David Yepsen's Latest Jewel

David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register is developing a real reputation for being Obama's lapdog. He is a far cry from the Yepsen of past caucuses, who provided insights into the development of the campaigns in Iowa. Now, he seems to have made a career of Clinton bashing.

Hoping against hope, his latest column is wrought with one-sided analysis against Clinton. From today's DMR.

Some of my favorite parts of the column:

*In Iowa, Clinton leads the Democratic pack with 29 percent of the vote. That means 71 percent of the likely Democratic caucus-goers in the state want someone else to be their nominee, are undecided or have enough concerns about her not to commit.

True. But it also means that roughly 75 percent have decided that they want a nominee other than Obama, and roughly 80 percent want a nominee other than Edwards. These people have "enough concerns" about Edwards or Obama "not to commit."

*Of those Democrats who've decided on a preference, 53 percent say they could still be persuaded to change their minds. On the Republican side, it's 67 percent.

Of course that omits any reference by Yepsen to the analysis of the most recent Iowa poll from his own paper that indicates that Sen. Clinton's support is the strongest and least likely to change of any of the Democratic candidates.

*But early leads in national polls reflect only name recognition, and these two are well known. If others start winning, or beating expectations in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, those national surveys will shift overnight, thanks to the free media those candidates will receive.

Does any prospective Democratic Iowa caucus voter not know Obama or Edwards? Are they unfamiliar with Obama's "Edwards and Clinton voted for the war but I was against it" schtick? Do any of them not know that Edwards is now a screaming populist? The people of Iowa (bless their hearts) have endured nearly a year of incessant politicking. It seems to me to write off Hillary's Iowa support as coming from dunces who have picked her because they know her name is both incorrect and ungracious. Further, I think it is empirically disproven that Hillary's massive margin will be erased overnight if she loses in Iowa. As evidence, I offer the 1988 GOP caucuses, where George H. W. Bush lost to Bob Dole and then won out. I also offer the 1980 caucuses, where George Bush beat Ronald Reagan. This is not 2004, when we were faced with basically unknown candidates with the same message.

I suspect that Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination for President. I don't know if she is going to win in Iowa or not. She seems to be a bit ahead, but not enought to confidently declare that a victory for Clinton is assured in these caucuses. But, I think that Yepsen's shoddy analysis does a disservice to his Iowa readers. The fact is Hillary could lose the Iowa caucuses and still win nearly every other primary with ease. What David Yepsen isn't telling is readers is that the converse is not true for Obama or Edwards. If they lose in Iowa, it is likely game over for them.

Validation: Rothenberg Opines Edwards not More Electable

The money quote, from tomorrow's Real Clear Politics, which encapsulates what I have been saying about the relative lack of acquantence of voters with Edwards and Obama:

The former North Carolina Senator seems to think that his Southern accent and stories about his father's work in a textile mill and his mother's days as a letter carrier will ingratiate himself with moderate and conservative populists. But after Republicans hammer him for his expensive haircuts, huge home and liberal views, his appeal to swing and socially conservative voters will suffer. For now, Edwards' negatives aren't as high as Clinton's because he hasn't been a national target for more than a dozen years.

Exactly what I have been saying all year. Clinton has (only slightly) higher negatives because she has been the #1 target of the Republican filth machine for nearly two decades, and she is still standing tall. Edwards, Obama and the rest of the lot have not even begun to experience the scrutiny that these people will subject them to if they are nominated. We don't know if they can withstand it. Add into the the mix that Rothenberg presents above Edwards' involvement with hedge funds and forclosures of homes in New Orleans and I imagine that he would lose handily.

John Edwards Suffers Major Setback

After a summer of bad headlines for Sen. Edwards, including haircuts that cost more than a car payment and the hedge fund foreclosures, the most tangible setback of his campaign occurred today: he is going on the dole--taking public money for his campaign.

Clinton and Obama have eschewed public financing because they can raise more money without it and can spend whatever they want in the early primary states. Edwards had previously said that he would also opt to forgo federal matching funds. This reversal represents a reversal of fortune for the Edwards campaign: it doesn't take much reading between the lines to realize that he is saying that he just can't compete against Sens. Clinton and Obama.

John Edwards thought that he could make it a two-person race against Hillary. He didn't count on the strength and fundraising prowess of Barack Obama. I am no Obama fan but it is clear that when it comes to money, he and Hillary Clinton are in a league beyond Edwards.

AP: Edwards to Accept Public Campaign Funds

FOX poll out: Hillary Leading GOP Contenders

FOX News, even with its conservative bent, is showing Hillary Clinton ahead of all of the leading rivals.

LINK to the poll

Clinton is at:
+6 over Guiliani
+13 over Thompson
+7 over McCain

It is worth noting that Obama does not garner numbers nearly as strong as these. Edwards is not polled.

Hillary Continues to Pull Away in New Hampshire

Latest polls show a statistically significant shift in Senator Clinton's direction in New Hampshire. Looks like she put the August recess to good use there.

Franklin Pierce College poll: Hillary at 36%, double her nearest rival.
Rasmussen: 40%- more than double Obama's 17%, and more than Obama and Edwards combined.

The New Hampshire primary is of pivotal importance- it may be her firewall against a loss to Edwards in Iowa. Although, Sen. Clinton's numbers in Iowa are improving dramatically.

So much for those who said she wasn't electable...Democrats seem eager to nominate her.

Movin' On Up: Hillary Pulling Away...

Polls, polls, and more polls over the last few days, and they uniformly paint a bright picture for Sen. Clinton, and a dim picture for Obama/Edwards/rest of the candidates.

CNN - national primary- Clinton 46%, Obama 23%, Edwards 16%

CBS/NYT - roughly the same numbers.

The LA Times is out with new polls in the early three states (IA, NH, SC) which show Clinton climbing. RCP link (LATimes is subscription only).

If Hillary! can pull out a win in Iowa, it's over for the rest of them. If she finished second but wins NH and SC, it's over for the rest of them then too. It's hard to envision a scenario in which she loses this nomination.

Hillary: Changing the Map

Fascinating post at Open Left by Chris Bowers. He has taken the most recent head-to-head general election polls to illustrate the invalidity of the "Hillary is unelectable" point and made an electoral map out of these polls. They show huge gains by Senator Clinton over Kerry and Gore, when she is matched against either of the two GOP frontrunners, Guiliani and Romney. She wins by massive margins.

Guiliani is well known nationally, and Romney is not. Therefore, I think that in the Clinton vs. Romney map, the results, while accurate as of this moment, overstate the eventual electoral outcome. I don't think that Hillary would win, for example, Mississippi & Alabama. Based on long term electoral trends, very early polling, and in the case of Arkansas, past residency, I do think that it is more likely than not that Hillary is likely to flip the following previously red states:

(Based in order of my certainty, which is worth basically nothing)

Arkansas
New Mexico
Iowa
Florida
Nevada
Ohio
Colorado
Virginia
Missouri.

Which is enough to win the general election with scores of electoral votes to spare. I think that Obama or Edwards would probably produce largely the same result with the following differences:

* Neither would carry Arkansas.
* Obama would probably several of these based on his propensity to say things that would be easily exploited by the Republican filth machine.
* Edwards might bring North Carolina into play. He might not, based on his performance as a VP candidate in 2004.

Interesting map, though, based on early polling.

Rove gone!

Karl Rove is leaving the White House. Given that he was up to his rather substantial derriere in the Valerie Plame mess, this is about two years too late.

NYT wrap.


Bill Plante of CBS asked the President a good question at the Rove departure announcement:

"...the solemnity of the moment was shattered by Bill Plante of CBS, who bellowed to Bush: "If he's so smart, how come you lost Congress?" (Fishbowl DC) He was, of course, ignored.

John Edwards issued the best statement of the day: "Goodbye, good riddance." Says it best, I think.

John Edwards in a Hypocrite.

John Edwards took over $800,000 from FOX News employees. This after lambasting another candidate for taking what turns out to be less money from Rupert Murdoch and his employees yesterday. Link to yesterday's story.

It looks like the famed Clinton oppo team is fully operational. The turnaround time on this story was very, very small.

Is this the last flailings of a desperate candidate? He's not even ahead in Iowa anymore. It's now a three way tie.

Different Day, Different Obama Worldview

I am getting dizzy. Last week, Barack Obama was all for meeting with tyrants without preconditions. Yesterday, he was ready to invade Pakistan. Today, he has ruled out using nuclear weapons as commander-in-cheif. This guy would be a dream come true for the Republicans.

Clinton responds to the daily vacillation that is the Obama foreign policy:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Dodd responds, also from ABC:

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. "He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options."

The New York Post's Brookes calls the wisdom of Obama's Pakistan speech into question. Who's Bush - Cheney Lite now?

What with Rupert Murdoch taking over The Wall Street Journal, John Edwards is calling on Hillary Clinton to return the contributions made to her campaign by News Corp officials.

Poll Report

Clinton's lead is expanding. As of today, the Real Clear Politics average for her is the highest it has been all year.

A new Pew Poll out today confirms almost to the number yesterday's NBC / WSJ poll. Also, the most recent Rasmussen tracking poll has almost identical numbers.

The Christian Science Monitor on the GOP race in South Carolina. Interesting read.

The You Tube Debate -- Who Won?

The debate is over. It was an interesting experiment that ultimately, in my view, failed. It is great to have questions from viewers, but the singing rednecks, the talking snowman, the hip-hop No Child Left Behind questioner all were beneath the dignity of a Presidential debate. I hope that when CNN holds its Republican You Tube debate in September, it is a bit more serious. On to the winners / losers:

Winners

*Clinton- As in all the other debates, she was the most Presidential and was very compelling. The Senator's handling of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton question was masterful. It is clear that any foreign policy question that she gets she answers through a general election scope, and is more knowledgeable than any other candidate except Biden. She got more mileage out of the Edelman letter and also made Elizabeth Edwards look petty for her comments last week.

*Biden - I just find Joe Biden awfully well spoken and brave. It is not a popular thing to do in a Democratic debate to throw water on Richardson's "get out now" rhetoric on Iraq, but it is responsible. In fact (again from a general election perspective) Biden and Hillary! are the only candidates who, throughout the primary season, have shown responsibility and measured ideas for exiting Iraq. They are both plausible commanders-in-chief. Biden makes me wistful: what might have been had it not been for that Neil Kinnock ugliness in 1987...

* Edwards - I will begrudgingly admit that John Edwards improved his standing tonight. In fact, his debate performance was just okay until the health care question came about. His answer on that question was fantastic. His frustration was, I am sure, contrived. His well-known financial security makes any personal concerns about health care remote for him. All of that aside, it was compelling and for perhaps the second time in five years of watching John Edwards, I was moved by something he said. Usually he gives me the creeps.

Losers

Obama - I know that we are six months from the Iowa caucuses. I know that a lot can happen between now and January. I know that he is the great hope of the nation (note the sarcasm), but Obama needs to make a break if he is to stop the increasingly inevitable Clinton nomination. He does attack her a bit, but it is too nuanced for it to make any impact at all. His debate performance tonight was about the same as the others-- just okay. He also needs to start speaking with some specificity about something -- anything. His buzzwords are tired. "Fighting cyncism," "hope," "fundamentally changing Washington" are just words. Without a plan of action, they do not a platform make.

We learned that he is against the war, against deficits, against underinsurance, and is against- gasp!- child molestation. What a marvel! Somebody please rewrite Profiles in Courage! The more of Obama I see, the more embarrassed I am that he is going to even be perhaps the silver medalist in this contest. He simply is not qualified- period. With greater exposure, the more it shows. Hillary made him look foolish for his answer on diplomacy with Iran and Syria. Oh, and ABC caught him exaggerating. LINK

Richardson - He wants to be in the top tier so badly. In the debates, he looks unprepared, ill-informed and uncomfortable. He was borderline inarticulate at times. Senator Biden made him look dangerously ill-informed on his Iraq withdrawal "plan." The Richardson "plan" (essentially to run ripshod out of Iraq in six months with no residual troops) would cost lives both because of the rapidity of the withdrawal and because of the lack of protection for American civilians remaining. Richardson seemed not to have considered this, where a commander-in-chief would have. That is Richardson's problem right now--he appears to be not *quite* President material.

UPDATE: 11:09 PM - The reaction from the debate has begun to flow in:

Hillary wins the InstaPoll from SurveyUSA. Link (And has favorables 10% higher than Obama).

John Edwards hated Hillary's jacket, and says so.

Um, and Mitt Romney had this to say. I really hope that the Republicans nominate this moron. I'm thinking 40 state landslide for Democrats if they do.