"Howard Dean On Dems Fifty State Strategy" (video)

videocafeblog, video from MSNBC (04:35):

David Shuster talks to Howard Dean about the Democrat's fifty state strategy this year and some of the negative ads out from Republicans.

H/t to Jed.

mcjoan: "The Dems and Truthiness in the FISA Debate"

mcjoan on Kos:

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Barack Obama

"The New Republic syndrome" (with video)

Glenn Greenwald with video (05:26):

The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist. In 2002 and 2003, The New Republic was one of the leading crusaders for an attack on Iraq, railing against what it called "the intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics." In a February 2003 Editorial, they decreed that "the United States must disarm Iraq by force" and declared war opponents guilty of "abject pacifism."

TNR's Jonathan Chait appeared at events with Ken Pollack in 2002 to advocate the so-called "liberal case for war." On March 10, 2003, Chait appeared on Hardball, said the imminent attack was a "just war," and proclaimed: "I don't think you can argue that a regime change in Iraq won't demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people." Peter Beinart was the media's designated Democrat to rail against weak, subversive liberals who refused to accept the imperatives of the Bush administration's case for war.

In 2004, TNR expressed regret because "the central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong," but they still insisted that "if our strategic rationale for war has collapsed, our moral one has not." But by December 2006 -- hundreds of thousands of dead bodies later -- that very partial acknowledgment of wrongdoing turned into this: "The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war."

Also in 2004, The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for President, using its endorsement to attack Howard Dean and his liberal supporters as suffering from "an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power" and said that Dean supporters were "dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld." According to TNR, only Lieberman was Serious and Responsible enough to save the Democratic Party from the weak, pacifist liberals who were too shrill and extreme in their opposition to the Bush administration:

Dean has helped create this mood of self-righteous delusion, and his competitors have, to varying degrees, accommodated themselves to it. Only Lieberman -- the supposed candidate of appeasement -- is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat.

Three years ago, that vision seemed ascendant. Today, it is once again at the margins. It may take years, or even decades, for Democrats to relearn the lessons we thought, naively, they had learned for good under Clinton. But one day, Joe Lieberman's warnings in this campaign will look prophetic. And the principles he has espoused will once again guide the Democratic Party. It will be the work of this magazine, to whatever small degree possible, to hasten that day.

In 2006, TNR's Chait denounced those who were trying to defeat Lieberman in the Democratic primary as "a pack of crazed, ignorant ideological cannibals" -- "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." But just a few weeks ago, Chait himself expressed shock that "there's hardly any sense in which Lieberman is an independent figure" and is now nothing more than "a cog in the Republican message machine" -- exactly the basis for the primary challenged mounted by the people whom Chait was villifying as left-wing screeching radicals, and exactly the basis for the derision directed at TNR when they said in 2004 that their mission in life was to have Democrats be guided by Joe Lieberman's political principles.

By any metric, that is a humiliating track record. More importantly, it's a perfect museum exhibit to illustrate how the Democratic Party failed completely to provide any meaningful opposition to the extremism, excesses and abuses of the Bush years, instead enabling and endorsing those abuses when they weren't standing by meekly and quietly allowing it all to take root. Throughout the Bush era, the Democratic Party has been dominated by The New Republic Syndrome -- Democrats who are either petrified of meaningfully opposing the right-wing agenda that has dominated our country or who support virtually all of it, while eagerly volunteering to serve as the most vocal demonizers of those who want our country to have a real opposition party.

Despite those forced mea culpas and reversals, TNR never actually learns. Today -- in a post bearing the very sensible and Serious title: "Keeping FISA in Perspective" -- TNR is here, via Josh Patashnik, to tell you that there's nothing truly disturbing about the FISA bill that is about to pass. What's more, those who think there is, and those who want to oppose Democrats who support the bill, are -- just like war opponents of 2003 and Lieberman opponents of 2006 -- nothing more than shrill, hysterical radicals who are irresponsible and even insane:

There's no question the FISA compromise is very disappointing in a few respects, most notably because it means there will (apparently) be no judicial pronouncement on the legality of Bush's wiretapping program. I'm torn as to how I would have voted on the bill, were I a member of Congress. But it is most certainly not a threat to constitutional government in America, and to suggest that it's of such extraordinary, overriding importance as to merit primary challenges from the left against Democrats in center-right districts is, quite simply, nuts.

It's not "nuts" to give the President vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers, permanently conceal Bush's lawbreaking, or give amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms. It's "nuts" to oppose those corrupt measures and try to defeat politicians who support them.

Patashnik also cites this post at Democracy Arsenal -- which defends the FISA bill; says that "Greenwald and others need to get a grip"; and pronounces that those who want to defeat supporters of the FISA bill "need to have your head examined" -- and then argues:

The Democrats were able to get some real concessions (compared to what was on the table in February) from the administration concerning protections for the international communications of Americans; the politics of the issue do not favor the civil-libertarian position; and allowing wiretapping orders issued under the Protect America Act to lapse would have genuinely hampered intelligence-gathering efforts.

I've already addressed these issues in great detail over the last week -- the idea that this was some sort of "compromise," that Democrats won "concessions," that they faced political doom if they failed to give Bush the bill he wanted, that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary to save us from The Terrorists, etc. etc. -- and the commenters to both of those posts do more than an adequate job of refuting all the points that are made. I'm not going to re-hash those points in order to respond to a litany of Democratic excuse-making cliches copied from Nancy Pelosi's talking points.

The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It's this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it's why we have no real opposition party; and it's why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It's because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over -- even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that -- it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party's leadership.

The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are "nuts," "need to have their heads examined," and are "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of "abject pacifism."

It's exactly that mentality that has brought us to where we are as a country and a political system today. It's not at all surprising -- and wouldn't have surprised the Founders in the least -- that a radical and corrupt political faction (the Bush-led Right) has been able to take over parts of the Government and sought to consolidate political power. The expectation was that this would happen, and the solution was to devise a litany of checks -- the Congress, the media, opposition parties -- that would stand up to and vigorously oppose that faction and prevent it from running rampant.

It's primarily the failure of those institutions, rather than the emergence of a corrupt and lawless faction, that has made the Bush era so unique and distinctively destructive. Those institutions have failed because they have been, and continue to be, defined by the meek, amorphous, principle-free New Republic Syndrome, which thinks that its restrained tolerance and complicit embrace of patent Bush extremism is some sort of mark of political sophistication and Seriousness.

Hence: vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers -- with no connection to Terrorism -- are being vested in the President? His and the largest corporations' deliberate lawbreaking is being concealed and forever excused? All of that is being done by Democrats? Anyone who thinks that's worth getting worked up over -- just like anyone who got worked up over other reasonable, good faith policy disputes such as the Iraq War, pre-war lying, torture, Joe Lieberman -- are a bunch of shrill hysterics who "need to have their heads examined."

Good, smart, adult Democrats -- like the sober, Serious geniuses at The New Republic who have been so right for so long, and like Steny Hoyer -- understand that these matters are very complex and difficult and it's best if the Right not be opposed with too much vigor, if they should be opposed at all. It's precisely that mindset, and those who are guided by it, which needs to be targeted if the guaranteed Democratic majority is to mean anything other than an endless perpetuation of The New Republic Syndrome.

* * * * *

Following up on the newspaper ads to begin running this week in The Washington Post and virtually every paper in Steny Hoyer's district, a massive robocall campaign is also beginning this week in Hoyer's district, and will reach huge numbers of that district's most critical voting blocs. The robocalls -- designed by Blue America and Color of Change -- will be narrated by Rev. Lennox Yearwood, a highly respected pastor and activist in Hoyer's district. A corresponding video to accompany the robocalls has been produced. Rev. Yearwood's narration will be put on the video once it is ready -- and I'll post the robocall audio when it's available -- but for now, the video (narrated for the moment by someone else) shows the robocall script and underlying themes:



As indicated, the Hoyer campaign is just a small start. The vast bulk of the funds that continue to be raised -- now close to $310,000 -- will be aimed at Rep. John Barrow (who has a primary challenge on July 15) and Rep. Chris Carney (who is very vulnerable in November), depending on which strategies work best. We also expect that this target list might grow as the Senate likely disgraces itself this week (Joan McCarter -- here -- posts all the necessary information and some important thoughts about how to fight the Senate's likely passage of the FISA bill, including encouraging Barack Obama to keep his promise to filibuster any bill with telecom amnesty). The prime goal of this campaign is to prevent the Democratic Party -- which is assured of continuing to control Congress -- from continuing to be dominated by the fatal New Republic Syndrome.

UPDATE: Apostropher at Unfogged has this exceptionally good diagnosis of what is ailing the Democratic Party, along with the reasons why merely increasing their majorities -- without doing something fundamentally to alter their behavior -- will achieve nothing good at all.

Christy Hardin Smith at FDL has all of the key information for pressuring swaying Senators to keep amnesty out of the FISA bill this week. Personally, I think the only remotely plausible pressure points are demanding that Obama complies with his filibuster promise and doing the same with Chris Dodd, and by "remotely plausible" I mean "something that is, in theory, not absolute zero." Still, even battles that are almost certain to end in a loss are worth waging until the bitter end.

UPDATE II: Speaking of The New Republic Syndrome, USA Today's Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence today mock the "journalism" of one of the Syndrome's leading practitioners, Joe Klein -- who, needless to say, thinks that the FISA "compromise" is superb (that's "needless to say" because Klein's ghost writer on FISA matters, GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra, voted for the bill). With apologies to the important writers at TNR, one must acknowledge that Klein was one of the earliest and most relentless pioneers of the TNR Syndrome and, to this very day, continues to be one of its most faithful evangelists.

UPDATE III: Russ Feingold spoke today at the New America Foundation and answered several questions about the FISA bill. Raw Story has the full text of Feingold's speech here, and in the video below, Feingold explains why the surveillance provisions of the bill are so dangerous, assesses the prospects for defeating it in the Senate, and outlines why it is vital that we not vest the President with powers of this sort, no matter who the next President is or what party he belongs to:

"DNC: Fla., Mich. Can't Be Fully Restored"--Obama campaign: "Don't demonstrate"

AP:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.

DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.

The DNC analysis does not make recommendations for how the Rules and Bylaws Committee should vote, but gives context from the party's charter and bylaws for the committee to consider.

It underscores a prickly problem: If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to restore any of the states' delegates, there is not a simple way to divide them between Clinton and Barack Obama.

That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.

Clinton won the majority of the vote in Florida and Michigan and has been arguing that the delegates should be fully restored according to the results of the January primaries. But even if they were, it would not be enough for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead.

As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination, he has been working to win over voters in the two states with visits in recent days. He plans to return to Michigan on Monday.

The DNC staff analysis argues that the Rules and Bylaws Committee was fully within its rights to strip all 368 delegates from the two states when they scheduled primaries in January. Party rules said their nominating contests could be no earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Florida on Jan. 29.

The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates _ by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.

Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from California who is supporting Clinton, said she has been barraged with e-mails in the past few weeks. She said the senders include Floridians who are upset that they are being disenfranchised, and she has started printing out the messages so she'll have a record to explain her decision.

"This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too. So I'm just preparing myself as best I can," said Huffman, president of the California NAACP.

The shoe shipments are being organized by WalkAMileInOurShoes.org and1 the orange idea was promoted by a group called Florida Demands Representation, which plans to bus Floridians to Saturday's rally outside the meeting. Blaine Whitford, a volunteer helping organize the effort, said they are unaligned with any candidate.

Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.

Also: "Obama urges supporters not to demonstrate at crucial DNC meeting" (The Hill):

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign is urging its supporters not to demonstrate at Saturday’s highly anticipated Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting on how to handle the delegates of Florida and Michigan.

In an internal campaign e-mail obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign states, “We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly — and we’re asking our supporters not to show up to demonstrate, passionately as they feel about this campaign.”

This weekend’s meeting of the DNC’s 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) at a Marriot Wardman Park hotel in Washington, D.C. is expected to be a media circus, and will likely attract many supporters of Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

But the Obama campaign wants to avoid heated intraparty confrontations that would attract national headlines and be replayed on the cable news networks. Saturday’s potential public relations nightmare comes as the Obama campaign is taking steps to unify the party as the Democratic primary process appears to be winding down.

The DNC stated on its Web site that demand for the meeting was extremely high: “Just a quick note if you tried to register for the RBC meeting this morning. First, yes, it did go online. For about a minute. There was a lot if demand and we’re sorry if you didn’t get a spot...they were gone pretty quickly.”

The difference between nabbing a spot and falling short “was a matter of seconds,” the DNC stated.

The Obama campaign “talking points” e-mail cautions supporters not to speculate about what will happen on Saturday though it emphasizes that the Illinois senator will campaign vigorously in both states for the general election.

In a Q&A section of the e-mail, a question reads, “Sen. Obama has such a large lead that the outcome of this nomination is all-but academic. Why not just seat the delegates as they voted so that Sen. Clinton has one less reason to continue her campaign?”

The answer states, “That’s not Sen. Obama’s decision to make. The rules for this nomination contest were designed and are enforced by the Democratic National Committee. That’s why our campaign is working to forge a fair agreement that will ensure Democrats from Florida and Michigan will be able to participate in our convention.”

The Clinton campaign has repeatedly stressed that all the votes should be counted, including those cast in Florida and Michigan. Both states were punished by the DNC because they violated the committee’s rules by moving up their primaries.

The DNC bylaws meeting is seen as Clinton’s last-ditch effort to make up significant ground on Obama in the delegate count. Clinton won both states easily, but Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan and, like the former first lady, did not actively campaign in Florida.

The talking points memo provides some answers to potential questions about Saturday. One reads, “I don’t think that any of us are in a position to speculate about possible outcomes at the meeting — but what I do know is that the Obama campaign is as eager as anyone to see this situation resolved fairly, which reflects the desire of these delegations to be seated and the fact that we and all the candidates competed under rules in which there were no delegates to be awarded and no campaigning took place.”

It adds, “Obviously, the May 31 meeting will be an important part of reaching an agreement that’s in the best interests of Florida and Michigan voters and in the best interests of the Democratic Party.”

Barack Obama

"How Obama Could Create a Long-Term Democratic Majority"

Paul Loeb (email):

Commentators are talking, and rightly so, about how young voters are flocking to Barack Obama. Their overwhelming support gave Obama his Iowa margin, kept him just a few points behind in New Hampshire and Nevada, and contributed to his massive South Carolina victory.

Young voters haven't always turned out historically, but they're responding to Obama's message, and together with his equally massive support from African Americans and strong appeal to independents, their passionate enthusiasm could help him expand the Democratic base enough not only to win in November, but to win decisively.

Obama also offers the chance to make this new generation part of an enduring Democratic coalition--because once young voters support a particular party a few times in a row, they're likely to gravitate toward that party for the rest of their lives.

That so many young Obama supporters are turning out to rally, volunteer and vote suggests that he might be one of those watershed candidates who really can bring a new generation into politics and help shape their long-term loyalties, permanently enlarging the Democratic share of the electorate. But because of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama, she risks destroying this shift just as it's beginning to emerge.

Look at the historical patterns: Studies from the past fifty years find that party loyalties tend to form early--for Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. It was true for the FDR generation, for those who came of age during the anti-war activism of the late Vietnam era, and with the young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office and whose compatriots have remained more conservative ever since.

Major historical events like wars and economic depressions can shift this. So can political scandals and personal crises and conversions. Systematic organizing efforts can also shift voters' worldview and context, particularly for those politically detached, which is one reason unions matter so much. Still, some major patterns get set early on, and that's likely to keep being true.

Generations need several elections to cement the pattern. The votes of 18- to 29-year-olds started shifting back in the Clinton years. Young voters gave Clinton an initial 9 point margin and increased it the next round, but their turnout dropped from the highest since 18-year-olds got the vote to the lowest in the same period.. In 2000, Gore led Bush among this group buy 3%, with Ralph Nader bleeding off another 5%. Led by increases in young African American and Latino voters, they were the only generation to favor Kerry, and did so by a ten percent margin.

These shifts accelerated in 2006. Fueled by the Bush administration's myriad disasters, young voters played a critical role, supporting Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60% to 38% difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a three to one split in the East to a three point margin in the South. They provided the critical margin for Senators Tester, Webb and McCaskill, and fed the victories of the four other victorious challengers. Had it been up to young Americans alone, the Democrats would have also won Senate campaigns in Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying just four.

The passion of young people for Obama's campaign is fueled by the Iraq war, an uncertain economy, major concerns about the environment and global warming, and the religious right's attacks on sexuality. But more than anything it's also fueled by Obama's eloquent insistence that change is possible and that ordinary citizens can play a key role. It's fueled by the sense that Obama's personal story anticipates the story of an America that moves beyond its divisions and tackles our fundamental problems. This group also seems to resist the idea that a presidency can simply be handed down like a dynastic succession.

Participating in numbers we haven't seen in decades, these new voters fervently want Obama to win. They're reaching out to enlist their peers and volunteering to help reach others. They can be a powerful force to help him prevail.

But if Hillary Clinton is nominated, this momentum will likely crumble. The young women and men who've been flooding the Democratic primaries and caucuses will feel betrayed by a candidate who's just finished doing her best to destroy the person they've invested their hopes in. And as a result, they may simply stay home. It's not just that Hillary is running against Obama. That would be fine. It's that she and Bill and their surrogates have relentlessly assaulted Obama's character, in a scorched-earth style worthy of Karl Rove. I've devoted an entire article to documenting just a fraction of these instances: her lying about his record (and her on) on critical Iraq and Iran votes, and his votes on abortion choice; her unleashing surrogates like civil rights activist turned WalMart pitchman Andy Young to explain how Obama really wasn't black enough or Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (a virulently anti-union corporate head who's backed Bush on issues like the estate tax and privatizing Social Security) to refer to Obama's youthful cocaine use, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. When Hillary says Obama has no right to build up "false hopes," and Bill calls Obama's vision of history "a fairy tale," how can Obama's young supporters not feel attacked in their own hope and dreams? Had Clinton run a less-harsh campaign, like that of John Edwards, she might expect to inherit Obama's passionate young voters--and volunteers. But given the virulence of her attacks, I just can't see them suddenly turning on a dime and enthusiastically supporting her.

Young voters are historically the least likely to participate. The failure of the Democrats to stop Bush's Iraq war has already made many cynical. Obama has reversed this cynicism, but if Clinton crushes the dreams of his supporters, a great many will stay home in disgust. Or, if they do end up voting, they certainly won't work to turn out their peers. As a friend said of his community college students, "the most active ones in my class say they won't even vote for her if she's nominated."

The same is true, of course, of African American voters. The Clinton campaign's attempts to cage Obama in a racial box (for instance by Bill Clinton's dismissing his massive South Carolina victory as just an echo of Jesse Jackson 's 1984 and 1988 campaigns) could have an equally disastrous impact on African American turnout if Hillary Clinton is the nominee come November. Clinton also risks the defection of people who fit neither demographic, but are simply so furious at her support for Bush's Iraq and Iran policies and her massive corporate ties, that they simply cannot let themselves vote for her. I get those responses every time I write on the subject. Taken together, if these groups stay home (and Republicans mobilized by Hillary-hatred turn out), it's easy to see how a candidate like John McCain could transform a prime Democratic opportunity into yet another needless defeat.

If the youth vote affected only the upcoming election, the stakes would be massive. But it's worse yet because Clinton's nomination would likely shift the future votes of a generation. If I thought Barack Obama were simply an empty suit, I'd be skeptical too. Like any political leader, he has his weaknesses. I wish he'd deferred less to the senior Senate leadership on issues like Iraq. But then I look at his record engaging and bringing together once-powerless individuals and communities, speaking out against the war, and linking our health care crisis to his mother dying of cancer while her insurance company tried to throw her off their rolls. I value his stress on empowering ordinary citizens to act. I see enough actions of courage and vision to suggest his presidency might just be able to equal the sum of his powerful words. Then I look at Clinton and wonder why she's fighting so fiercely against her fellow Democrats, after doing so little to fight Bush's destructive policies when he was riding high in the polls.

I think this is part of what the young voters sense too and why their hopes have soared with Obama's campaign. If we dash them now, we may be paying for this choice for far longer than the next four years.

Barack Obama

LIVE Coverage of the Iowa Caucuses Today

Online here or on your tv, C-SPAN at 7pm ET (4pm PST).

Howie P.S.: Brave New Films is providing live video coverage of Iowa caucuses, as follows:

Cenk Uygur will be checking in with bloggers on the ground in Iowa and staffers from the different campaigns throughout the night. I'll be live blogging all the results, rumors, and scuttlebutt too. Come party with us!

http://bravenewfilms.org/election?utm_source=rgemail

WHEN: TONIGHT AT 7PM ET
HOSTS: Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and Wes Clark, Jr.
WHERE: http://bravenewfilms.org/election?utm_source=rgemail

SCHEDULE:
7:30pm ET: Adam Green, Moveon.org
7:45pm ET: Sam Seder, Air America
8:00pm ET: Faiz Shakir, Think Progress
8:15pm ET: Matt Stoller, Open Left
8:30pm ET: Sean Paul-Kelly, The Agonist
8:45pm ET: Todd Beeton, MyDD
9:00pm ET: Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation

ALSO SCHEDULED TO APPEAR:
Ellen Brodsky, News Hounds
Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
Ari Melber, The Nation
Richard Wolffe, Newsweek

See you online tonight,
Jim Gilliam, Leighton Woodhouse, and everyone at Brave New Films and the Young Turks.

Barack Obama

"Obama Tops Final Democratic Power Rankings, Edwards and Clinton Tie for Second"

Iowa Independent:

With less than a week to go before Iowans brave the cold weather to attend their precinct caucuses, the Democratic race is as difficult to predict as ever. Campaigns have blanketed the state with candidates and surrogates, and staff are working long hours in their final push for supporters and volunteers.

Today, Iowa Independent releases its final round of power rankings, designed to answer the question, "If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?" The rankings are derived from impressions we received from activists, campaign officials, seasoned political observers, and rank-and-file caucus-goers, but at the most basic level, they are based on the gut feelings and instincts of our writers, who have watched the race unfold here from the beginning.

A lot can change in six days, and we expect that it will. But if the caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would turn out:

First Place

Barack Obama -- The Obama campaign's ability to build a crowd is its greatest asset. The Illinois senator consistently seems to draw larger crowds than his opponents in the same places, which speaks both to the strength of his campaign's organization and the enthusiasm his candidacy seems to generate. And his wave of small-town newspaper endorsements should enhance his second-choice support in rural parts of the state where he has been perceived as weak. If the caucuses were held tonight, Obama would pull off a narrow victory.

Second Place

(tie) Hillary Clinton -- The Clinton campaign's ambitious "Every County Counts" tour the week before Christmas was not without errors, but its lasting impact seems to be that it firmed up some of the campaign's softer support and drew new caucus-goers in to hear what Clinton had to say. That, in combination with the Des Moines Register's endorsement and the extraordinary efforts of independent groups like Emily's List and AFSCME, would put Clinton in second place if the caucuses were held tonight.

(tie) John Edwards -- Edwards's greatest asset is the foundation he began building over a year ago. He has lost some of the activists he recruited early on to other campaigns, but in recent weeks his constant campaigning has firmed up his base. His supporters are likely to caucus, and many of them are experienced activists who know what it takes to get out the vote. If the caucuses were held tonight, we think he would finish second.

Fourth Place

Joe Biden -- Recent news out of Pakistan plays right into Biden's central argument: that the United States needs a thoughtful, experienced hand to guide its foreign policy. Biden may also benefit from widespread second-choice support from caucus-goers who do not wish to caucus for one of the top three candidates if they are forced to realign with other groups on caucus night.

Fifth Place

Bill Richardson -- Richardson's foreign policy experience may be his greatest asset, but his stump speech performances are inconsistent and sometimes unconvincing. One gets the sense that some caucus-goers feel he is not ready for prime time.

Sixth Place

Chris Dodd -- Dodd has pockets of support across the state, but he may not reach the 15% threshold for viability in many precincts. He continues to campaign energetically, and almost everyone likes him, but his candidacy has not caught on.

Seventh Place

Dennis Kucinich -- At this point, it remains to be seen whether Kucinich will even show up in Des Moines to give a concession speech on caucus night. He has spent such little time here that most of his hold-out supporters from 2004 have found other candidates.

Eighth Place

Mike Gravel

Barack Obama

"DMR debate: Post-debate focus group backs Obama" (video)

Sam Graham-Felsen (BarackObama.com):

Here's what a group of Iowans had to say about the debate. Watch this video now.

Howie P.S.: This focus group was led by Frank Lutz and was broadcast on the dreaded FAUX network.

Barack Obama

"Obama Against Permanent Bases in Iraq"

TPM:

This morning, in response to questions from TPM Election Central, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign issued a somewhat hedged statement opposing permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

The campaign has now followed that up with a new statement offering much more definitive opposition to a permanent U.S. military presence.

We're still tracking down positions from other candidates. More soon.
Late Update: Sen. Hillary Clinton has sent a letter to the White House outlining her opposition to permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and saying they would "damage U.S. interests." As we reported yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd is also opposed. We'll have a statement from former Sen. John Edwards' campaign shortly.

Barack Obama

"JJ Dinner on CSPAN" (live streaming video)

Ben Smith, live streaming video:

If you're interested, they're carrying the premier Iowa event live starting around 8:00 p.m. (5:00p.m. Pacific).

"Obama Leads All Contenders in Washington"

Angus Reid Global Monitor:

Democrat Barack Obama holds a high level of public support in the Evergreen State, according to a poll by SurveyUSA released by KING-TV. At least 52 per cent of respondents in Washington would support the Illinois senator in head-to-head 2008 United States presidential contests against three Republican politicians.

Obama leads former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by 11 points, actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson by 14 points, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 22 points.

In other contests, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tied with Giuliani, but leads Thompson and Romney. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is almost even with Giuliani, but ahead of Thompson and Romney.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won Washington’s 11 electoral votes, with 53 per cent of the vote. The last Republican to carry the Evergreen State in a U.S. presidential election was Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Incumbent George W. Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next United States presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Polling Data

A few questions now about the next election. If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were (the following) who would you vote for?

Rudy Giuliani (R) 41% - 52% Barack Obama (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 40% - 54% Barack Obama (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 35% - 57% Barack Obama (D)

Rudy Giuliani (R) 47% - 47% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 42% - 52% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 40% - 54% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)

Rudy Giuliani (R) 44% - 45% John Edwards (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 36% - 51% John Edwards (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 31% - 55% John Edwards (D)

"BARACK OBAMA LEADING AMONG LIKELY VOTERS IN IOWA" (video)

SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, NBC MEET THE PRESS (video, 10:21).

Howie P.S.: Ben Smith cautions against reading too much into this latest poll.

"Obama needs an ace"

Tom Watkin (Guardian UK):

Generating enthusiasm for change isn't enough. To beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama will have to make a move.--"I say O, you say Bama," the woman yells.
"O..."
"...Bama!"
"O..."
"...Bama!"

So went the warm up act last week, when I saw Barack Obama speak in San Francisco to an adoring crowd of thousands. It was my first US Presidential rally, and a fascinating look at the fervour of American politics. The crowd yelled back their "Bama!" with unbridled vigour. And this was at lunchtime on a week day.

Americans retain a desire to believe in their leaders that apathy and cynicism has gnawed away in most other western democracies. Outsiders like me will always feel a little uncomfortable with the cult of personality this tends to generate, a willingness to transpose heroism onto their leaders - which goes all the way back to George Washington. On the other hand, such faith in democracy and in those who seek to serve as leaders is refreshing, especially given the deception of the current Presidency. If, as Billy Bragg has sung "cynicism's such a cop out", this crowd was all-in.

The poker metaphor stems from the fact that I watched this rally in the company of a professional poker player. And because at the end of the event, I knew that Obama is starting to raise the stakes on the Democratic side of the presidential campaign.

It's a received truth in this campaign - one which I think stands up to inspection - that 2008, more than usual, will be a change election. It's been some years since so many people have been so fed up with a sitting president for so long. And there's next to no chance that President Bush will change course on any of his major policies in the next year.

As a result, two of the three major Democratic candidates - Obama and John Edwards - are running as Washington outsiders against the ultimate Washington insider, Hilary Clinton. They want the Democratic primaries to be referendums on the failings of Washington as a whole, and Americans' desire for a less corrupt style of government.
From the time Obama committed to run, his literature was full of change language. In one early letter asking for financial support were the underlined words, "The American people are hungry for a different kind of politics, and our campaign is about answering that call."

In the last month or two commentators have been stressing that this could be Clinton's Achilles' heel. Edwards and Obama were strongly anti-war, pro-universal health, and boldly promising change-heavy agendas. In comparison, after 20 years of leadership by the two same families, what could be less about change than another Clinton in the White House? Two words repeated - Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton - could yet pierce Hilary's increasingly comfortable lead in the polls.

The argument sounded compelling, but it was never that simple.

Obama is an intriguing candidate, with a whiff of real integrity. As the professional gambler beside me at the speech said, "you get the sense he just might be one of those 'two in a century' Presidents". He was sufficiently impressed to offer me odds on an Obama victory.

Undoubtedly, the Illinois senator does promise distinct change from President Bush. Whereas Bush is defined by his assurance, summed up in the title of the new book Dead Certain, Obama revels in a glorious uncertainty. He stresses the fact he doesn't know everything, that he will listen and learn from other viewpoints. He has written that "we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with certainty."

Obama is what you might call an unconviction politician, the antithesis of Bush's moral certainty.

Yet Clinton hasn't become the ultimate insider without learning a thing or two. This month she has, well, changed her message to one of change. In her new stump speech she promises: "I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country". Her new ad in Iowa and New Hampshire ends "If we're ready for change, she's ready to lead".

You'd think an anti-establishment message would be a hard sell for a Clinton. But the opinion polls suggest Democrats are buying. I suspect the reason, something the beltway commentators who have pitched Obama versus Clinton as "Change versus Experience" have failed to realize, is that for many voters change doesn't have to mean anything as grand as overhauling Washington or healing a divided nation. That may even seem too idealistic. As one Democratic supporter said to me after the Obama rally: "I'm not sure if I dare believe".

The simple, believable change that Clinton offers is a return to competence: change merely as an end to Bush's bumblings. That could be change enough for most voters.

Where does that leave Obama? Judging by the San Francisco speech, he's willing to see Clinton's change and raise her one. He says "it's going to take more than a change of parties in the White House to turn this country round", because the type of politics that needs to be defeated "was there before Bush and Cheney". There's no question who he's referring to.

And there's no question he's upping the ante.

"We are not here just to win an election. We are here to transform a nation," he says.
The crowd at the rally goes wild, but there's an air of desperation in those words. He's gambling on the hope that Americans want not just change but upheaval. And that may be asking too much of this weary country.

However, as end of the year approaches with Clinton retaining a comfortable lead in the polls and a third-place finish in both Iowa and North Carolina a real prospect, Obama is going to have to make a move. His current campaigning, rousing as it is, will not propel him past Clinton on its own.

If he's got an ace up his sleeve, he's going to have to play it soon.

"Blacks moving away from Clinton to Obama, poll shows"

The Times and Democrat (SC):

COLUMBIA -- The results are in on a groundbreaking Winthrop/ETV poll, conducted exclusively with S.C. African-Americans between Aug. 19 and Sept. 9 as the Democratic presidential candidates battled for the top spot and talk was of Gen. Petraeus' testimony about Iraq.

The Winthrop/ETV poll was conducted among 657 randomly selected African-Americans in South Carolina and has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.82 percent.

Discussing the pioneering nature of the survey during an ETV appearance, Dr. Scott Huffmon, director of the Winthrop/ETV poll initiative, said, "This poll is groundbreaking because it samples the general African-American population, not just likely voters, and because of the breadth of the topics it covers. We felt that the African-American population is vastly underserved when it comes to having its opinions recorded. This is our attempt to address that issue."

On the results themselves, Huffmon, who designed the survey with the assistance of Winthrop University's co-director of African-American Studies, Dr. Adolphus Belk, Jr., said the horse race results show that, "Early on, African-Americans threw their support to Hillary Clinton, primarily based on the Clinton legacy. However, as African-American voters have gotten to know Barack Obama, support for him has increased significantly. The real tipping point in the Democratic primary election may be undecided African-American female voters -- there are many more African-American female undecideds than males, and Clinton and Obama are dead even among African-American women. It may literally come down to whoever gets the African-American female vote. Clearly support for Edwards, etc. is coming from white voters. On another note, among African-Americans in South Carolina right now, George Bush is proving to be a much more polarizing figure than the Confederate flag."

Adds Belk, "The survey results show that there is considerable dissatisfaction within the African-American community regarding the war on terrorism -- in particular the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 90 percent of the respondents said that they disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. What is more, only 7.3 percent of the respondents believed that the war in Iraq has made America safer, while 82.5 percent felt that it has created additional threats to our security. About 84 percent of those surveyed said that they disapproved of the president's handling of the war in Afghanistan."

Among the Winthrop/ETV Poll Findings:

* The horse-race results take on added significance by the fact that historically, African-Americans have made up to 50 percent of voters in Democratic primaries in South Carolina.

When the question was asked "If the Democratic presidential primary election were held today, which of these candidates would you vote for?" and broken down among both genders, male only, female only, and those who feel their race or ethnic background contributes a great deal to their identity, Barack Obama emerges as the winner in three out of the four match-ups, trailing Clinton in the fourth match-up (taken of women only) by .3 of one percentage point.

Coming in third in the field, with only 3 percent in his column, Edwards and his fellow Dems just don't seem to be registering with African-Americans -- although almost 30 percent count themselves as still undecided. Edwards, in the first Winthrop/ETV poll released in late May, taken among registered voters of all races -- was the top choice of 10.7 percent of the respondents.

* Of the 10 Republican candidates, only newcomer Fred Thompson made inroads, with a 20.9 percent showing. Importantly though, of the 657 polled, a mere 45 individuals said they would vote in the Republican primary in January, and of those, almost half (46.5 percent) were still undecided whom they would vote for. This means all remaining Republicans received such a tiny fraction of positive responses, that the numbers they accrued are statistically insignificant.

* When asked, "Do you think white Americans would be willing to vote for an African-American for president?" almost 60 percent agreed they would, with an additional 10.4 percent either unsure about, or unwilling to, offer an opinion.

* With news of the surge dominating headlines this week, the vast majority of respondents, 61.3 percent, felt that the troop surge has been either somewhat unsuccessful or very unsuccessful.

* When it comes to whether African-Americans feel they are being asked to assume too much of the burden of fighting the war in Iraq, those who say yes, and those who say no, are separated by a mere 4.1 percent (39.4 versus 43.5 percent, respectively. Another 16.1 percent are unsure.

Among the additional findings:

* Fifty-three percent of respondents felt that the Republican Party was working to attract African-American voters. And of those, some 61 percent feel that the party is either very effective, or somewhat effective, in their efforts. At the same time, 56.2 percent of respondents felt that the national Democratic Party, and 57.1 percent of the respondents felt that the SC Democratic Party were taking their votes for granted.

* While almost 50 percent of respondents felt the Confederate flag was primarily either a symbol of racism or hate, almost 20 percent saw it as symbolizing both pride in heritage and symbolic of racism and hate, while 11.3 percent saw it as neither.

Almost 87 percent disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president.

* Even though almost 75 percent of those polled felt that sex between two adults of the same sex was strongly unacceptable, or somewhat unacceptable, 47 percent also said they have a family member who is openly gay or lesbian, and almost 50 percent said they have a close friend in one of those categories.

* Over 73 percent of respondents felt that sexually explicit lyrics in Rap music cause males to be sexually explicit with females, while almost 75 percent say that violent Rap music and videos do lead people to be more violent. Still, almost 72 percent feel that some Rap music has positive themes that have the ability to uplift and empower people.

* While almost 40 percent of those who took the poll describe South Carolina public schools as doing a good or excellent job in educating students in the state, an additional 38.4 percent rated SC public schools as only fair, while 16.6 percent said they did a poor job. When it comes to looking at only African-American children who are in school, those who feel they're receiving a good or excellent education drops to 27.5 percent, while 40.5 percent selected "only fair" to best describe their opinion, and one-fourth, or almost 26 percent, thought the state was doing a poor job of educating black youth.

Democratic Debate Sunday Morning

ABC New airs this one, 9AM in Seattle, your town here.

"9 Reasons Hillary Clinton Could Never Be a “Second Black President”"

Think On These Things:

9 Reasons Why Hillary Could Never Be a “Second Black President.”

It pains me in my soul to see the Associated Press tell black people that Hillary Clinton is vying to be our “second black President.” I find the assertion to be patronizing and paternalistic, especially since it didn’t come first from the black community.

1. 9 out of 10 African Americans did not support invading Iraq. Yet, Hillary Clinton with all the strength of her conviction authorized going into Iraq. She continued to maintain this position up until the past year or so when it became unpopular to do so. While Clinton says she “trusted this President,” on Iraq, 87% of black folk do not trust President Bush. Her record and intuitions are out of step with African Americans.

2. Hillary Clinton went overseas and proudly proclaimed, “Outsourcing will continue.” Hundreds of thousands of African Americans have lost their jobs as these jobs have been shipped overseas. Last night though in front of a black audience she said, “Well, outsourcing is a problem.” I don’t think African Americans appreciate that flip-flopping on why they have lost jobs.

3. Hillary Clinton has requested billions of dollars in earmarks with the majority of it going to defense companies over the past few years. She refuses to make her earmark requests completely open to the public. Barack Obama is the only major Democrat to make his earmark requests public. He has asked for requests for things like education, public health, and the environment. Clinton’s fiscal priorities are not the same as most African Americans’.

4. Hillary unashamedly runs a campaign of “Vote for me, so I can break that final glass ceiling for women.” An African American doesn’t have the luxury of running an identity-based campaign. While Obama has gone in front of black audiences and said, “I have to earn your vote like any other politician, ” Clinton goes to female audiences and says, “It’s time to break the biggest glass ceiling in the land.” I appreciate her seeing the light of her privilege on the issue of HIV last night. However, if she truly wanted to abdicate her privilege, she would forgo the gender card approach to her campaigning. She’d run solely on the issues. Because she doesn’t have a good record though, she is having no problem using the gender card.

5. We’ve heard the shocking statistics and seen the effects of the increasing number of African Americans who are involved in the penal system. These numbers soared under the Clinton Administration to be higher than the two Republican Presidents preceding him. In fact, when there was an effort to equalize sentencing for crack and powder cocaine, to the dismay of many, Bill Clinton rejected it. The Clintons should not get a pass on this issue just because Clinton plays a saxophone, shows up to clap in a black church, or his wife throws out pre-scripted one-liners.

6. What kind of message does it send to African American men, to say you can graduate from Columbia, summa cum laude from Harvard University, become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, make a razor-sharp accurate judgment call on one of the biggest foreign-policy blunders in this nation’s history (Iraq), have an intact family with no extramarital affairs, raise the most campaign cash, have the most donors, and be open and transparent in telling the truth on your taxes, earmarks, and everything else. YET a white female who comes along and has none of this, especially no track record of sound judgment on key issues, can still come along and be proclaimed “as black” or “blacker” than you are? We talk about “acting white” but what does that message send about what it means to be black?

7. We’ve heard about the racial disparities in health care. Go see Michael Moore’s movie, Sicko, tonight for more on Hillary’s relationship with the health care lobbyists.

8. Any hint of opportunity she had of being a “black” President was quickly snatched away when she went down to Selma and jacked up James Cleveland!

9. Toni Morrison’s a bright woman, but even she can make mistakes. The fact is, we haven’t had a first black President yet.

"Let’s Play “Democrat or Republican”: The Racial Politics Round"

Think On These Things:

In this game, contestants, please select whether a Democrat did it or a Republican did it.

Round 1: Racial Politics

1: Which party has a candidate appearing now on the cover of a major magazine beside the headline, “Can A White Man Still Be Elected President?” (h/t Jack and Jill Politics)

2: Which party had one of its candidates’ wives talking to white people in Georgia saying, “You know _____, reminds me a lot of Jesse Helms”?

3: Which party had one of its’ candidates’ wives complain to a media outlet that “We can’t make ____ black, we can’t make him a woman?”

4: Which party had one of its’ candidates’ caught talking to an all-white crowd in Iowa when the media weren’t around making comments like, “It’s not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with…I think it’s just a reality that I can campaign any place in America *wink wink*”?

Bonus round (Gender Politics):

5: Which party had one of its’ candidates’ wives say of another female candidate, “Sometimes you have to act like a man and not talk about women’s issues”?

Howie P.S.: For the answers, go here. Hint:

"USA Today/Gallup Poll Rigged to Favor Clinton"

Think On These Things:

Zennie Abraham reports: On June 5th 2007, USA Today / Gallup Poll released a poll of the Democratic Presidential race that showed Senator Barack Obama tied with Senator Hillary Clinton. But rather than communcate the results of that poll widely, Frank Newport of USA Today / Gallup, the Gallup Guru, said that they got "the wrong sample size.." Check it out at the link above.

Howie P.S.: I'm not saying this is all true, I'm just saying.....check it out for yourself.