Obamania hits Granite State

The junior senator from Illinois has jumped out to a lead of 10 percentage points over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Now what?

In the wake of Iowa's stunning results, the 2008 presidential race suddenly turns a corner and heads down a path so strange that John McCain, with only a fourth-place finish Thursday night, is now seen as a much stronger contender for the Republican nomination.

How weird is that?

BooMan says Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are finished and predicts that Barack Obama will defeat McCain in November.

The Politicker explains why Mike Huckabee's victory is good news for McCain.

Arianna Huffington wonders if the outbreak of Obamania might be just a fleeting thing.

The Rockford Rascal says it won't be fleeting and offers this bit of eloquence as evidence:

Obama wins!

Well, I got the winners in both parties wrong.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney was much weaker than I had expected. And among the Democrats, I had figured that John Edwards had a better ground game than Barack Obama and that Hillary Clinton was fading.

With some precincts still to report, it looks like Clinton will finish third, a psychological disaster for her campaign.

Clinton has enough money, organization and popular support to soldier on, but if she finishes third tonight, she is badly wounded. Edwards, in second place, has dodged a proverbial bullet.

The dumbest poll ever

The headline in USA Today reads: "Bush tops 'most admired' poll."

But that isn't exactly what the story says. The poll actually shows that President Bush and former President Bill Clinton are statistically tied as the most admired men. (Bush is the choice of 10 percent of respondents, and Clinton gets 8 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, so Bush and Clinton are tied.)

Of course, the whole exercise is stupid. Sitting U.S. presidents, no matter how low their overall approval ratings, almost always come out at or near the top in these "most admired" polls. With nine out of every 10 respondents choosing somebody other than the so-called winner, the effort is rightly regarded as a waste of time.

And what are we to make of Hillary Clinton garnering six times as many votes as Laura Bush for the title of most admired woman? We should make nothing of it -- or of anything else having to do with this ridiculous poll.

Bhutto slaying boost to Rudy and Hillary?

That's what Joe Scarborough said this morning on MSNBC:

Bob Kerrey would be Hillary's running mate?

This guy says the Medal of Honor recipient will be Hillary's choice for the veep spot if she wins the Democratic nomination.

But I'm not betting it that way. I think Kerrey is too much of a loose cannon, and I can't imagine that Hillary's advisers wouldn't recognize that, too.

Des Moines paper endorses McCain, Clinton

The Register's arguments in both the Democratic and Republican races are far from persuasive (but let's concede that choosing from among the GOP candidates had to be painful and difficult).

Your so-called liberal media

Some pinhead at The Washington Post has written a long article about the fact that Hillary Clinton often wears pantsuits.

This is the same Washington Post that spreads baseless rumors about Barack Obama and offers the senile scrawlings of David Broder.

I remember when the Post was a great newspaper.

You don't have to be a sexist to oppose Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy -- but it helps

Hillary Clinton would make a better president than any of the Republican candidates for the job, but she's not my first choice. I prefer Barack Obama.

Clinton's gender has nothing to do with my choice in this matter. Nor is it necessarily a factor in the attitudes of some of the other folks who prefer some other candidate. But let's not kid ourselves. There are a whole lot of people out there who have deep-seated misgivings about the very idea of a woman serving as president, and lots of them see certain traits they would admire in a man as unattractive in a woman.

Robin Gerber of the Gallup Organization has an interesting take on the situation.

Is Hillary toast?

I don't agree with this guy's assessment, but it's worth pondering.

Huckabee vs. Hillary?

That's one of the scenarios imagined in BooMan's interesting analysis of the races for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations.

Zogby poll on Hillary smells fishy

Zogby International is out with a poll purporting to show that Hillary Clinton is trailing each of the five top Republican presidential hopefuls -- a finding sharply at odds with the results of a Gallup poll.

The difference seems to be attributable to the fact that the Zogby poll was conducted online, a notoriously unreliable method of measuring public opinion.

It's understandable that right-wing bloggers would tout the Zogby numbers, but it's irresponsible of the mainstream media to follow suit.

Details on the matter can be found here.

POSTSCRIPT: These results from a Gallup poll (conducted by time-tested methods) show both Clinton and Barack Obama faring well in matchups against Republican candidates. (Be sure to check all four pages by clicking at the bottom of each.)

POSTSCRIPT II: Greg Sargent's comparison of the Zogby and Gallup polls is here.

Even reputable bloggers sometimes misinterpret polls

Talking Points Memo, one of my favorite blogs, had this to report today:

"New ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama with lead in Iowa."

But the poll does not actually show Barack Obama with a lead. It puts Obama at 30 percent and Hillary Clinton at 26 percent. That gap of 4 percentage points is within the poll's margin of error. Hence, the poll shows a statistical dead heat.

It's bad enough that the mainstream media do such a poor job of interpreting poll results. Progressive bloggers should be careful to avoid such mistakes.

UPDATE: Fox News gets the Post/ABC poll wrong with this headline: "Latest Iowa Poll Shows Obama Leading the Pack." But The New York Times gets it right with this: "A Statistical Tie in Iowa."

Ouch!

This TV spot (h/t to DailyKos) for John Edwards delivers some pretty good hits on Hillary Clinton:

OOPS!!

On Tuesday, I mused here on what a fuss would ensue if Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But then yesterday, I flatly predicted that it wouldn't happen.

Well, of course, now it has happened. Al Gore is a Nobel laureate -- unless it turns out that agents for George W. Bush can steal enough votes on the Nobel committee or can somehow get the Supreme Court to reverse the verdict. (Heh, heh. Just kidding.)

So, now I'm left to make another flat prediction, and I've got a lot of confidence in this one:

Al Gore will not run for the Democratic presidential nomination next year. A failed effort in that regard would only diminish this most prestigious honor. Why would he want to risk that?

Besides, a candidacy on Gore's part would be highly problematic. He's not the best political campaigner. He would alienate many of the followers of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and would split the Democratic Party apart (just when the party seems to be fairly unified while the Republicans are badly splintered and dispirited).

No, Gore won't run. He'll be happy to take his Nobel and use it to advance the cause of environmentalism.

POSTSCRIPT: Here's an early roundup of reaction from around the blogosphere.

Incredible!

Bob Somerby (left) over at the Daily Howler did a brilliant job the other day exposing the ridiculous lengths to which certain celebrated political pundits (Tim Russert, David Broder, David Gregory, et al) will go to cast doubts on Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy.

The subject is baseball, and the important background factor is that Clinton grew up in the Chicago area but now represents New York in the U.S. Senate. I'm using the text from Somerby's piece in addition to a link (which brings up some extraneous material):

DAMNED FOR THE YANKEES: The first person we saw who took it seriously was the New York Times’ hapless Gail Collins. On Saturday morning, Collins was typing very hard about the way vile Hillary Clinton just won’t take any firm stands. We thought the column was weak through and through. But then, dear God! She typed this:

COLLINS (9/29/07): It's one thing to refuse to answer a hypothetical question about whether there is any circumstance under which you might ever use nuclear weapons against Iran. It's another to refuse to commit on who you'd root for if the Yankees played the Cubs in the World Series. No young person is going to fall in love with politics because of a candidate who says: ''I would probably have to alternate sides.”

Good God—Collins actually seemed to be serious! She actually seemed to be criticizing Clinton for the joking remarks she made when Russert asked her, in last week’s debate, who she’d root for if the Cubs played the Yankees in the World Series. But then, Collins perhaps didn’t understand that Clinton was joking about those “alternate sides”—making a play on the way the commander-in-chief used to switch sides at half-time at the Army-Navy football game. (Prexies no longer attend that game.) Maybe Collins just didn’t know that this whole thing had been a damn joke.

But then, good lord! The very next day, a doddering Dean voiced the same complaint—and he too seemed to be playing it straight! Here’s where The Pundit Dean ended up as he bleated about Clinton’s “evasiveness:”

BRODER (9/30/07): "It went on like that through several more topics, until a final question about baseball fandom. Clinton identified herself as a Yankees fan, saying she knew it would not help her with the Red Sox Nation supporters in New Hampshire. But what if it is the Cubs vs. the Yankees, Russert asked. "I guess I would have to alternate," she said, triangulating once again.

"This dodginess got her through the two hours. Whether it can get her through the next three months is a different question..."

There are no words for such phony conduct. It was clear that Clinton was joking throughout this pointless exchange with Russert. But to Broder, when Clinton joked about her two favorite teams, this meant that she was “triangulating again!” It was a mark of her “dodginess,” the tired old Hill-hater said.

And then, it was time for Meet the Press—and the Head Raccoon had summoned some lodge-mates to sit agreeably on his panel. Like Digby (hurrah!), we’ll post a substantial chunk of what happened. It defies the things we think we know—to see that people will gather in a group, on TV, and pretend to be this stupid. The Head Raccoon was shedding real tears as this ludicrous segment began:

RUSSERT (10/1/07): I tried to get these candidates to take positions on Iraq, on Social Security, on the big issues.

PAT BUCHANAN: Mm-hmm.

RUSSERT: We talked about baseball. And I found this exchange particularly interesting. Let's watch.

(Videotape) RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, what about a World Series, Yankees and Cubs?

CLINTON: Well, you know, I've worried about that because I think, given the Cubs' record, which—of course I, I hope it happens, but it could very well be a sign of the coming apocalypse were that to ever occur. It would be so out of history that you'd have the Cubs vs. the Yankees. Then I'd be really in trouble. But I—

RUSSERT: But who would you be for?

CLINTON: Well, I would probably have to alternate sides. (Laughter)(End videotape)

RUSSERT: Well, the Cubs are in the playoffs, David.

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah.

RUSSERT: Cubs, Yankees. You going to seat—sit behind each dugout?

GREGORY: You can't have it all. In the sports world, you can't have it all.

BUCHANAN: But, Tim—

GREGORY: That reeks of calculation, which is a potential downside for her.

BUCHANAN: The term "Nixonian" comes to mind on that response.

Russert even played the tape, so people could see that Clinton was joking. (The term “laughter” after Clinton’s remark appears in the Nexis transcript.) But Gregory, playing it totally straight, said her answer “reeked of calculation”—and Buchanan went with “Nixonian.” As we watched, we still thought the whole group might be joking. But as this lodge of fools continued, it became clear that they actually weren’t. Even Tavis Smiley played along, earning his spot in The Brotherhood:

RUSSERT (continuing directly): How so?

BUCHANAN: In the good sense of the word.

RUSSERT: How so, Pat?

BUCHANAN: Well, I mean, which—"on the one hand, on the other."

TAVIS SMILEY: That sounds like Romney is what it sounded like.

RUSSERT: But, Dan Balz, it's been tough getting these candidates to, to one, one, talk to the press and take real positions. They want to hide out in the Internet, they want to hide out on their blogs, they want to put out prefab commercials and brochures. But when you say to them, "Where are you on Social Security? How are you going to save that program? Where are you on Iraq? Where are you on immigration?" sometimes you get answers like that.

Good Lord! To his semi-credit, Tavis smiled grimly as he spoke—but he played along with the klan, comparing Clinton to flip-flopping Romney. And Russert made it clear at the end—this was meant to be an example of phony pols who just weren’t willing to play it straight. The Head Raccoon was showing his pain. “It's been tough,” he sobbed to Balz, “getting these candidates to...take real positions.” “Sometimes you get answers like that,” he complained—talking about a joking reply to his stupid-ass question about the Cubs versus the Yankees.

Insane? Deranged? Is our language too strong? Too strong when this stable of millionaires makes such a ludicrous joke of our discourse? David Gregory—he of the millions per year—was playing along with the Head Raccoon, and Smiley—a major self-promoter—was willing to get stupid too. But what are liberals and Dems to do, when this cult of multimillionaires starts down this troubling path once again? We have put up with these people for year after year—we’re in Iraq because of their conduct—and they have played this game the whole time, and seem to be gearing up once again. Now, the crying King of the Nantucket nabobs introduced a very familiar notion. As usual, the Dem front-runner was a big fake—even when she told a joke about the Cubs and the Yankees.

Women, know your limits

Pathological Hillary haters won't see the humor in this video, but people who walk upright will find it hilarious (or Hillaryous, as it were).

(H/T to Crooks and Liars.)

Which GOP prez hopeful leads in Illinois?

Come on. Ask yourself: Which of the 10 candidates for the Republican presidential nomination (11, if you include Fred Thompson) is ahead in Illinois?

If I didn't already know the answer, I probably would have guessed Thompson. Well, according to this American Research Group poll, it's Rudy Giuliani by nine percentage points over Thompson.

I expect that to change. Yes, yes, I know that Illinois Republicans, on the whole, are a bit more moderate than their brethren nationally (and they're becoming increasingly moderate in the suburbs of Chicago). But Rudy's popularity among the GOP rank-and-file in this state likely will fade as his numbers decline elsewhere, as surely they will.

There's simply no way that this thrice-married, pro-choice, pro-gay New Yorker is going to be the Republican nominee. He'll be an also-ran by Christmas.

The ARG poll results for Illinois in the Democratic race also are a bit surprising, in that favorite son Barack Obama is no better than tied with Hillary Clinton when you factor in the margin of error. But that, too, will change before year's end.

Hillary spoofs "The Sopranos"

By way of a video that parodies the iconic finale of "The Sopranos," Hillary Clinton has announced that a number by Celine Dion has been chosen as the Clinton campaign song after a month-long public vote on Hillary's Web site.

The video, which co-stars a guy named Bill, is here.

How soon they forget

Frank Manzullo, the brother of U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, has a letter to the editor in today's Rockford Register Star in which he sternly disparages politicians who don't march in lockstep with George W. Bush's ill-advised policy in Iraq.

He even implies that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But Frank seems to have forgotten when brother Don was an antiwar activist who didn't stand behind his president in a time of international conflict and instead called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the theater of war.

The story of Don's dissent is here. Perhaps it would refresh Frank's memory.

UPDATE: One wonders what Frank Manzullo thinks of all the retired generals, including former field commanders in Iraq, who have spoken out against the war. Are they unpatriotic?

UPDATE II: If he has a taste for satire, Frank might want to ponder this about retired Gen. George Washington.