls, including Iowa and New Hampshire. But they insist their master blueprint – emphasizing Clinton’s experience, toughness and ability to withstand Republican attacks – remains sound.

“This is ultimately going to come down to two questions for undecided voters: Which is the Democrat best positioned to win in November, and which one is best qualified to start from the very first day give the country a fresh start,” said Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa Democratic governor who serves as national co-chair of Clinton’s campaign.

Still, with the former first lady locked in a tight three-way contest in Iowa with Illinois Sen. Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, her campaign is working on two tracks: reinforcing her support there while creating a “Plan B” should she come up short in the state’s Jan. 3 leadoff caucuses.

Clinton advisers believe she can survive a loss there to Edwards, who is running well in Iowa but has smaller campaign organizations in the other early-voting states.

Edwards’ campaign, meanwhile, hopes for a repeat of the Howard Dean-Dick Gephardt scuffle in Iowa that resulted in John Kerry’s nomination four years ago. The former North Carolina senator is hanging back and hoping Clinton and Obama destroy each other.

Placing second in Iowa to the well-funded, well-organized Obama, the Clinton people acknowledge, could be a much more severe blow.

That’s why New Hampshire, which crowned Bill Clinton the “comeback kid” when he first ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992, has emerged as a prime target for his wife this time. The state holds its primary Jan. 8, just five days after the Iowa contest.

“The only thing you can do to insulate yourself is to make sure your organization is airtight and to make sure the people who are with you are with you through the end,” said Clinton’s New Hampshire director, Nick Clemons.

To that end, the Clinton campaign ordered focus groups in New Hampshire last weekend to test television ads against Obama on his health care plan, which does not mandate universal coverage as Clinton’s does. Her New Hampshire volunteers have begun going door to door with literature arguing his plan could leave as many as 15 million people uninsured.

Asked Tuesday about the Clinton campaign’s literature, Obama said he hadn’t seen it but believed it was “entirely legitimate” to compare candidates’ positions on health care and other matters.

Hinting at Clinton divisiveness, Obama said of overhauling health care, “The issue really is how are we going to get it done because there are all kinds of 10-point plans out there that are gathering dust on the shelf because no one was able to actually pull the country together to deliver.”

Voters in Iowa received a similar Clinton direct mail piece this week, signed by Vilsack. He and other Clinton strategists reject the notion that such an effort is negative.

“It’s an important distinction, not negative at all. Iowans want everyone covered,” Vilsack said in an interview.

Indeed, Clinton has toned down her sharp criticism of Obama, just days after raising questions about his character and accusing him of peddling “false hope.” Her advisers say she had needed to set the record straight after absorbing months of criticism from her rivals, but they have since concluded her barrage didn’t work.

Even so, Clinton’s tongue-lashing of Obama laid the groundwork for a story line her advisers believe will serve her well over time: that little is known about the young Illinois senator, and that his record bears considerably more scrutiny and vetting.

For her part, Clinton has a very different challenge: winning over voters who believe they know her too well.

With her long record in public life, her advisers are searching for ways to cast her as an agent of change in a political environment where voters – especially Democrats – say they are eager for a new direction. The campaign has sought to reframe the issue, painting Obama as someone who talks about change while Clinton actually makes it happen.

“You’ll see us continue to sharpen the message and illustrate that this is a very serious election,” Clinton’s lead strategist Mark Penn said. “The voters have a choice about who would make the best president, and every time it comes down to that choice, she comes out on top.”

—

First Reactions To Oprah In Iowa

Was it me or was Oprah yelling?

 

She (Oprah) should stick to daytime gab fests instead of stumping for candidates — she is not good at it.

 

Her (Oprah) speech was not as good as the expectations that the campaign had built up.

 

I was left a little disappointed.

 

It also seemed that everyone in the audience was more interested in hearing Oprah and not Michelle or Obama.

 

What a flop! Obama’s speech afterward was so disjointed that I hope people did not watch.

 

For all the hype, I was not impressed. I hope they retool Oprah’s speech or scrap her appearances altogether.

 Are we so culturally degenerate that we need a talk show hostess (Oprah) to tell us who’s best qualified to run this once-great country? ” I am so tired of Politics.” Why then is she (Oprah) involved up to her eyeballs in it?  Good speeches by Michelle Obama, Oprah and Barack himself. As Michelle Obama’s been telling people on the campaign trail, “the game of politics is to make you afraid so you don’t think… We’re asking you, please *don’t* base you votes this time on fear. Base it on hope.”  

Edwards, Hillary,Obama – 3-Way Tie In Iowa

Edwards’ Internal Poll Shows Three-Way TieA new internal poll for the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) shows the race in Iowa a three-way dead heat with just 27 days left before that state’s crucial caucuses.The survey, which was completed by Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman on Wednesday night, shows Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leading among likely caucus participants with 27 percent, followed by Edwards at 24 percent and Sen. Barack Obama with 22 percent. The race is even tighter when only definite caucus participants are included — with Clinton at 26 percent, Edwards at 25 percent and Obama at 23 percent.“When sampling error is taken into account, support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence,” writes Hickman in the polling memo.The poll, which was included as part of an email sent by Edwards Iowa director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon to supporters in the state, is consistent with other recent results. The Post’s own Iowa poll showed Obama leading with 30 percent to Clinton’s 26 percent and Edwards’ 22 percent. The Des Moines Register survey, conducted by highly respected pollster J. Ann Selzer, had Obama at 28 percent to 25 percent for Clinton and 23 percent for Edwards.The conclusion to be drawn from this mass of data is that — in the words of Dan Rather — it is “tight as a tick” in Iowa. As we wrote this morning in the Line, the idea that Iowa is or will be a two-person fight between Clinton and Obama is simply not born out by the available data. While Edwards doesn’t enjoy the level of support he did prior to the entrance of Clinton and Obama, he has maintained a solid and loyal following in the state that seems unlikely to defect from him in the final days of the race.Remember that polling over the next 27 days will show Iowa results all over the map. We urge you — if you haven’t already — to go back and read our discussion of the difficulty of polling the Iowa caucuses.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/edwards_internal_poll_shows_th.html

Why Liberal Women Hate Hillary

They are like her, but they don’t like her.

Such is the curious phenomenon of many educated, professional, liberal women of a certain age when it comes to Hillary Clinton, the Los Angeles Times reports. In fact, upper-middle-class women on the left are “historically her toughest crowd,” the paper reports.

Why is this? The Times offers a handful of possibilities:

1) They’re not as worried about job security as their more blue-collar peers (who are more pro-Clinton), so they feel free to judge the New York Senator as a peer.

2) They’re disgusted by the fact that, while they struggled to break through barriers in the workplace, Clinton hitched her star to her man and followed him to the top.

3) They’re disappointed by her support of the Iraq war and the fact that she has recreated herself as a centrist.

4) Women hold each other to an unrealistic standard.

5) She’s trying to act too much like a man.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/the_skinny/main3588217.shtml

Dick Morris, “Bill Hurts, Not Helps, Hillary’s “Campaign

Once again Dick Morris nails the Clintons in this article where he make the case that Bill’s support for Hillary really hurts Hillary. 

Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316070,00.html

Another Hillary Clinton Plant-gate Story

Another Hillary Plant Sneaks In Under the MSM Radar As wily and wary as we have come to know the media to be, the many members of Team Clinton just keep out-Foxing them (apologies for the mention of the Hellish network). In a great many of the media’s post-game analyses of the Thursday, December 6^th Mitt Romney religion speech, including that of the Associated Press, we are treated to the negative reactions thereto of one Costas Panagopoulos, who is rightly (if only partially) identified as “a political science professor at Fordham University”.Amongst his many analytical stylings on Romney’s effort:“The Romney strategy with the speech appeared to be to try to kill two birds with one stone – to placate voters who are apprehensive about him as a Mormon or as a flip-flopper.  But I am not convinced he was successful in doing either.  At the end of the day, it is very difficult to change voters’ pre-existing beliefs, and it would probably take a much more powerful speech than the one Romney delivered today.”“Make no mistake about it, this was a political speech.  Romney sounded like he is running for pastor-in-chief rather than commander in chief.”And on Tuesday, December 4^th, in an Agence France-Presse story entitled “Caustic Clinton gets tough on Obama”, we have him offering his view on Hillary beginning to bare her fangs in the Donkey primary.  He is most approving of her so doing:“As the polls have been tightening it seems to be it is a reasonable strategy to pursue, especially when you are not far and away the front-runner, as she has been in other places and in national polls.”There is only one little problem with going to this guy for his thoughts on all things either Romney, Republican or Rodham: he is an ex-Hillary Clinton staffer.  How do we know this?  How did we ferret out this subterranean knowledge?  We checked his website’s biography.  Second paragraph, first sentence.We are positively exhausted after the extensive, laborious effort to track down this tidbit.—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2007/12/07/another-hillary-plant-sneaks-under-msm-radar

How Hillary Beats Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, & South Carolina

Hillary is running behind Obama in the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  With the “Oprah Effect” to kick in soon, Hillary runs the risk of coming in 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Some polling data is showing that every time Bill Clinton speaks about himself, Hillary’s numbers go down.  But Hillary’s campaign managers, some of which loath Bill, can’t shut him up.  Bill operates as a totally independent person, outside the constraints of Hillary’s campaign.  Senior campaign managers have been highly successful in cleaning Hillary up, getting her to dress properly, makeup, hair.  They have her highly scripted, to the point that recently Chris Matthews made a special issue of pointing out how when critizing Obama, Hillary constantly looked down to read from prepared text.

So, how does Hillary beat Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?

Hillary must go extremely negative on Edwards, now, this weekend.  If Hillary stays negative on Obama, she runs the risk of going, or seeming to go negative on Oprah, and if that happens, the bottom falls out of Hillary’s election hopes.  Hillary will have to avoid any comment on any of Oprah’s talking points, least she is accused of a cat fight.  Oprah on the other hand can say most anything she wants as she is running for nothing.  Watch Oprah carefully, she won’t criticize Hillary directly, but will agree with those who do, or will support issues that directly conflict Hillary’s positions.

By going extreme negative on Edwards, Hillary may hope to draw off some of his support to herself.  Hillary will also have to out “liberal” Edwards, which means flipping on some of her earlier positions.

Will a loss of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina be the end of Hillary?  No, she can still win the nomination, but it will tarnish her image of front runner.  In fact, she won’t be able to say others are tough on her because she is the front runner, because she won’t be.

Hear Hillary Scream, “Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh NO! It’s Oprah!”

With poll numbers dropping in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, this is NOT what Hillary wants, the “Oprah Effect”.  Political Night Train predicts Hillary loss in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as Oprah sucks up all the oxygen, and the attention of Democratic white women.

Obama is locked in close contests in the three early states with the Democratic front-runner, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and Winfrey, 53, is already having an effect.

Demand in South Carolina forced organizers to move her appearance from an arena that could accommodate 18,000 people to the University of South Carolina’s Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, which seats up to 80,250 people.

Hillary Clinton’s Obama Muslim smear email – Full Text

Here’s The Obama Muslim Smear E-mail Sent Out By The County Chair Volunteering For Hillary

By Greg Sargent – December 5, 2007, 3:13PM

We’ve just obtained a copy of the Obama Muslim smear email — smear-mail? — that the Iowa county chair volunteering for Hillary sent out. Key quotes:

“Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii . When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta.”

And:

“Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.”

Ben Smith notes that one of the people on the chain of this email is a Clinton staffer named Ryan Callanan, who received the email on November 21. It’s unclear what level Callanan occupies or what exactly this means.

The email was sent by someone identified only as “Judy” whose email address begins jcheroke. The Clinton campaign has said they are now asking a volunteer county coordinator to leave the campaign when the email came to light.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/heres_the_obama_smearmail_sent_out_by_the_county_chair_volunteering_for_hillary.php

Why Black Women Prefer Clinton To Obama & Why They Love Bill

 Probably 80% or so of black women support Hillary?  Rather than the mealy reasons listed in the article below, the real reason is think they are re-electing Bill Clinton.  And what did Bill give black women that they don’t get at home?  Respect, that’s what.  And they don’t expect it from Obama.

One of the intriguing stories of Campaign ’08 is the popularity of Hillary Clinton with black women who might be expected to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the first African-American to emerge as a serious contender for a major party presidential nomination.A series of CBS News polls show the New York senator has a 15-point lead over Obama among black women. Other polls have confirmed Clinton’s popularity with African-American women.Overwhelmingly, the most frequently stated reasons women give for favoring Hillary Clinton are that they have positive feelings about her husband and his administration and they think she’s got the best shot of any of the Democrats to win against the Republicans.“Most Black women simply believe Clinton can win,” said former Gore campaign manager and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. “They loved her husband Bill and would like to see ‘a woman elected first'”Obama hopes to find the antidote to Clinton’s less-than-secret weapon – husband Bill – with a boost from talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, who is campaigning for Obama in three early primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.But beating back Bill won’t be easy.As much as African Americans may instinctively roll their eyes in exasperation when they hear Bill Clinton referred to as the “first black president”, it is undeniable he made an emotional connection with black America in a way that no other president has.Sheryl McCarthy is a columnist for USA Today and Newsday who often explores

http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/12078026.html

Bill Clinton Just Doesn’t Get It

Is Bill Clinton biting the MSM hand that supported him and now supports Hillary?  His comments recently seem to make the case.  He went on to say the MSM is ignoring Hillary experience, what as First Lady?  Why doesn’t Bill release Hillary records as First Lady, then we can see the facts regarding her experience.

KEENE, N.H. (AP) – Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates’ public records better, his wife’s presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals. During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can’t understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience—and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. “One percent of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life. No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of the people covering the race think it is (irrelevant),” Clinton said to students at Keene State College. Clinton referenced a study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicated much of the coverage of the race is dominated by daily horse race reporting rather than about policy issues. “Sixty-seven percent of the coverage is pure politics. That stuff has a half life of about 15 seconds. It won’t matter tomorrow. It is very vulnerable to being slanted and rude. And it won’t affect your life,” Clinton said. Clinton also said his wife’s bipartisan work in the Senate proves she can accomplish her campaign’s message of change, and that records matter more than rhetoric. He said that when voters look at records and accomplishments, they will see clear choices between the New York senator and her rivals.

Hillary’s Willy Horton Moment? Soft On Crime, No Feelings for Victims

Hillary, Most Conservative?? I know this comes as a real surprise, Hillary is soft on crime, and now she has stated such.  If elected, she will push for lighter sentencing for many crimes, and make the guidelines retroactive.  This will result in the release of criminals, back on the street.  What, no feelings for the orginal victims?

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Democratic candidates for president were pressed from the left in two events in Iowa Saturday and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton emerged slightly, but noticeably, as the most conservative in the field.

On issues ranging from drug crimes to immigration to relations with Cuba, Clinton took heat from liberal audiences for refusing — on emotionally charged issues — to tell them what they wanted to hear.Her stances could be read as a mark that she, like her husband, is the centrist of the race; or as an attempt to protect herself from Republican attacks in a general election.

One of the Democrats’ rare moments of policy disagreement came at the beginning of the Black and Brown forum Saturday night, the traditional venue for minority issues in Iowa where only 9 percent of citizens are members of minority groups.

Clinton, who said she supports a federal recommendation for shorter sentences for some people caught with crack cocaine, opposed making those shorter sentences retroactive — which could eventually result in the early release of 20,000 people convicted on drug charges.

“In principle I have problems with retroactivity,” she said. “It’s something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well.”

In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.

A Few Random Thoughts from Thomas Sowell

 Those who are looking forward to a second Clinton administration should remember what they say about movies — the sequel is seldom as good as the original. And the original Clinton administration was not all that great. Of all the presidential candidates in both parties, Barack Obama is the best performer on stage. He has the most presence, the most command of his words, the most quietly dramatic style. What he actually says, however, is mostly warmed-over 1960s ideas that have been failing ever since the 1960s.Hillary Clinton’s main claim to the Democratic nomination is that she is invincible. But that claim cannot survive the first primary in which she gets vinced.http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/12/04/random_thoughts?page=1

Hillary Has A Trust Problem! Oh, Really?

Hillary has a very real trust problem, and Robin Gerber, a member of the Gallup Organization and author of “Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way” and the forthcoming novel “Eleanor vs. Ike” blames us, that is, you and me, the public, the voters.  That’s right, we, the public are the reason Hillary has a trust problem, along with all her other character flaws, such as honesty, forthrightness, etc. Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they’re blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It’s not that voters and her opponents think Clinton’s experienced and competent, and they don’t like or trust her. It’s that they think she’s experienced and competent and that’s why they don’t like or trust her. 

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opger045486775dec04,0,7259476.story

First (Liberal) Negative Ad Against Clinton

Well, you knew it was coming.  The liberals hate Hillary.  Seems she’s too conservative for them.  Another surprise, they accuse her of being driven by polls, not convictions.  Well, this just proves it takes a liberal to know a liberal. 

WASHINGTON (AP) – Liberal activists plan to begin airing a television ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa this week, the first non-Republican negative ad aimed at a Democratic presidential candidate. The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions. It planned to introduce the ad Tuesday. Glenn Hurowitz, the group’s president, described the spot as a modest buy that would run on cable only, meaning it won’t be seen as much as ads by Clinton and rival Barack Obama, who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads in the state. Democratic Courage is a political action committee, financed by contributions of no more than $5,000 per person. “We are concerned that she wouldn’t be the best candidate in the general election or the best president because she is so easily bullied by the Republican attack machine,” Hurowitz said. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have all run ads putting Clinton in a negative light. Hurowitz said the group does not plan to endorse any candidate, though he said it may run a negative ad against another Democrat in the field. He would not identify who that would be. He said the extent of the group’s advertising would depend on the amount of donations its first ad generates. Clinton is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa with Obama and John Edwards. The Iowa caucuses are only one month away.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TA9J9O0&show_article=1

Obama – The Grinch That Stole Hillary’s Christmas

 Looks like the Hillary attack machine is going full force against Obama as he gains more and more support and she drops like a rock.  Hillary will go extremely negative over the next several weeks as she first loses ground to Obama, then surprise, she loses ground to Edwards, finishing an awful 3rd in Iowa.  Will Obama steal Hillary’s Christmas? CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) – Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation’s leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.

“So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate,” Clinton said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton retorted, “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.”

Robert Reich: “Hillary is Irresponsible”

The following from a true liberal’s liberal, Robert Reich, former Clinton cabinet member, asking why Hillary is stooping so low.  Reich should know, he took orders from HRC for several years during the Bill Clinton years. 

Monday, December 03, 2007

Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa — especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O’s plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That’s avoiding the issue, and it’s irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. “There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.” Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn’t serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she’s worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html