The Daily Five: A New Phase

1. ABC News poll of Iowa has Obama at 30%, Clinton at 26% and Edwards at 22%... (change is "within sampling tolerances")...percentage of change voters grow...Obama leads 2-1 on trustworthiness/honesty questions...and Clinton runs third among men.....Obama runs fourth on experience.....Biden and Dodd will be in Iowa on Thanksgiving day...Obama's in NH Tuesday and Wedensday....Edwards returns to NH after Thanksgiving.....Today's edition of the syndicated game show "Family Feud" featured a presidential '08 question: which candidates seem the most presidential? In order: Clinton (39%), Giuliani (22%)....Obama (16%) And in sixth place: Romney for the steal (4%) for the steal.

2. Giuliani campaign plans to unveil more television ads in New Hampshire later this week....plans bus tour in NH this weekend... dismisses 9/11 commissioner Tom Kean Sr.'s endorsement of John McCain by saying: "'There are a lot of Republicans, I'm not going to get all the votes or all the endorsements.''.....McCain plans 7th trip to Iraq over Thanksgiving......Rush Limbaugh predicts that Mike Huckabee could finish second in Iowa but won't get the nomination....CW says that Huckabee's rise helps Giuliani....Romney campaign publicly and privately seethes at National Review Online for printing story suggesting they were behind anti-Romney push-polls....Romney and Giuliani trade cliched sanctuary city/illegal immigration/border security charges...

3. A new phase: Clinton campaign will begin daily, on-the-record rebuttals to everything Barack Obama says...John Edwards's words will be paid attention to occasionally.... A rival campaign aide writes: "Our ID calls are showing softening, with people saying they have increasing doubts about[Hillary's] conviction, etc. not a ton, but significant."

4. A Guide To The Day:

Obama, over the weekend: Clinton's spreading negative info about me, according to Bob Novak. She should be ashamed.

Clinton campaign, over the weekend: Not true, Obama is taking a page from the GOP play book and shouldn't be so naive. Don't play the victim card, Senator.

Clinton, today: Obama lacks experience; the economy is too important to be left to a neophyte; the Republicans are bad and dangerous.

Obama today: I have plenty of experience, Clinton just says "experience" and doesn't back it up, and, oh, by the way, Clinton distorts my policy proposals.

Clinton campaign today: Obama's health care plan wouldn't cover 15M Americans.

RNC interlude: Obama's experience is thin.

RNC interlude: HRC is debating with herself, and she's gonna raise taxes.

Obama campaign today: Clinton is beginning to lose this thing, so she's turning desparate.

Clinton campaign today: How sad. Obama has replaced the politics of hope with the politics of attack.

5. A reader writes: "In light of President Musharraf holding Pakistan's election on Jan. 8, I hope Gardner won't announce that NH will now be in December since NH law prohibits a similar event within 7 days of NH."

).

Comments

LOL...so Clinton will release daily reports on what Obama says?

I wonder...will that create an echo chamber for his policy ideas or will the press bore with her tactics and not cover her daily retorts?

It depends on the press...if a tree (HRC retort) falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a noise?

Posted by G Davis | November 19, 2007 6:15 PM

A wonder if Rudy is going to play up his Itlain-American Roots in an AD in Manchester where there is a lot of people who last name in with a Vowel (Like the Mayors.)

Posted by Paul8148 | November 19, 2007 6:23 PM

maybe Hillary would like to rebut this. almost 20 years after leaving Arkansas she still has her first lady records hidden and claims of them not being ready.
So, Hillary, what are you hiding and how can you back up your so called experience?
http://thepage.time.com/2007/11/19/no-clinton-arkansas-papers-either/

Posted by vwcat | November 19, 2007 6:56 PM

"Clinton campaign will begin daily, on-the-record rebuttals to everything Barack Obama says"

LOL. That's great. If there's anything that American voters love, it's negativity from Hillary Clinton. It doesn't wear thin at all!

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | November 19, 2007 7:53 PM

Lol, G Davis. Or we could ask if Clinton fell in the forest, would she blame her own tripping on Republicans or Obama... or the Department of Defense... or Washington Post style reporters... or MSNBC debate moderators... or...?

Clinton is in danger of becoming the punchline of the campaign season.

Posted by Paul | November 19, 2007 8:39 PM

Sigh. Obama did the right thing over the weekend by knocking down rumors of a rumor before rumors sprouted all over the internet. Plus the Novak piece ran in a Chicago paper, and all his supporters and donors there were in courtesy owed an answer.

But this daily bickering can only weaken both of the Dems' strongest candidates. If I lived in Iowa right now I'd have a serious case of election fatigue....

Posted by Rebecca | November 19, 2007 9:38 PM

A new general election poll of Virginia shows that McCain is the only Republican to destroy Democrats in this once reliable red state. Both Clinton and Obama are very competitive or leading against all other Republicans.

Posted by Daniel | November 19, 2007 11:11 PM

Even if Hillary loses Iowa she still has the Democratic nomination locked up. Iowa is a small, unrepresentative, unimportant state where very few people vote in the caucus.Hillary is leading in every other state.
Obama`a candidacy would be toxic to the Democrats and could result in the Democrats losing all 50 states.
Americans are not going to vote for an inexperienced black with a Muslim name and heritage who belongs to a militant black church whose leader is so controverisal that Obama had to disinvite him to his presidential announcement.

Posted by Reba Shiumansy | November 20, 2007 2:27 AM

A prominent journalist sent me this Email:

"i'm completely baffled by what the obama campaign did yesterday, but i don't think the problem is media manipulation--at least not in this case. that novak item is something reporters would have pretty much ignored (it wasn't in his syndicated column that appears in the wash post, but rather, in this weekend thing he does.) also, political reporters would have thought: what does bob novak know about what goes on inside democratic campaigns? and they would have dismissed it. my own theory, by the way, is not that novak just completely made this up. i've never known him to do that. i think he probably heard some loose talk in the fundraising circles--where everybody is a gossip and tries to pretend they know more than they do--and went with it. that would explain the use of "agents," rather than "operatives" or "strategists" or these other words that reporters usually use when they are talking about genuine insiders."

The fact that Obama would accept the word of Novak shows what a low rent scumbag Obama is.

Posted by Reba Shimansky | November 20, 2007 2:28 AM

The fact that Obama would respond forcefully and clearly to any attempt to smear him shows what a man of strength and integrity he is. You are right, though, Reba, Novak would not just make it up. So if you admit there are rumours, why don't you think Obama should immediately call for full disclosure? To my mind, a person who immediately calls for whoever is making the attacks to come public has clearly nothing to hide. Brilliant move by Obama- only, he doesn't 'make moves'- he is just himself, and that's more than good enough. The traditional Washington players just have no clue how to 'play' this one, and Obama will not be bullied!

Posted by kathy | November 20, 2007 5:22 AM

In late 2003, Kerry was polling in single digits nationally, sometimes even coming behind Al Sharpton. Of course, after Kerry won Iowa, his national numbers surged dramatically, and he eventually won the nomination.

None of that is to say the winner in Iowa this cycle will necessarily win the nomination. But it does demonstrate that the results in Iowa can help to dramatically change voter preference in later states.

Posted by DTM | November 20, 2007 6:53 AM

On the Republican side, DTM outlines the reason why Romney will clinch the nomination. It doesn't matter whether Romney does a lot better or a lot worse than expectations (the media's spin notwithstanding)--he will have WON in Iowa and that's all the majority of the public will notice. Then when he wins in New Hampshire, that's 2 notches he'll have in the win column, which will propel him to win in the third state, and so on. Like Kerry's campaign, people will finally take notice and realize Mitt's the best candidate in the field on either side--able to win the nomination and the general election in '08.

Posted by Rockyspoon | November 20, 2007 7:39 AM

vwcat - maybe Hillary would like to rebut this. almost 20 years after leaving Arkansas she still has her first lady records hidden and claims of them not being ready.
So, Hillary, what are you hiding and how can you back up your so called experience?

Word.

And if only Obambi, the cute little deer, had any real experience of his own, he would be making that argument every day.

"1. What jobs, Board appointments did Hillary get on her own merits and what came to her because she was married to a powerful politician?

2. If being the First Lady of Arkansas and the USA immersed her in executive decision-making, what do the now under wraps records of 8-30 years in the past show of her track record?"

It is a damn shame that the Democrats could not find a candidate who was a strong leader with a demonstrable record of successful executive decision-making. Warner, Vilsap, Napolitano, Rendell, Bloomberg -- where were you!!!

**********************

Rockyspoon - While I agree that early wins will give Romney and maybe Huckabee, Obama great momentum, and show the rest of the country what early state voters who have been paying more attention believe - remember that Kerry proved to be an absolutely awful candidate, the worst sort of lifetime Senate creature.

Romney by far has the best proven executive record - he has been a Church Exec (Bishop) as well as youngest head of a nation's missionary teams, successful exec of NGOs inc the 2002 Olympics rescue effort, a governor who accomplished a lot working with Dems, and regarded as one of the best business execs in the country.
But I want to see a little more. He's smart as hell, looks Presidential, has that resume` - but he comes across as a little to plasticky and he has that Ned Flanders chirpiness and optimism that's fine on occasion but not for each and every mess we are now in where it rubs the wrong way. "Economy plumetting, oil at 100 a barrel, well, golly-gee, I see that as a splendid opportunity to make people even happier in the long-term by a little change". (Baarf!)

But other selections look thin:

1. Hillary looks to be a walking Ptotemkin village of dubious "executive experience" facades, along with dubious supporter claims that she is one of the 10 smartest female lawyers in the country when she revealed in 2005 that she failed the DC Bar exam and kept it secret from everybody but Bill and her parents for 30 years....
But she comes with a retreaded, competent team, inc Bill. But do we help ourselves best with resurrecting people from the past? Think Cheney and Rumsfeld...
2. Ombambi the cute fawn speaks so articulately! But the guy really should have waited and now, assuming he does not become President, jump with no hesitation into the next Illinois gubenatoral race to get his lacking executive experience and show he can turn around the Ryan/Blagejovich mess.
3. Huckabee has Religious Right credentials on abortion and guns, but is also a liberal taxraiser and Open Borders fan.
4. McCain has a reputation for treachery. He is tough on bad guys, but seems to become one himself everytime he goes behind closed doors with Teddy Kennedy and Feingold and emerges with a "special deal".
5. Rudy - A vowel, a verb, and 9/11. Plus, a camp of neocon advisors and a vow to be "Bush-Plus" on military interventions overseas...20 years of public and private scandal and issues with minorities weighed against strong leadership and turning around NYC. And, assumption that the rest of the country just aches for a pushy guy from NYC to run the country.
Too much Il Duce. Reckless, eager for military adventure and my way or the highway on many domestic issues.
6. Biden - A leader, but a plagarizer and hopeless bloviating Senate foghorn, ruined by his years there as badly as Kerry was.
7. Edwards - ugh! Left the Senate after 1 term on learning the voters in NC thought him a phony and were ready to vote him out of office. Tanked the last 3 weeks of the 2004 campaign. Hated as a slick phony by long-time party leaders. In the Democrat Party.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 20, 2007 9:25 AM

Reba -

You are either a crazy person, or on Hillary's staff (very low level, since you don't really seem to understand politics). I'm leaning towards crazy person.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | November 20, 2007 10:08 AM

Clinton is making a mistake. She is playing into the medias a hands who want to circus to cover and will do so with gusto.

She is also playing to Obama. He has said he is different, God help us, but a lot of Democrats have actually bought it (gullible I guess but it is what it is). So if it gets nasty they may decide they want that "different kind of politics."

Clinton should try to stay above the fray and work through surrogates to attack Obama.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | November 20, 2007 10:22 AM

I agree, Reba seems like someone in love with Hillary who is reacting poorly to the latest poll in Iowa. Dismissing Iowa due to it's location and lack of diversity clearly demonstrates her lack of knowledge about the nominating process (or irrational disregard for knowledge she already has when it doesn't suit her cause). And calling him a "low rent scumbag" for responding to a reporter who, although disliked by many, always has a source to back up his article? I really hope this person isn't a democrat, or even an American Citizen.

Posted by Roger | November 20, 2007 1:11 PM