The Daily Five: Late Edition

« The Table: Premiere Edition | Main | On Tom Tancredo »

The Daily Five: Late Edition

19 Dec 2007 08:48 pm

1. Most of the presidential candidates will take only two days off next week. Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd are in Iowa. John McCain raises money in Louisiana. The rest of the field is in New Hampshire.

2. Rudy Giuliani's standing in the polls continues to plummet. A new NBC/WSJ poll shows him tied with Mitt Romney -- hey, Romney is on the rise, nationally. And remember: national polls tend to sample relative to population, so New York, Florida and California are well represented. .... In Iowa, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney by seven points in the new ABC News/Post poll, and is winning three-to-one among weekly churchgoers. The poll shows that Huckabee's personal attributes, his religion and Romney's religion kindled his rise....the smart Jennifer Rubin sees a McCain rise nationally... Ron Paul says he'll keep $500 donation from white supremacist Don Black...apparently, there exists in this world a white supremacist named Ron Black....The Politico's Roger Simon says Thompson lived up to his lazy stereotype, but Thompson campaign calls the column unfair and untrue...

3. So far, no sign of an Al Gore endorsement before the holidays. Spokesperson Kalee Kreider says Gore has no public schedule over the next few weeks......A Hillary Clinton Christmas href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/87.aspx">present... Katie Couric: "Harry Truman said a man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other. Some voters don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?" Barack Obama's answer to this question:

Some of our greatest presidents haven't always been terrific husbands. And some who have been wonderful husbands have been rotten presidents. So i think that other countries have typically taken a little more casual an approach when it comes to the personal lives of elected officials and i think that there has to be some space for privacy. I mean, there are some people who might say that the fact that i indulged in drugs when i was young disqualifies me. I mean, there are a lot of ways that you can apply that kind of morality. What i'm always hopeful of is that people judge our public servants based their passion, their commitment, their ....integrity, how they operate with that public trust.

Here is how Hillary Clinton answered:

Well, i can certainly understand why some people would feel that way and that is their perfect right to do so. But i think that would be a tough standard for most of erican history to be able to meet when we look at people who've made a big difference in our country. I think there's more to someone's honor and integrity and to their public service. I think sometimes we confuse the private and the public in ways that are not necessarily useful. So of course it's a deeply personal matter that i take personally, but i think on the public stage, there are a number of people who have represented our country, led our country, accomplished great achievements on behalf of our country who might have some challenges in their personal life but have made a great contribution.

4. 12 candidates qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, but not Chris Dodd....Christian Science Monitor begins series on religion and politics...

5. Richelieu, the nom de plume of a prominent Republican strategist who has advised at least two presidential candidates, thinks I'm gullible:

The Edwards campaign is trying hard to generate a sense of momentum in Iowa. I recognize a few trusty old dodges, mirrors, and other tricks from the spinmeister's toolbag in their spiel; they are pulling record (even Goldwater-esque) crowds, internal metrics like web visits, sign-ups, bumpersticker hand-outs, and my favorite of all "volunteer calling" all show growing support, etc., etc. (The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder falls hook, line, and sinker for it here .)
I'm more doubtful. It reminds me of Howard Dean's 41,000 committed and identified supporters on the eve of the last Iowa caucus. Still, an Edwards surprise win in Iowa is not impossible. Polls show him in the hunt , and he did well there in the past. He is a good campaigner. Hillary is on the rocks. But it is easy to mistake the final enthusiasm of your supporters, especially if they suspect the end is nigh, for a surge. We'll see what the world looks like right after Christmas.

Meanwhile, my gut tells me the Huckabee surge is fading now in Iowa. It might not be so bad for Romney after all. A narrow loss will look like a comeback after the original Huckabee polling leap knocked Romney's out-of-control expectations back down to earth. Plus, my Iowans tell me the new Romney comparison spots are starting to have an effect.

Comments (44)

Penalties for meth dealing in Arkansas under Governor Huckabee were far greater than the penalties in Massachusetts under Governor Romney. Governor Huckabee carried out the death penalty 18 times, something Governor Romney never had to do. Governor Huckabee is the right man at the right place at the right time! He has pledged not to raise taxes ever, to defend the United States and Israel against Iran and use a military strike if necessary, and to uphold traditional Christian values. GOVERNOR HUCKABEE IS THE NEXT RONALD REAGAN!

Posted by Anand | December 19, 2007 9:33 PM

I don't know whether Edwards is smoke and mirrors in Iowa, and my guess is he's more than that - there. But I really have a hard time understanding what Edwards plans to do afterwards. Even if he wins... what next? The momentum ends days later, because I really can't see him winning New Hampshire.

An Edwards win in Iowa would have an effect on the race, though. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think its a knock-out punch for Obama. But it would produce a tense few days, and a world of pressure on Obama to do well in New Hampshire.

What I can't understand is why Clinton started an Edwards attack today. She benefits almost as much from an Edwards win there as from her win. It was a sorta clean attack - policy differences, though parsed in usual Clinton language. But makes no sense to me.

Posted by Paul | December 19, 2007 10:13 PM

Mike Huckabee is quite simply a modern liberal. He wants to increase taxes. I am all for eliminating the income tax, although I would prefer to replace it with NOTHING, as only one candidate supports, however, Mike Huckabee doesn't want to eliminate the income tax for constitutional reasons, nor reasons of morality or simplicity. He wants it eliminated because of how much easier it will be to raise taxes on everyone with his fair tax.
You start at 23% and by the end of his presidency your at 29%. Oh its only a 6% increase, but look how easy it was.

Mike Huckabee is no ronald reagan, Ronald Reagan undoubtedly is rolling in his grave as we speak.

If Huckabee is nominated, look for the Republicans to stay at home come election time. The Evangelical vote is only about 20% of the Republican party, and by the time of the general even they will have seen right through Huckabee's facade.

Posted by Michael Cathcart | December 19, 2007 10:14 PM

I am convinced now that Mrs. Clinton will win IA, NH, and SC.

The hope that Obama (and we) had has gone. How? Think: Shaheen, Bill/Rose, Bill/Register, Kerrey, etc.

Edwards will crash and burn in NH.

HRC will be the victor on February 5.

But, who will be the biggest loser:

The American Press, led by NYT. They lost courage and cannot compete with the power that brought down the Nixon Presidency. They just cannot understand the power of Clinton Attack Machine.

God save the Queen Hillary.

Posted by eorse | December 19, 2007 10:56 PM

Take a GOOD look at Huckabee and the FairTax - why is the FairTax studies only evaluate incomes up to $200,000? Because the effective tax rate for billionaires under the FairTax is less than 1%. You can buy things of great value all day long without ever buying a new one. Think mansions, land, yachts, valuable coins, stamps, bullion, stocks and bonds - all of which increase his wealth and none of which is taxed. The things that are NEW that the super rich require will be provided them as perquisites by the businesses they control. Think company car, company house, company jet - all of which use our infrastructure and none of which is paid for by the entity using them. Why should Walmart pay for roads and bridges when they can get you to pay for free?
This is another attempt by the liberal media to help hand the nomination to ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we'd like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what's the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn't have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!

Posted by Louis Nardozi | December 19, 2007 10:57 PM

I registered republican just so i could vote for Ron Paul in the primary caucus and I have a feeling i am not alone

Posted by JB | December 19, 2007 11:04 PM

Richelieu is a good Republican. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to run against Edwards in the general, either.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 8:01 AM

"What I can't understand is why Clinton started an Edwards attack today."

What I don't understand is why they waited until it's too late to start going after Edwards.

There are two slots in this race - the Party loyalist slot, which Edwards and Clinton are competing for - and the the independent slot, which Obama has locked up.

Given that beer track always beats wine track, I think your guy is going to have some trouble in February, Paul. I'd love him as Edwards' VP, though.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 8:07 AM

Petey - I got your beer track vs wine track thing. I know... its a concern I have. My only consolation is that Obama is a better candidate, with broader appeal, than Bradley or Tsongas.

I'm not sure I buy the party loyalists versus outsiders dichotomy. I think there's overlapping dynamics at play, with a lot of supporters of both Obama and Edwards sharing the interest not to nominate Clinton thrown into the mix.

Now on to the more interesting thing. That's quite a charge against Clinton, regarding the pregnant mistress story. Is it just a hunch or have you got something tangible to back it up?

I saw that story yesterday (like everyone) and was waiting to see how the media handled it. So far, it seems like no one except Drudge (and the Enquirer of course) has been willing to touch it.

Posted by Paul | December 20, 2007 9:06 AM

"That's quite a charge against Clinton, regarding the pregnant mistress story. Is it just a hunch or have you got something tangible to back it up?"

David Kendall. Roger Altman. Ron Burkle.

Do these names ring any bells?

They're all men with long-standing, very close relationships with the Clintons.

They're also all men with jobs or ownership relationships with the National Enquirer.

Why do three inner-circle Clintonistas have a relationship with a tabloid? And why is that the one tabloid willing to peddle pro-Clinton sleaze?

Team Clinton has made their M.O. quite clear. They can't run on their candidate. They can't run on their agenda. So they're running on sleaze.

It may be the fun part for them, but it's also their only option.

They're a weak campaign. And they're going to go down just as one would expect a Mark Penn campaign to go down, in a sea of stink.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 9:56 AM

Petey -

I sympathize with your position...but those in the know actually believe this story...

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 20, 2007 10:17 AM

"those in the know actually believe this story"

Ah. Those In The Know. Are those the same ones who think Obama is Muslim and Hillary is having a lesbian affair with her assistant?

Whisper all you like.

You may think Democrats are stupid, but we're going to prove you quite wrong in two weeks. Believe it or not, this campaign is going to turn on who can fight for what the Democratic electorate wants, not who is the best slimey Karl Rove mini-me.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 10:28 AM

Go Petey Go

The Edwards surge is real and then the media will have to take him seriously. He ain't Dean and this ain't 2004.

The voters of Iowa will prove me right...

Go Edwards Go

Posted by betty in baltimore | December 20, 2007 11:25 AM

Petey -

Why would the Enquirer just make this story up?

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 20, 2007 1:18 PM

Democrats Against Hillary -

Why do you think using that using that screenname would cover the fact that you're a paid Giuliani staffer?

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 3:06 PM

Petey - okay, but if there isn't anything more than a trail of Clinton supporters, its just one maybe.

Look, I think calling her dirty is an insult to dirt. But look what she's doing now. Whining that the media is unfair toward her - basically because it has been reporting on all her attacks - and now the idiot media is second guessing itself.

Pointing out a guilt-by-association trail will simply look like another attack on her. I think we need to stick to what we know when discussing her below-the-belt tactics.

We know what a former national chair said. We know what former staffers forwarded from their e-mail accounts. We know seven Clinton staffers were kicked off Blue Hampshire for misrepresenting themselves. We know what a prominent endorser recently said. We know Mark Penn's polling company was push polling over the summer (or message testing, as I guess the actual technique used didn't exactly meet the qualifications of push polling). We know she denied passing negative info on Obama to Novak, and that Novak responded with a convincing naming of names column. We know she previously also denied passing the madrassa info to Insight, though we don't have the Novak-like level of confirmation she really did. We know her campaign is registering attack websites.

The problem is when we go after her for something we don't know, her and her supporters will latch onto that one thing as proof that she's being targeted by dirty tricksters. Its a shameless response, but an effective one among people who don't pay attention like those of us who read these blogs everyday.

Posted by Paul | December 20, 2007 6:14 PM

Hello, your site is amazing, i want say : "big thanks!" for you ! But my music site is coolt, too.

Posted by Zflr | January 13, 2008 3:51 AM

Your site is super, thank you !
Regards, http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/member.php?u=68908 ">youporn

Posted by toaivyw | February 17, 2008 8:16 PM

Your site is super, thank you !
Regards, Mike Kalazi

Posted by pornhub | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM

Your site is super, thank you !
Regards, Mike Kalazi

Posted by pornhub | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM

A skazhite - Parizh deystwitelno bolshoy gorod?

Posted by Heralue | February 26, 2008 3:47 AM

Your site is the best of all world, thank you !
Regards, Minendo Kuchevo