Blog @ MoreWhat.com

It would be fair to say that Barack Obama has stage presence. He is stronger at making prepared statements and speeches than he is at competing in public debates. While Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably the leader on closet skeletons, it is likely that Obama and Edwards have some as well. Don’t we all? But we all don’t have Hillary Rodham Clinton claiming she has a career ender for us in her arsenal. Obama does. The question is does she really have something on him or not? But that’s another matter for another time.

Frequently the voting base subset of ‘women’ is touted to be owned by Clinton. That may be more true for her husband than her. It is also reported from time to time that HRC’s campaign has focused on shoring up the women’s vote. Just by virtue of gender you might think that shouldn’t be necessary. But one report today indicates another voter subset, ‘blue collar’ women are for Hillary Clinton. Yet another features this:

Michelle Obama urges black women to support her husband

Does that mean Michelle does not want other women to vote for her husband or that other women will but she is concerned about black women voting for her husband? If you would think that women voters would vote for Hillary Clinton on a gender match, would you think that black voters would vote for Barack Obama on a racial match? It is interesting that politically motivated rhetoric renders support of amnesty for illegal aliens as an American ideal and not supporting the troops in pursuit of victory as an equally pro-American position. For liberal candidates who often speak of America with patriotic overtones and the need to ‘come together’ like a rerun of a Beatle’s song, slicing up the electorate may be good campaign strategy but what does it really tell you about the candidates?

`It would be logical for a white voter to expect that Barack Obama may spend more time pursuing legislation and policy that favors black Americans than other racial or ethnic groups. It may not be true and it may not even be fair. But when you see a report that Michelle Obama is urging black women to vote for her husband it has to make you wonder about what candidates are doing. Maybe this is the true equalizer about race and ethnicity in our nation. The fact that when it comes to politics all men (and women) are created equal. They are all equally the target of candidates and after the vote the concerns about voters are returned to the back burner. A fate executed by all candidates after election whether they be Democrat, Republican or any other.

Specifically for Obama, while the criticism from Clinton that he is naive and irresponsible in foreign affairs or elsewhere, his headline below does no better than to play into Clinton’s earlier criticism.

Obama foreign policy views based on family experience

Just living somewhere and experiencing culture and the daily life among locals in another country does not qualify as foreign affairs experience any more than Clinton residing in the White House as First Lady. It can be argued that one person who has foreign affairs experience has the last name Rice or Powell. And even the relatively brief time that both people have held the Office of Secretary of State, their experience could be viewed as far exceeding that of either Clinton or Obama. Foreign affairs experience is gathered in few places outside the White House or the State Department. Perhaps all Presidential candidates should concede they are extremely limited in that capacity and move on to matters they can speak to.

McCain and Thompson dwarf the experience of Clinton, Obama and Edwards as Senators. Romney and Giuliani dwarf the three Dems on leadership and administrative experience. The three leading Democratic contenders for the 2008 race have something in common. Essentially they are all rookies doing well in the early stages of a Presidential campaign. Perhaps the only reason they are doing that well is that within the Democratic party ranks they are the best they had to offer and no others are available with adequate experience.

Sometimes a candidate’s failed attempt to get elected serves as the seed to combine with more experience years later and a subsequent successful run for the same office. We should be viewing the Democratic candidates in that light. But then, that is all the Democratic party has to offer and one of them will be their nominee. Predicting the outcome whether you lean left or right is probably a fool’s mission. Sure, one of the candidates in the 2008 race, barring some unlikely turn of events, will be our next President. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, one of them will win.

Obama’s recent advance on Clinton’s lead and Huckabee’s mirrored experience in Iowa within the GOP ranks tell you one thing. This race is a long way from over. We are nearing the first real votes and the polling trends are shifting. That may only indicate that more people are starting to pay attention. If the first, second and third among both Dems and the GOP are close together after Iowa and New Hampshire this will get interesting. Here are two possible outcomes in Iowa you may want to consider. Either Edwards and Romney or Obama and Huckabee would really stir things up.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook } Conservative Blog

Maybe a little trip through the news and commentary offered around the net will provide some illumination on the likely fate of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her continued pursuit of political power. The first offering is from NJ Voices, Murray Sabrin at NJ.com.

Hillary Clinton’s downfall?
Posted by Murray Sabrin
November 23, 2007 10:13AM

Senator Hillary Clinton has been leading in the national polls as well as in Iowa and in New Hampshire against her two main rivals, Senator Obama and former senator John Edwards, for the Democrat presidential nomination. However, in the latest ABC/ Washington Post poll Obama leads in Iowa with 30%, Clinton follows with 26% and Edwards comes in at 22%. In other words, Clinton could finish third in Iowa.

And, if an Obama win in Iowa turns into the Big Mo going into the New Hampshire primary a week later, where Clinton now has a huge lead over Obama, 36% to 22%, the “invincibility” of a Clinton presidential nomination, let alone a Clinton nomination, will be in serious jeopardy.

There are many comparisons to relative positions of candidates in the polls between the current campaign and past events. While all the pundits, polling, predictions and forecasts are of limited usefulness, Robert Novak who broke the story that the Clinton campaign has campaign ending dirt on Obama indicated on Hannity and Colmes his belief that the Clinton campaign is worried about their chances with Obama coming up in the polls and Iowa not looking like the done deal they had expected. Similarly, Sabrin above suggests Clinton is essentially running two campaigns with one about the caucus/primary elections and the other about the general. That fits with earlier assessments that Clinton’s lead in the national polls and supporters touting her as the default nominee had her campaigning like a nominee by her carefully scripted, choreographed appearances right through the softball CNN debate and planted questions in Iowa. Even with all the help from the media, Clinton still managed to stumble on a simple debate question about supplying illegals with driver’s licenses and lying about something as simple as tipping a waitress.

But one must still keep in mind the notions surrounding stories earlier in the year suggesting the possible outcomes of the election with the various Dem candidates facing off against the GOP field. Some said while the GOP makes a lot of noise about Hillary Rodham Clinton they truly prefer to face her in the general. The reason given was with her history, mounting an opposition campaign would be much more effective. With Obama and Edwards having less history and less to attack the outcome favored the GOP with HRC as the Dems nominee.

Since the party elite of the Democrats anointed Senator John Kerry even though Senator Edwards was showing real strength at the time, perhaps the Dems will play into the GOP strategy by anointing HRC as their 2008 choice and hand the Republicans another Presidential victory like the last time.

Stay tuned, more news and commentary in the next post.

Looking back at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s criticism of Barack Obama as naive and irresponsible, the statement should be left on the table while everyone considers recent actions by the former First Lady. Her campaign finance irregularities are as bad as those of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff yet few if any in the liberal ranks will press the issue as they would if she were a Republican. Jefferson’s $90K in the freezer is evidence of that.

Promoting a transparent remake or sequel to her failed health care idea more than a decade ago is as irresponsible as anything with which she accuses Obama. Add to that her lame energy and education policies and a manic attachment to the fringe left with a global warming panic and this self-proclaimed centrist earns her socialist moniker.

But for Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards inventing villains and feeding on their campaign designed victims is not enough. Perhaps the stress of a longer than usual campaign season is beginning to crumble their plans. Lately, HRC can’t find enough gaffes to fill a day on the trail with the TipGate and QuestionGate to follow ChinaGate and TravelGate. So the planted questions story now has Clinton and Edwards feeding on each others carcasses and looking all the naive and irresponsible which she accused Obama of being.

‘Planted’ questions: Edwards compares Clinton to Bush; she says it won’t happen again

Clinton The news — and now confirmation — about instances when the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions” (as The New York Times rather cautiously puts it this morning) has opened up another round of sharp words with one of her Democratic contenders.

As our Gannett colleagues at the Des Moines Register write:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was acting like President Bush’s when it recently planted a softball question from an Iowa audience member, rival Democratic candidate John Edwards said Sunday.

Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In a sign of the increasingly bitter feud between the leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Monday accused John Edwards of acting like President Bush and dividing Democrats.

A student says she was told what to ask during a Clinton event in Newton, Iowa.

On Saturday, Edwards, while campaigning in Iowa, criticized the Clinton camp for planting a question in the audience, saying the practice is “what George Bush does.”

“George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor,” the former senator from North Carolina said.

But it is Edwards who is acting more like the sitting Republican president, the Clinton camp says.

“What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said Monday. “Sen. Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

This sort of behavior is problematic for the Democrats and is present throughout the party. Their strategy to attack the Bush Administration, appeal to the fringe left by condemning the military, maverick missions to appease state sponsors of terrorism and generally characterizing all conservatives or Republicans as evil is as complete a failure as one could imagine.

The Congressional majority owned by the Democrats since the November 2006 midterm elections has once again delivered proof that their party is not capable of leading a scavenger hunt much less a government. Their giddiness at winning the last Congressional majority omitted any consideration that one has to actually bring forward sensible initiatives to perform adequately in politics and have any chance of success.

This post ends with an excerpt from a WaPo item.

The Can’t-Win Democratic Congress
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it’s like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party’s presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton– who has been in Washington since her husband’s election as president in 1992 — is to criticize politics as usual.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Perhaps in politics former Senator John Edwards is a slow learner as a Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008. After launching a 2004 Presidential campaign you might think he would have some experience to go along with his wealth.  Perhaps not standing his ground as a Presidential candidate in 04 and playing second fiddle to the party elite’s choice of John Kerry for President all but cast Edward’s fate for becoming a contender.

At this stage in the 2008 campaign and looking back several months at least, Edwards taking a late cue from Obama to attack fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is more rookie talent surfacing.  The only one Clinton is fooling by running the nominee campaign before there is one would be Edwards.  More on this is in an AP report.

“This corruption did not begin yesterday — and it did not even begin with George Bush, although Lord knows it’s been present while George Bush has been president,” the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in a speech at St. Anselm College. “It has been building for decades until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.”

“Senator Clinton’s road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington,” he said. “And history tells us that when that bus stops there, it is the middle class that loses.”

Takes a lot of nerve to criticize fellow Democrats the way Edwards does.  From his questioned modest roots to his poverty tour not to mention the difficult to prove trial lawyer fighting for little guy mission, Edwards recently demanded his alma mater scrap a video report to be aired tonite that can be found on YouTube.  His campaign claims the video piece for a local program misrepresents the story on him.  Ya, okay John, whatever you say.  After all, you’re the lalawyer.  Who could argue with that?

RALEIGH, N.C. - A University of North Carolina professor said Friday that John Edwards’ campaign demanded that he pull a student reporter’s television story that focused on the upscale location of the campaign’s headquarters.

So what are they misrepresenting Mr Edwards?  Could it be you just don’t like the idea of your former school, where you set up a ‘poverty center’ in 2004 to set up your 2008 run, offering commentary on poor little rich kid using the poor to promote your political ambitions?  So John, did you invest in any hedge funds lately to help the poor?  Could it be that in the million to one chance you would become President that you already have your excuse ready for abandoning the poor after you get what you want?  You know, something like those damn conservatives are stopping me from helping you (like you didn’t during any other time in your life).  Would you be so interested in the poor if they didn’t come complete with massive contingency fees or a shot at the Presidency?  Odds are, not likely.  That goes for your pandering competitor too.  That would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So Barack, what’s your deal?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

So, is it a non-partisan, civic engagement organization ( whatever that is ) or is it one cog in a multi-faceted Clinton campaign finance conspiracy? An Asian American group is bashing the press for bashing Clinton. Maybe we should all admit that we complain about the press when it publishes something we don’t like. Again, the left calls the press right wing while conservatives call it left wing. But if you get caught with your hands in the ‘cookie’ jar and the press pursues it, have enough strength of character to admit it or stay silent. Better yet, provide a compelling rebuttal.

At least two papers followed the story and gave their report. The campaign donation stories were not adding up. For example, donor addresses that cannot be confirmed as accurate. What’s the status on the hot potato funds from Hsu et al and whether Clinton gave it up, kept it, gave up part of it, asked for it back, etc., etc? Somewhere in the reports was use of the term(s) ponzi scheme. If anyone with connections and a bit of power had the stones to follow the money and complete an investigation we may witness a scandal to put Abramoff to shame. Maybe then both parties would admit that before, during or after McCain-Feingold, nothing changed and it is time that it should. Who wants to elect a crook besides other crooks.

The WaPo reference for this post refers to the Chinatown story as number two this year for Clinton following the Hsu scandal. Keep going back and review the Willie Tan connection of the Clintons. What’s with the Clinton money and Asai or the Pacific Rim? And let’s not forget Chinagate. But all the digging in the world will accomplish nothing if the follow through is abandoned. Somebody call the DOJ.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
postscript: The WaPo piece ends with a ridiculous statement from the press release complaint spokesperson.

Clinton’s Chinatown Donors Scrutinized

An advocacy group for Asian Americans has lashed out at recent media scrutiny of several hundred thousand dollars in contributions that Hillary Clinton raised in New York’s Chinatown.

Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote, a non-partisan civic engagement organization, issued a press release last night calling the “undue scrutiny on a specific ethnic subgroup” an example of “negligent journalism.”

It is not the first time that Democratic politicians and voters have expressed the concern that the Queen of Cringe may do well in her own pursuit of office but will all but destroy chances for Dems in other races. Especially in places where conservatives are currently in office.

Edwards backers say Clinton spells defeat
By Matthew Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/20/2007

JEFFERSON CITY — The prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidential nomination had a few elected Democrats in Missouri sounding alarms Friday, predicting her bid could foil the party’s chances of winning everything from the governor’s race to county council seats.

“If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off,” said House Minority Whip Connie Johnson, D-St. Louis.

So does it hurt the Dems even more that one of their own is stressing the point in his campaign? He has made his campaign about two Americas since the beginning. He is pursuing those who feel left out and may be on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Clearly a strategy born out of the realization that it is the only venue in which he can compete. With Clinton’s poll numbers triple Edwards, what other option does he have? Then there is that pesky Obama who only has about half the strength in the polls compared to Clinton. Yup, Clinton has the lead among Dems and will probably keep it barring some disaster from which even sinister strategists cannot deliver a recovery. And yet there are plenty of leadership types in the D party worried that Clinton spells defeat and will sink the ship.

Democrats worry Clinton could hurt party
August 12, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

It’s gotta keep you up nights worrying about such things. You have the lead. Most agree you will maintain the lead. Many see you as a shoe in for the nomination of your party. Yet still so many others are concerned you will cause them all to fail. A rumor in the GOP ranks suggests Clinton is there choice for an opponent. Believing her history, the perception of a cold, unfeeling person who is only concerned about herself and all her other baggage to favor a GOP win. The reverse psychology of Karl Rove pointing out her negatives when leaving office to stir the pot. Some say he was hoping to increase her support from Dems to be the nominee. Setting up the rumored easier battle against a seriously flawed candidate. The final piece of the puzzle would be an all out, no holds barred campaign blitz focusing on the skeletons in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closet. Who knows?

Democratic Strategists Wary of Overconfidence
By CARL HULSE
Published: October 19, 2007

The political environment has been looking good for Congressional Democrats in recent weeks. So good, in fact, that party strategists are warning it is not that good.

…some Democrats have been feeling downright smug, confident of not only holding their House and Senate majorities, but expanding them next year.

But November 2008 is not exactly right around the corner and the man responsible for overseeing the political fortunes of House Democrats is trying to recalibrate expectations. Not his, since Representative Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland says he is well aware of the difficulties ahead. But he wants others to put away any idea of a cakewalk.

Both Republicans and Democrats have little to cheer about if the truth is spoken. There may have been some upside for the average citizen during the GOP majority but the missteps all but made that period a wash. The Democrats are faring no better early in their current majority.

But the point made in the last reference, from the NYT, about the GOP learning some things while dominating the numbers in Congress may serve them well leading up to the next round of votes from the public. There was a hint in these articles that Democrats may be feeling a little giddy and still be hungover from the gains in the last election. But they should be thinking of how little they are accomplishing and how patient the public will be.

So the sum total of the chances of the Dems building on their recent election victories could be severely overestimated. Not that it is a sure thing for either side. To think that would be beyond silly. Even with defections here and there within the GOP, the overall effect of their countering the Dems has made a good showing. The same cannot be said for the Dems. From the failed 100 our agenda to the current inability to override the President’s veto, the Dems have not been very successful in the 110th. To this point, 2008 will at least offer some interesting moments no matter who you support. The only item that may be for sure is that one of the seven leading candidates for President will get elected. So we are already looking the next Commander-in-Chief. Just can’t tell which one yet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Adam’s Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Nearly in unison the Democratic party Presidential candidates promise older Americans more health and retirement enhancements. The victim search is alive and well in the Democratic party and is not lost on their candidates. Like Hillary Rodham Clinton working on her southern accent to speak in the south or John Edwards touting his poverty tour. Could it be any more obvious?

Edwards criticizes Clinton again for her close ties with lobbyists as hindering health care reform even though his money sources have recently exposed a ‘tainted lawyer’ whose donation he relinquished but kept the rest of the bundle. A fine example of do as I say, not as I do.

Clinton again reinforces the idea that her experience in health care reform makes her the best choice on the issue. That may be true if failure is what interests you. The same crew that developed her nineties initiative that failed also assembled her latest proposal. One Wall Street Journal opinion panned the current initiative. Another report indicates all the Dems health reform proposals are modeled on the Clinton plan yet Edwards claims Clinton copied his. Who cares, John, they are all flawed.

Both Biden and Richardson had nothing substantial to contribute to the discussions so they did not disappoint by not offering anything substantial. And Senator Dodd just can’t resist touting his involvement in the Family and Medical Leave Act which is not really on point. And his version of history may not be entirely accurate based on Congressional records available online.

Barack Obama may have been the most honest of all the Democratic candidates for he did not bother to show up. You have to believe a candidate chooses the most beneficial use of their time in a campaign. His strong suit is prepared speeches and not prepared debates. Seems odd since both activities are choreographed and staying on message should not be difficult but apparently Obama has trouble responding to the debate environment.

Since the Dems are repeating campaign performances this post can do the same. On supporting the troops and victory in Iraq and elsewhere plus national defense, security, border and immigration control as well as health care issues the Democratic party candidates fail miserably. The Dems being more afraid of MoveOn than disrespecting the very people who directly protect this nation is yet another current revelation that exposes their true agenda. Motivate the far left fringe Democratic party base regardless of how destructive it is to this country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Five Democrats discuss health care in IA
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press WriterThu Sep 20, 10:57 PM ET

Five Democratic presidential candidates pledged during an AARP forum Thursday night to spend more on health care and bolster retirement programs crucial to politically potent seniors.

All five pledged to protect Social Security, revamp Medicare’s prescription drug program and expand home health care programs. They also promised to provide universal health care but rejected a Canadian-style single payer plan.

In posts published here earlier a report indicated HillaryCare II was assembled by the same team from Hillary Care I. The report also indicated no significant overhaul of Hillary Care I, which failed, and the health care proposals from other Democratic candidates were based on this same model. A post here yesterday featured an appraisal from the Opnion Journal on Hillary Care I and II emphasizing the program will require a great deal of tax increases the details of which the Clinton campaign is not disclosing. Which is to say that the Dems health care proposals are essentially the same and will cost everyone dearly for limited health care provisions.

That brings us to the current story. While many members of the GOP are not doing this country any favors with their positions on amnesty, visa quotas or other immigration and border control issues, the Democratic party candidates are of the same thinking on immigration as they are on health care. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all in favor of amnesty. This should not have been difficult to notice with pandering to the open borders crowd by Democratic party candidates.

Add the two issues above with the Democratic party’s obvious position on national defense and security including their position on surrendering in Iraq and you have three exceptionally good reasons to vote for someone other than a Democrat. Some of their statements on immigration are in a report from the Hill.com

The campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) say their candidates will seek comprehensive reform, a phrase that sometimes implies a guest worker program, as soon as they get to the White House.

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), speaking at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political action conference Monday, said: “We’re going to ensure that every single person living in the United States of America has a completely achievable path to American citizenship so that they don’t live in the shadows.”

..’that sometimes implies a guest worker program’ is putting it mildly. And what John Edwards does not appear to understand is a path to citizenship already exists. If you follow the rule of law before, during and after entering this country the path to citizenship will be right there in front of you. Which might cause someone to ask why the open borders crowd feels compelled to let everyone just walk right in without any controls. If a prospective immigrant is not satisfied with the procedures involved in obtaining citizenship they are welcome to take their business elsewhere. If one does not possess the discipline to follow through with immigration legally, what does that say about their character and the risk to this country by letting them just walk in on their terms?

There you have it people. Again, the point is these are three very good reasons to reject the Democratic party.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

If one believes the main stream media has a liberal bias that may help explain the dominant focus on national polls for the 2008 Presidential election. This is the primary/caucus season that finds surprisingly little attention being given to state polls. Perhaps that is due to the media’s alleged liberal leaning and the strength among Democratic party candidates of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the national polls.

In Iowa, according to an AP report, polling data shows Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead over John Edwards shrinks from the double digit distance in the national polls to five points. With a five point margin of error in the poll, Clinton and Edwards are in a dead heat.

In similar fashion the GOP results show Mitt Romney leading in Iowa at 28% with his nearest rival, Rudy Giuliani, at 16%. Thompson’s effective headline grabbing strategy of dragging out announcing his candidacy has not translated to higher than tied for 2nd place in Iowa just above the 2nd tier players. This poll shows Giuliani and Thompson tied at 16% and with a five point margin of error, 8% Mike Huckabee is still doing better than expected.

With Edwards and Clinton in a virtual tie in Iowa, what does that say about the national polls. Is it simply a matter of most voters not being focused on the election this early? Is it a case of campaign effectiveness in the early states or the fact that primary/caucus schedules may change? In this case, Iowa, are voters not giving Clinton the easy pass on her history that Democrats do nationally? Could the Democratic party faithful be so obsessed with winning the White House that no matter what Hillary does they are willing to overlook it? As the early states draw closer perhaps their collective conscience will cause the majority of Dems to reject Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton Leads Democrats, Romney Atop GOP
13 hours ago
THE RACE: The presidential primary in Iowa for Democrats and Republicans.
___

THE NUMBERS — DEMOCRATS

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 28 percent

John Edwards, 23 percent

Barack Obama, 19 percent

Bill Richardson, 10 percent

(all other candidates below 5 percent)

___

THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney, 28 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 16 percent

Fred Thompson, 16 percent

Mike Huckabee, 8 percent

John McCain, 7 percent

(all other candidates below 5 percent)
___

OF INTEREST:
Asked if they might vote for a candidate other than the person they now support, 59 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans said they might switch.

The telephone poll for the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg was conducted Sept. 6-10. The margin of sampling error for both the 462 Democratic caucus voters and 350 Republican caucus voters was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The reference below is presented to demonstrate that this blog is not the only voice expressing dissatisfaction with Presidential candidates from the Democratic Party. On casual inspection, the source of the reference gives the impression of support for the Democratic party in general. Makes the piece even more interesting.

Edwards emerged in 2004 as someone to pay attention to if you did not know him, which few did. His actions and choices then and now have caused the light to dim.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

First Shot: A Question of Substance

The shallow opportunism of John Edwards becomes more apparent with each passing week. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are much stronger, but not without their respective Achilles’ heels.

In Clinton’s case, her high unfavorability ratings remain, as does the suspicion that, if asked what she thought of today’s weather, she would calculate the electoral pros and cons of every possible response before replying. Obama has the charisma to drown Biden, Clinton and everyone else, but he has made some foreign policy missteps recently and his debate performances have been more halting than many expected.

About as funny as the Dennis Kucinich remark about praying to God to be called on, Bill Richardson tried some humor with a two for one pitch.

“Senator Obama provides change and Senator Clinton experience. With me, you get both,” Governor Richardson stated. “We’re going to need change to become energy independent. We’re going to need experience to deal with foreign leaders. I’ve met already with most of them. All my life I’ve been a diplomat and from day one I will be ready.”

With the other Democratic candidates softening their Iraq surrender positions, why does Governor Richardson’s claim of dual skill sets oppose the wisdom that an abrupt withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would send the country into chaos and put US troops at higher risk? A contradiction on its own and certainly when paired with the report below.

Analysis: An assured Richardson brings his‘A’ game in Iowa debate
By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
August 19, 2007
Governor gets aggressive, takes rival presidential candidates to task on Iraq
Could it be that early morning is the best time for Gov. Bill Richardson to debate?

Understandably, a source from New Mexico supports Governor Richardson’s performance in Sunday’s ABC Democrats Debate. It does not, however, make sense to take a long shot on war strategy while touting your experience in foreign affairs and other executive tasks. Even among his rivals there are no longer any takers on the surrender as fast as you can mentality.

Richardson Stands Out In Latest Democratic Debate
The governor broke from his competitors by calling for a quick and complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 6 to 8 months. But all of the other Democratic candidates said Richardson’s plan was too ambitious and it would not work.

Probably not the kind of standing out you would want to do especially when it is wrong. Mistakes are piling up for Bill Richardson as noted in the excerpts/links below.

Richardson on Richardson
By Steve Terrell | The New Mexican
September 25, 2005
George W. Bush had A Charge to Keep. John Kerry had A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America. John Edwards had Four Trials. Richard Nixon had Six Crises. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life

While much of the 348 pages consists of Richardson justifying his political actions, there are moments in which he admits mistakes.

It is admirable that one would be honest enough to admit mistakes. But at the rate that Richardson is racking them up his demonstrated skill for being President is overpowered by his propensity for mistakes. He declared in the debate that he believes he’s been averaging one mistake each week. But the mistake below is probably one caused by pandering. Say what you feel and when criticized by the audience stumble around for a day on damage control. Like criticizing Obama for what he say’s on foreign policy, Richardson suffers from the same lack of discretion that would be equally detrimental in foreign and domestic affairs.

August 10, 2007, 7:34 pm
Richardson Clarifies Gay Gaffe
By Michael Falcone
After stumbling through a question at a forum Thursday night about whether people choose to be gay or are born that way, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson spent part of the day trying to regain his footing by reaching out to prominent members of the gay and lesbian community.

Mr. Richardson’s initial response — “it’s a choice” — angered many gay rights activists who hold the opposite view. After the forum, the Richardson’s campaign issued a statement essentially taking back the remark.

Of the Democratic candidates, Richardson is the most extreme on the Iraq war presently while no one objected to Edwards speaking for the group saying they all would leave Iraq. What that means is all but Richardson have come to understand the Democrats surrender now strategy is not working. But the flimsy kabuki dance being performed by Dems on Iraq signals their across the board refusal to protect this nation through strength rather than appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama stuck in a narrative not his own
August 18, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rigid, cautious and steely. Barack Obama is dangerously inexperienced. John Edwards is a narcissistic hypocrite. Joseph R. Biden Jr. can’t express a thought in less than 25 minutes. Christopher J. Dodd is making sense but nobody’s paying attention.

But, then again, Rudolph W. Giuliani is hot-tempered and not particularly solicitous of civil liberties. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping opportunist. John McCain is a doomed defender of the Iraq war. Sam Brownback is a hopeless religious conservative. Mike Huckabee is too, except that he’s lost a lot of weight, has a wicked sense of humor and, because of his second-place finish in last week’s (utterly meaningless) Iowa straw poll, might not be the dead-man-walking everyone thought he was.

David Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

David Shribman has it all figured out. All the candidates are worthless. At first glance it may appear that way. But his initial observations, while entertaining, have a tendency to lean one way…..left.

The first candidate described by Shribman is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic poll leader who receives his least critical if not highest praise of all the candidates listed. Rigid, cautious and steely may be somewhat vague but not critical. Obama is dangerous, Edwards a hypocrite with Biden and Dodd shown as generally inept. Any guess on who Shribman favors but is concealing in ambiguous adjectives? Nice try on an attempt to appear objective….NOT.

Every description of the GOP field is derogatory with the possible exception of Huckabee. He is called a hopeless religious conservative and given a backhanded compliment on his performance in the Iowa Straw Poll. Less that 2nd place finish in a contest panned by many, Shribman calls him a ‘dead-man-walking.’

Shribman tries to be stealthy with his appraisal of Clinton to hide the favoritism. He bashes the remainder of the Democratic field and the entire GOP field focusing the remainder of the piece on what Barack Obama should do. All that from the Executive Editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette showing a left-leaning bias and not so cleverly hidden endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who says the press is biased?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The holes in the arguments of politicians offering to ‘clean up’ politics are many. After Barack Obama fires off another criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton she is quoted by Associated Content, Inc calling lobbyists ‘real Americans.’ A report from AP on August 16th quotes her as saying many [lobbyists] ‘represent real people.’

It is also reported that Obama’s clean up Washington campaign promise is more of a ‘born again’ cleansing during his pursuit of the oval office. He admits taking special interest money while holding state office and playing cards with some who gave him money.

Likewise, I don’t take any lobbyist or PAC money Edwards, is suspected of having trial lawyers and other special interest funnel money to him through other conduits. The words each of the three candidates use must be listened to carefully. The cover for this double talk is so thin as to be transparent.

Obama does not think ‘lobbyists are evil’. He knows they ‘have an agenda’ and one ‘must be clear’ about that. So far he has said nothing about how he will clean up Washington. He is merely speaking about what is already known and avoiding any details about the implied end of the influence of money in politics. Because he knows it won’t happen.

He adds they are paid and would not be if they were not doing something. This is a totally useless statement. Still there is no details on how he will clean up Washington. Obama took money from state lobbyists and declares he is not a hypocrite. He denies ‘blasting’ Hillary Rodham Clinton on the issue only claiming he said she doesn’t see the problem. He further states his stand has been to declare special interest money is a problem. Well no kidding. He knows it’s a problem, has been part of the problem, realizes it conveniently in a Presidential campaign and wants to do something about it. And he says he ‘fought for these issues’ and will not take, and here is the thin cover, money from lobbyist who do business in Washington or from political action committees.

Lobbyists doing business elsewhere are free to give money to Barack. Perhaps like Edwards, Obama can arrange for lobbyist money to come thought other conduits. And Hillary admitting she takes lobbyist money that allows them to influence her is only better in that she admits it. It is still a plague in US politics. That is part of why education and health care are so expensive as well as defense, national security, transportation, government research and most other components of the economy. But you just wait because Barack Obama and John Edwards want to fix it. Sure they do.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Pledges to Clean Up Washington
By RON FOURNIER and MIKE GLOVER
The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama, who accepts special interest money and played poker with lobbyist pals as an Illinois lawmaker, acknowledged Thursday that he swims in “the same muddy water” that corrupts Washington, but he pledged to reform the system if elected president.

“I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists. The fact of the matter is … I played poker with them, so I don’t think that lobbyists are evil,” said the first-term Illinois senator. “I just think they’ve got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don’t.”

By Michael Bowman
Washington
15 August 2007

Bowman report (mp3) - Download 776k audio clip
Listen to Bowman report (mp3) audio clip

A new poll of likely U.S. voters shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining her frontrunner status among Democratic voters in next year’s presidential race, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading the Republican field. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Senator Clinton with 36 percent backing among Democrats, up one percent from a survey in June, with strong support among women and working class voters. Illinois Senator Barack Obama is holding steady in second place, at 21 percent, and is favored among Democrats with college degrees.

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has stated he has no intention of running for office, polled third with 15 percent support, ahead of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at nine percent.

Mrs. Clinton may lead the Democratic field, but the news is not all positive for the one-time first lady, according to the head of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, Maurice Carroll.

“Trailing her is a big ‘Hillary hostility’ factor which does raise questions, feeds those doubts about [whether she] can win in November [in next year’s election],” he said. “Forty-eight to 43 percent, Americans tell the poll they have a favorable impression of her. But 43 is a big number, the negative side, and that is the highest of any of the candidates.”

Months ago, some analysts predicted that Senator Obama, whose father was Kenyan, would eventually receive overwhelming backing from black and other minority voters. But the Quinnipiac poll shows no such trend to date, with Senator Clinton doing well among all racial and ethnic groups within the Democratic Party.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads with 28 percent support, up one percent from June. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney comes in second with 15 percent, followed by actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson with 12 percent and Arizona Senator John McCain with 11 percent. Mr. Thompson has yet to formally announce his candidacy.

Carroll notes that Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion and favors legal rights for homosexual couples - positions that do not endear him with the socially-conservative base of the Republican Party. But he says the former mayor has one great strength that propels him to the top of the Republican field:

“It’s 9/11. Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City when the terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. His performance then in rallying the city, reassuring the city - and to an extent the nation, earned him all sorts of plaudits and that is his big pitch. Of those who are for him, more than a third cited his performance after 9/11, his anti-terrorist credentials,” he said.

How would top Democratic and Republican contenders fare if the presidential election were held today? The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary Clinton edging Rudy Giuliani 46 to 43 percent, and a draw between Giuliani and Barack Obama at 42 percent each. The poll did not pose a hypothetical match-up of Mitt Romney against a Democratic challenger.

Such polls provide only a snapshot of public opinion at the time they are conducted. The first contest of the presidential primary season is still months away, in January, and the general election is more than a year off.

If memory serves, John Edwards was hammered over his hedge fund experience and now the Boston Herald is hammering Mitt Romney over his family’s blind trust investment. The point being, in the article, that social conservatives would oppose those investments. This is getting silly and the media is being unfair to both Edwards and Romney and anyone else involved including the public.

To be fair, if you are going to do one, do every one, including the social conservatives. If you are going to accuse one candidate of either doing something wrong or something that would bother voters, investigate everyone. The social conservative argument is empty. Number one, who says social conservatives oppose this particular company’s research regarding embryos? The SC’s making the claim should have their investments analyzed. Every other candidate should have their investments analyzed including those who dumped stock that may be objectionable in a campaign.

It’s almost as stupid as talking about Edwards’ hair, the family history of candidates or their cleavage. There is plenty to complain or object about without these meaningless stories. AP has the story as well as the Boston Globe. That’s how these distractions are given life. If the media is having a difficult time finding something to write about with Congress on vacation for a month, work a little harder to focus on something important. You could always waste our time with your analysis of candidate positions on issues like foreign affairs, national defense, national security, health care, education, taxes or a host of others. But likely you will continue this trend and compound it by emphasizing one side of the topic of global warming, tainted food, indictments, scandals or death and dismemberment. Nothing like the value of sensationalism for print and broadcast media that is losing their audience who can read above a third grade level.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
( This post may have qualified as a rant. It has been shortened to reduce the effects of global warming and was published with totally recycled electrons. )

Mitt owns stock in stem cell research
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Despite his “pro-life” campaign pitch, former Gov. Mitt Romney owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research, a controversial field of study he previously cited as the reason for his rightward shift on abortion.
Romney holds stock in the biomedical firms Novo Nordisk and Millipore Corp., both of which use human embryos to research cures for chronic diseases, records show. Many conservatives fiercely oppose the research because it destroys the embryos in the process.