The Daily Five: Shea-Porter Endorsing Obama?

1. CBS/NYT poll will be released at 6:30 pm ET....Tomorrow, Mitt Romney, Ann Romney campaign in Iowa. Tagg Romney campaigns in Michigan. Mike Huckabee campaigns in Western Iowa and then Des Moines. John Edwards continues his bus tour. Bill Clinton stumps for his wife in Iowa. Barack Obama has events out west; he'll start a 5-day bus tour on Friday. Fred Thompson plans a single public event in Iowa after Wednesday's DMR debate.

2. Hillary Clinton launches "New Beginning" ad in Nevada; Obama is already on the air in the state. Edwards adviser Jonathan Prince says the campaign budgeted for January with the notion that the FEC would not allow $4.3M in bundled Act Blue contributions to be applied to Edwards's matching funds total.....Emma Jack and Claire will join their father on his bus tour at some point...generally pro-Clinton blogger Jane Hamsher upset at HRC's support for review of video game ratings after ManHunt 2 receives "M" rating....

3. Giuliani spends most of the week raising money in anticipation of expensive January....Mike Huckabee has two new ads in rotation...his Iowa ad focuses on immigration enforcement...accuracy of Giuliani's latest ad is called into question...Huckabee campaign hints at a major Iowa endorsement tomorrow...The line is drawn? Huckabee refuses to release the text of his sermons...

4. A rival campaign estimates that Romney's campaign has purchased 17,000 gross ratings points worth of television ads nationwide since he launched his campaign...

5. The New Hampshire Union Leader's breaking news alert has Rep. Carol Shea-Porter endorsing Sen. Barack Obama tomorrow...

Comments

5. The New Hampshire Union Leader's breaking news alert has Rep. Carol Shea-Porter endorsing Sen. Barack Obama tomorrow...

Relatively big "get" ...although ultimately, anything that happens in New Hampshire must be placed in the context that the results of the Iowa caucuses will change the New Hampshire polling dramatically overnight.

Posted by dry_fish | December 10, 2007 5:19 PM

"Relatively big "get" ...although ultimately, anything that happens in New Hampshire must be placed in the context that the results of the Iowa caucuses will change the New Hampshire polling dramatically overnight."

You are correct on both points here, dry_fish.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 5:20 PM

Shea-Porter is the biggest "get" left in NH, and she certainly brings a powerful grassroots operation to the table - one not born of the NH Democratic Party establishment, but out of the 2004 remains of Dean and Clark. Hillary really wanted her support too - wining and dining her in Portsmouth w/the Shaheens this past summer.

Yet another example of why Hillary MUST win Iowa now ... any notion of a "fire wall" for her in NH is now absolutely kaput. Momentum is a powerful thing and Obama owns it heading into the holidays.

Posted by Manchester United | December 10, 2007 5:34 PM

Petey, what are the chances that some combTeam Clinton coercesnvinces Jeanne Shaheen to come off the sidelines and publically endorse? Of course, it's assumed that Bill Shaheen's endorsement of Clinton is a stand-in for Gov. Shaheen. Still, it's pretty hard to make the "make history" argument when neither NH's first woman congressman nor governor openly supports you.

Posted by dry_fish | December 10, 2007 5:49 PM

REPOST w/ edit:

Petey, what are the chances that some combination of Team Clinton and Emily's List coerces/convinces Jeanne Shaheen to come off the sidelines and publically endorse? Of course, it's assumed that Bill Shaheen's endorsement of Clinton is a stand-in for Gov. Shaheen. Still, it's pretty hard to make the "make history" argument when neither NH's first woman congressman nor governor openly supports you.

Posted by dry_fish | December 10, 2007 5:51 PM

Obama now has both NH reps.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 10, 2007 5:53 PM

wow! the preacher is afraid to release his sermons?! what in the world? republicans can not trust his sermons?!

Posted by jimrob | December 10, 2007 6:03 PM

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, CA is also going to endorse Obama.

Also heard yesterday on the Chris Matthews show from a reporter for the Washington Post that Obama is picking up some big DNC endorsements from the western states. I wonder who?

He's on a roll. A reporter on Tucker just said that the Clintons are really worried. Sorry, no coronation.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | December 10, 2007 6:16 PM

In non-presidential news that could interest readers here, a new poll from Alaska has both Republican incumbents up for re-election next year (Senator Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young) trailing their Democratic challengers -- which is really a stunning finding.

Posted by Dan | December 10, 2007 6:47 PM

Sorry I posted the wrong link, I meant here for the AK poll.

Posted by Dan | December 10, 2007 6:50 PM

Actually, I'm impressed by Obama's movement in New Hampshire than Iowa. Iowa is too hard to figure out, so who knows who leads there? Who knows if momentum there is real, or something that will succumb to caucus math that my liberal arts background won't allow me to comprehend?

New Hampshire has those independents, but its a little more straightforward in terms of understanding what's happening on the ground. Obama is moving one way and Clinton the other, at a great time for Obama.

I'll throw this out to the crowd. Is it possible that Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire then becomes Obama's firewall? Then assuming the press ignores Nevada, South Carolina becomes the big momentum provider?

Seems to me that New Hampshire seems to have a long history of ignoring Iowa results. In fact, there may even be a renegade instinct to go another way.

Posted by Paul | December 10, 2007 7:52 PM

Of all the valid reasons for opposing Clinton's nomination, a supporter takes exception over the issue of video game ratings? Huh.

Posted by Paul | December 10, 2007 8:35 PM

Paul,

No way. If either Barack or Edwards don't win in Iowa, they both can throw in the towel. Barack has to become "electable" for all of this momentum to mean anything. However, you are dead on that New Hampshire will likely fall if Barack has a convincing win in Iowa. Couple that with SC, and an Iowa flop would mark the end of Hillary's campaign.

Posted by Chris Stewart | December 10, 2007 8:40 PM

Yes, NH is very significant. Looks like Obama can easily take NH if he takes Iowa. And SC is looking very good for him as well. If he takes all those three that may be the end of it for the Hillary machine. There will be way too much momemtum. Time to give it up Hillbots -- you are all wasting your time, effort and money.

Posted by Bob | December 10, 2007 8:42 PM

I agree that Edwards need to win, and probably can't survive winning by just a couple points. But if Obama can finish second and within five points or so, I think New Hampshire and South Carolina is still in play for him.

When you get outside of the 20 percent who really want Hillary (my guess is because in their minds nothing would cause more Republican strokes, but that's another story), there isn't a big rush to nominate her. I think other Democrats might be willing to go further than you think to rationalize a race going into tsunami Tuesday.

Remember the national polls are tightening a little. The Iowa-or-bust sentiment was born when she had a 25-30 point lead everywhere else, and then the Iowa winner would try to ride that momentum to the next one, etc.

If its within single digits in a lot of states come the first week of January, I think we're looking at a more traditional set of early contests, where the only mandate is don't lose any too badly.

Okay, sorry for the long post, but I like being outside of conventional wisdom.

Posted by Paul | December 10, 2007 9:57 PM

Obama has momentum, but Edwards will close well in Iowa. It is time to make the case for a white male for president. Obama and Hillary have been making the case that a black and a woman would be good for America.

How about the case that a likable white male might be of value at this time in our country? We have some serious concerns, and perhaps getting a black or a woman as president, while benefical, is not the most important thing.

We need someone who can lead, and not have his race or gender as a handicap.

Posted by Oscar | December 10, 2007 11:01 PM

I can gurantee the Edwards campaign had nothing to do with Oscar's comment. As a longtime Edwards supporter, I categorically reject that argument and suspect it actually came from one of the other two campaigns.

Posted by drfranklives | December 10, 2007 11:05 PM

Hi, everyone! Just want to say, that everyone of the comments here, is among the most insightful I have read, anywhere on the 2008 Presidential campaign. Your informed comments and discussion are very important to our democratic participation.

Kudos to you all!!

Posted by Ignatius Anyanwu | December 10, 2007 11:22 PM

"Petey, what are the chances that some combination of Team Clinton and Emily's List coerces/convinces Jeanne Shaheen to come off the sidelines and publically endorse? Of course, it's assumed that Bill Shaheen's endorsement of Clinton is a stand-in for Gov. Shaheen. Still, it's pretty hard to make the "make history" argument when neither NH's first woman congressman nor governor openly supports you."

I assume Shaheen will officially stay neutral while unofficially working for HRC. It's the same tried and true trick that the Vlisacks employed in Iowa in '00 and '04.

Why should Shaheen make herself more of a target if she can have a similar effect by officially foisting the support off on her spouse?

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 1:53 AM

The Obama Kool-Aid is definitely intoxicating. Just don't cry too much on Jan. 4.

Posted by cd | December 11, 2007 5:51 AM

"We need someone who can lead, and not have his race or gender as a handicap."

CHRIS YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE WHITE MALE SUPREMACIST mentality still--wake up and realize that the world is changing. I'm very irritated by reffering a female--as a handicap--now are all my children handicap?what about african americans?are they handicaps?just because these groups have been opressed for a long time does not mean they are handicaps-
Dude wake up

Posted by John | December 11, 2007 8:36 AM

drfranklives: as a committed Obama supporter and 25-hour per/week campaign volunteer, I want to join you in denouncing Oscar's ridiculous post. While every campaign has it's "crazies," I know that comment does NOT reflect the values of the vast majority of Edwards supporters. I'm sure you'll agree that the same goes for us Obama folks. I have my reasons for supporting Obama over Edwards, but if for any reason this country elected John Edwards, you will find me dancing in the streets of Washington in January 2009.

I can't help myself but to add: I most definitely WON'T be doing any dancing if we elect Hillary.

Posted by John | December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

Also wanted to add my thoughts on how the race is shaping up:

If Barack takes Iowa, NH, and SC--something that's entirely possible--both campaigns will focus the vast majority of their resources on one state: California. CA represents 1/3 of the delegates that are up fotr grabs on Feb 5, and Obama and Clinton are both already building substantial operations in the state.

If you look at the Feb 5 states, and the number of delegates for each state, you see that CA is the logical place for a real showdown.

Posted by jOHN | December 11, 2007 2:51 PM

For info on the Iowa Caucus:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/

Posted by Skyridge | December 12, 2007 12:55 AM