(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - There is no clear favourite among the Republican Party's United States presidential contenders in the Granite State, according to a poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released by CNN and WMUR. 25 per cent of likely GOP voters would support former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in next year's primary, while 24 per cent would back former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Arizona senator John McCain is third with 18 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 13 per cent. Support is lower for Texas congressman Ron Paul, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Kansas senator Sam Brownback, California congressman Duncan Hunter, and Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo.

In the sample of Democratic Party supporters, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is first with 43 per cent, followed by Illinois senator Barack Obama with 20 per cent, former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 12 per cent, and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson with six per cent. Support is lower for Delaware senator Joe Biden, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Connecticut senator Chris Dodd.

New Hampshire traditionally hosts the first presidential primary in the United States. Since 1952, 11 Republicans and eight Democrats have won the Granite State contest and later earned their party's presidential nomination. New Hampshire allows independent voters to take part in primaries.

In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic New Hampshire primary with 38.4 per cent, followed by former Vermont governor Howard Dean with 26.3 per cent, retired general Wesley Clark with 12.4 per cent, and Edwards with 12.1 per cent. Incumbent president George W. Bush won the Republican primary without serious opposition.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 30, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most popular United States presidential contender for Democratic Party supporters in the Sunshine State, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 47 per cent of likely Democratic primary voters in Florida would vote for the New York senator in next year's primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 22 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 11 per cent. Four per cent of respondents would vote for other candidates, and 15 per cent are undecided.

In the sample of Republican Party supporters, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is first with 29 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 23 per cent-up six points since August. Arizona senator John McCain is third with 12 per cent, followed by Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with 11 per cent, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee with three per cent.

Earlier this year, a law passed in Florida mandates for the state's presidential primaries to be held either on the first Tuesday of February, or seven days after the New Hampshire contest. The Republican and Democratic primaries in Florida are tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29, 2008.

In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic Florida primary with 77 per cent of the vote. The Republican contest was cancelled, after incumbent George W. Bush was nominated by the state's party.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 29, 2007

The top three Democratic presidential contenders are locked in a three-way race among likely Iowa caucus-goers, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll-while Romney leads his Republican rivals in the Hawkeye State.

Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a double-digit lead over her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in many national polls. But in Iowa, home to the January 2008 caucus that is the first major event of the electoral season, the Democratic race is much tighter, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. Among all Iowa Democrats surveyed, Clinton enjoys a 6-point lead over her nearest rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. But among likely Democratic caucus-goers, she is locked in a three-way race with Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, with Obama enjoying a slight edge.

Meanwhile, the NEWSWEEK Poll found that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has emerged as the top choice among Iowa's GOP voters-well ahead of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leads in most national polls. But Romney's religious beliefs could pose a problem; less than half of all Republicans in the state (45 percent) think the country is ready to elect a Mormon president (35 percent do not).

With less than four months to go before the caucuses, both races still appear quite fluid. While Romney is the first choice of 24 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers, none of the Republican candidates comes close to commanding the support of a majority of GOP voters surveyed. And Clinton appears to be the only Democrat with strong support from her party's registered voters.

Among all Iowa Democratic voters, Clinton draws 31 percent, followed by Obama (25 percent) and Edwards (21 percent). But among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent). Bill Richardson is the only other Democratic candidate to score in the double digits (10 percent).

Still, the poll suggests that Clinton's supporters may be the strongest of the pack. A majority of her boosters (55 percent) say their support is "strong," edging Obama (41 percent) and Edwards (37 percent). Neither Clinton's gender nor Obama's race seem to be a sticking point for Iowa Democrats; 94 percent of voters say they would be willing to vote for either a female candidate or a black candidate. But only two thirds think the country is ready to elect a woman (63 percent) or African-American (66 percent) president.

Clinton's record on Iraq may be affecting her support in Iowa. Likely Democratic caucus-goers are split: 22 percent say her record on the war makes them more likely to vote for her; 21 percent say it makes them less inclined. But it's clear that her husband, former president Bill Clinton, is an unalloyed asset. Eight in 10 (79 percent) Democratic likely caucus-goers say it would be good for the country to have him back in the White House as First Gentleman (12 percent do not).

On the other side of the aisle, Romney, who has reportedly spent $2.7 million on television time in the state, has emerged as the Republican front runner both statewide and among likely caucus-goers. He enjoys the support of a quarter (24 percent) of the GOP's likely caucus-goers, followed by Fred Thompson (16 percent), Giuliani (13 percent) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (12 percent). Arizona Sen. John McCain polled just 9 percent.

Still, Romney's support is hardly ironclad. Twenty-six percent of Iowa Republicans who support him do so "strongly." Giuliani's backing is even softer (22 percent of his backers support him "strongly"). Four in 10 (39 percent) of Thompson's boosters say their support is strong.

Romney's reputation is positive among Hawkeye State Republicans; 55 percent of all GOP voters have a "mostly favorable" view of him (13 percent have a "very favorable" view). Fifty-nine percent of the narrower group of likely GOP caucus-goers have a "mostly favorable" view of Romney, while 19 percent have a "very favorable" view of him. But less than half of them (45 percent) think the country is ready to elect a Mormon president. Although 57 percent of Iowa Republican voters surveyed say they are "somewhat familiar" with the Mormon religion (16 percent say they are "very familiar"), 54 percent consider Mormons to be Christians. (Evangelical Christians make up 42 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers in the state, according to the poll, and 45 percent of Republican voters overall.)

Three quarters of likely GOP caucus-goers (77 percent) view Romney as a politician who can get things done and more than half (55 percent) suspect he can affect needed change. Allegations that he is a "flip-flopper" have stuck with a quarter (24 percent) of likely caucus-goers; 58 percent do not think he flip-flops too often.

Abortion remains another issue of significant importance to Iowa voters, according to the poll. A majority of Republicans (61 percent) and about half of all Democratic voters (47 percent) say abortion will be one of several issues they will consider when casting their vote. But a small minority of both Republican voters (6 percent) and Democratic voters (4 percent) consider it the single most important issue. Giuliani, who has come under fire from conservatives for being insufficiently pro-life, appears to be the candidate whose support is most affected by his stance on abortion. The former mayor gets 26 percent support among Iowa Republican voters who say it's not an important issue, compared with just 11 percent from those who say it is.

By Brian Braiker, Newsweek, September 29, 2007

WASHINGTON - Former Sen. John Edwards tried to deny the obvious the other day when he announced he would accept public financing for his 2008 presidential campaign, and challenged his well-heeled principal rivals, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to do the same.

On the eve of the next quarterly report to the Federal Election Commission of the candidates' fund-raising, Edwards acknowledged that he will fall farther behind Clinton and Obama in the money chase. But he insisted that fact had nothing to do with his decision.

In taking the federal subsidy, Edwards must agree to limit his spending overall and in the various states, putting him at a distinct disadvantage with the two Democratic frontrunners. So he is goading them to follow suit, ostensibly in the interest of cleaner politics.

Earlier this year, Edwards surprised the political community with his ability to take in millions. Then, he was toying with the idea of rejecting the federal subsidy available under campaign finance law not only for the primaries but for the general election as well, if he got that far. Now he thinks he can persuade voters who pay attention to such matters that he is taking Uncle Sam's dollar transfusion on principle, while daring the others to do likewise. The notion is laughably transparent.

Like most struggling political candidates trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, Edwards told CNN: "This is not about a money calculation. This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing." Claiming he has enough money to wage a serious campaign with the limited federal subsidy, he noted that Clinton had said earlier that she is for public financing, so she should "step forward and show she actually means it."

Edwards insisted that he wasn't trying to be "holier than thou" in suddenly defending public financing, saying, "I myself thought early in this campaign about the possibility of not taking public financing." But on the campaign trail, he said, he was hearing repeatedly from voters "how worried they are about the way the system is functioning."

He apparently was referring to this election cycle's record-shattering fund-raising by Clinton and Obama, a competition in which he energetically entered and collected an impressive $23 million from January to June this year, but was eclipsed by their take of more than $50 million each.

In an interview with Larry King on CNN in late January, after saying he supported "mandatory public financing of all of our campaigns (because) we need to get the money out of politics," Edwards said until that happened he would raise as much as he could to compete with the others, rejecting the public money. Edwards' about-face decision now to take the limited federal funds, and opt out of what is being called "the money arms race," makes him the second 2008 presidential candidate who was an early participant in that race to confront financial reality.

In the competition for the Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, the early frontrunner in the polls, also raised money at a furious clip early this year. But he spent it so rapidly, even as his fund-raising fell off sharply, that he too decided he would have to accept the federal money - and the cap on spending that goes with it under the campaign finance law aimed at reducing the influence of money in politics.

After an early spurt in Iowa that propelled Edwards into the lead in the polls in that first caucus state, he has been going more aggressively on the attack against Clinton, especially for her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq. When he was in the Senate, Edwards did the same, but since then he has said flatly he was wrong and has become an outspoken critic of the war.

At the same time, his claim to be the anti-poverty candidate has been undermined by accusations of personal extravagance, throwing him on the defensive. His campaign is hardly in flame-out mode, but trouble signs are obvious.




By Jules Witcover, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 29, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama may be the first sitting member of the Congressional Black Caucus to run for president in more than 30 years yet rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has the edge in endorsements among the group.

With the backing of California Rep. Diane Watson this week, the Clinton campaign counts 13 supporters in the 43-member group to Obama's 12. Although technically since Obama is a member and supporting himself, one could say they are tied.

The endorsements reflect the split of black voters, with the two candidates competing for their support. The only other sitting CBC member to run for president was Rep. Shirley Chisholm of New York, a founding member who ran in 1972.

Clinton and Obama appeared Friday before the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual legislative conference, and both got enthusiastic receptions.

Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., a CBC member who has endorsed Obama and was there to see him speak, attributed Clinton's endorsement lead to the greater number of members from Clinton's New York state as opposed to members from Obama's Illinois.

"It's a favorite son, favorite daughter issue," Bishop said. "Both of them are very attractive candidates to the African-American community.... Bill Clinton was extremely well-liked and loved by a large number of people in the country, particularly African-Americans."

The home state advantage isn't that great. There are four CBC members from New York endorsing Clinton - Yvette Clark, Gregory Meeks, Charles Rangel and Edolphus Towns - and three from Illinois endorsing Obama - Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush.

According to the Clinton campaign, she also has been endorsed by Reps. Corrine Brown, Kendrick Meek and Alcee Hastings of Florida; Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands; Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri; Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas; Laura Richardson of California; and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.

Obama also has the endorsements of Reps. Sanford Bishop and Hank Johnson of Georgia; Lacy Clay of Missouri; John Conyers of Michigan; Elijah Cummings of Maryland; Artur Davis of Alabama; Keith Ellison of Minnesota; Al Green of Texas; and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. The list was provided by the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign did not dispute its accuracy.

John Edwards' campaign says it has the backing of four CBC members — G.K. Butterfield and Melvin Watt of North Carolina; Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas; and Albert Wynn of Maryland.

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, September 28, 2007

Pandering to the interests of specific voting blocs is a common tactic for candidates seeking the presidential nomination of either party. During the 1992 Democratic primaries, Sen. Paul Tsongas famously pulled out a stuffed animal and accused Gov. Bill Clinton of being a "pander bear."

But in the race for the 2008 nominations, pandering has sunk to new lows--especially on the Republican side.

Mitt Romney has unabashedly reinvented himself in his bid for the GOP nomination. In Massachusetts, he ran as a Northeastern liberal Republican. In his failed bid to unseat Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney declared that the gay and lesbian community "needs more support from the Republican Party," and said that the question of same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide.

In his successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney supported domestic partnership status for gay as well as straight couples in Massachusetts, supported the federal assault weapons ban, and said that "the choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Romney did what was necessary to win in liberal Massachusetts, and in so doing he sounded like a Democrat. Now, claiming to have experienced an "epiphany," Romney has flipped 180 degrees. He's recast himself for 2008 as staunchly pro-life, as a varmint hunter, and as an opponent of gay rights who now supports a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Romney isn't just running against his GOP rivals, he's running against himself, circa 2002.

Rudy Giuliani's positions as Mayor of New York were not dissimilar from Romney's as Governor of Massachusetts. Both were "Rockefeller Republicans." Indeed, the only way a GOP candidate could win in Massachusetts or New York City was to be pro-choice, pro-gay rights and anti-gun. The problem is that, at the national level, these are not "politically correct" Republican positions.

But the thrice-married ex-mayor has so far taken a different tack than Romney. Rather than renouncing or conveniently forgetting his previous positions, he states them up front and seems willing to let the chips fall where they may.

At least, up to a point. Rudy tempers his pro-choice record by bizarrely promising to appoint judges who disagree with his own position on abortion. And last week he went before the National Rifle Association and declared his newfound belief in the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms.

Giuliani was attempting to ingratiate himself with people he previously denounced as extremist. In justifying his federal lawsuit against firearms manufacturers in 2000, Mayor Giuliani wrote that the gun industry "profits from the suffering of innocent people." The Republican mayor publicly supported Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban, and called the NRA "extremist" in a 1995 TV interview.

Rudy does deserve credit for looking NRA members in the eye and acknowledging that he still has some differences with the organization. And after enumerating his law and order credentials, he reminded the group of Ronald Reagan's famous dictum, "If you're my 80 percent friend, you're not my 20 percent enemy."

If Giuliani sticks with this (relatively) gutsy approach, he may win the grudging respect of some conservatives. Only time will tell if, once the going gets tough, he too reaches an "epiphany" and abandons outright his previously held positions.

John McCain has the opposite problem--he can't seem to get credit for his conservatism. The four-term Arizona senator has a staunchly pro-life and pro-gun voting record, and he is the hawk of hawks on Iraq. But his "maverick" image and some of his more iconoclastic political positions have always made social conservatives queasy. In 2000, it was McCain-Feingold; for 2008, it's his approach to immigration reform. And while McCain opposes same-sex marriage, he takes a "federalist" position on how to address it--let each state decide on its own, rather than pass a federal law or amend the Constitution. That doesn't garner him many points, either.

But even McCain hasn't been immune to the pander bug. After getting trounced in the 2000 South Carolina primary, where Bush supporters used a variety of underhanded smear tactics, McCain took on Christian conservative leaders with a strong dose of his "straight talk."

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance," McCain said in a seminal speech in February 2000, "whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

Fast forward to the 2008 campaign, and McCain seems to have eaten his words as he seeks the Christian conservative vote. He telegraphed this new approach in May 2006, when he gave the commencement address at Liberty University--the institution founded by the late Jerry Falwell, one of McCain's "agents of intolerance."

Meanwhile, the more genuinely "authentic" social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are getting little traction with the Republican base. As for Fred Thompson, despite his solid conservative voting record in the Senate and national recognition as an actor, his much-hyped candidacy has yet to take off in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of course the Democratic candidates pander to their own special interest groups on the left. But not even Hillary Clinton, with her changing positions on the war, has needed to perform the ideological contortions of some of her Republican counterparts.

Republican primary voters may be thinking more about "electability" than whether a candidate is sincerely and authentically "conservative." But regardless of one's views on gay rights, abortion, or gun control, blatant and perhaps cynical repositioning by major candidates should make voters pause.

By Pierre Atlas, Real Clear Politics, September 28, 2007

To date, the storylines of the two presidential primary contests have been totally divergent.

The Democratic contest has been noteworthy for its stability. The field went through something of a shockwave early this year after it became clear that Barack Obama was indeed going to run, but since the start of the summer almost nothing has changed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to lead in national polling and has even widened her margins in surveys conducted over the past few months. In Iowa, Clinton, Obama and John Edwards are running roughly even, while -- if a new independent poll is to be believed -- Clinton has moved into a commanding spot in New Hampshire. South Carolina, at the moment, appears to be a two-way race between Clinton and Obama.

The Republican nomination race, where fluidity is the name of the game, couldn't be more different. An argument can be made for either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney as the frontrunner, while Fred Thompson remains a major factor in the contest.

So fluid is the Republican contest that writing off any of the candidates -- including Mike Huckabee and John McCain -- may well be premature. Make no mistake: The Fix believes the GOP nominee will come from the current top tier of Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. But this race has been so unpredictable (who could have imagined McCain would have fallen from the first tier so rapidly) that we hesitate to make hard and fast predictions.

THE DEMOCRATS

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Clinton is doing a lot of things right lately, but the one we've noticed the most is the use of her husband as a campaign tool. He has become not just a validator of what kind of president she would be but a foil of sorts for her when she needs one. Take Wednesday night's Democratic debate. Confronted by moderator Tim Russert with the fact that she and her husband disagree on torture as a means of extracting information, Clinton deadpanned: "Well, he's not standing here right now." That moment effectively established Clinton as her own woman. Later, asked whether it was a good thing for someone with the last name of "Clinton" or "Bush" to be on every presidential ticket since 1980, Clinton quickly praised her husband's administration, daring any of the other candidates on stage to raise the less savory aspects of the Clinton years on their own. None did. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Barack Obama: Obama's campaign hit a rough patch over the past month, a development exacerbated by the fact that Clinton seems to be soaring at the same time. But the fundamentals of the race still look promising for Obama; he continues to raise scads of cash and has built huge organizations in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Plus, he doesn't need to peak right now; his campaign would prefer an Obama surge in late December when it really matters. Still, a listless debate performance on Wednesday night didn't help Obama's cause, and the fact that he has spent $3 million on television ads in Iowa without moving his poll numbers in any significant way is somewhat worrisome. (Previous ranking: 2)

3. John Edwards: Edwards has his populist pitch down pat and seems more willing and able to draw distinctions with Clinton than Obama. We continue to be surprised about the staying power of Edwards's support in Iowa, and it now looks like it will be a three-way horse race in the caucuses. Just when momentum seemed to be building for Edwards, he announced late yesterday that he would accept public financing for both the primary and the general election -- a potentially self-defeating move. Not only will Edwards face spending caps in early states, he will also be unable to begin spending general election money until he officially became the party's nominee at the national convention. Assuming the identity of the party nominees is decided by mid-February (at the latest), Edwards would have to endure seven months with little to no money to spend. His campaign is casting it as a proactive decision -- he truly believes in reforming the campaign system. But no matter the reasoning, it complicates the electability argument Edwards has been trying to make for months. (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Bill Richardson: Richardson is betting heavily that his plan to remove all American troops from Iraq will be the silver bullet that turns the Big 3 to the Big 4. It's as good a bet as any for a candidate who, while he continues to raise solid sums of money and run a competent national campaign, just can't find a way to break through. Richardson's new ad in New Hampshire is a blatant appeal to the netroots in hopes that this influential constituency will adopt Richardson and his Iraq proposal in the closing months of the campaign. The big question for Richardson is if he does find a way into the top tier, can he possibly withstand the press scrutiny that comes with it? He's shown a penchant for malapropisms and misstatements during the campaign that might have disqualified him if he was already considered a top tier candidate. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Chris Dodd: We (again) thought about putting Joe Biden in this spot -- due in large part to his continued ability to win endorsements from Iowa state legislators and his decision to make a major commitment to winning the caucuses. But we're still not convinced that Biden will have enough money to be in position to take advantage of a slip from one of the leading Democratic candidates. That's where Dodd comes in; he continues to cast himself as the candidate in the field who doesn't just talk the talk but has walked the walk in the Senate over the past three decades. It also can't hurt Dodd's cause among the netroots to know that Markos Moulitsas (founder of the DailyKos blog) voted for the Connecticut senator in the most recent monthly poll on the site. Plus, Dodd should have enough money to play seriously in Iowa. That's good enough for the fifth spot on The Line this month. (Previous ranking: 5)




By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post, September 28, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton now enjoys a five-point lead over Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. It's Clinton 48% and Giuliani 43%. The former First Lady also leads former Senator Fred Thompson 48% to 41%.

Both match-ups represent gains for the Democratic frontrunner. But the more modest lead, over Giuliani, is also the more dramatic news.

Two weeks ago, Clinton held a statistically insignificant one-point lead over Giuliani. Prior to that, Clinton had held an advantage over Giuliani only once in fourteen consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls.

Giuliani began the year with the advantage in this match-up, but Clinton has gained ground in the latter part of the year. And Clinton has had a particularly good week, getting an often-generous reception for her recently announced health care plan. On Health Care, voters currently trust Democrats more than Republicans by a wider margin than on any other issue.

Senator Clinton also continues to enjoy a very healthy lead in the national Democratic nomination race. Recent polls in the early Primary States of New Hampshire and Florida show her lead growing in both places.

A good showing with primary voters doesn't always translate to clearly greater success in general-election match-ups. But it seems to be happening this week for the senator.

Looking ahead to the general election, Senator Clinton also holds at least nominal leads over Republican hopefuls in the generally GOP-leaning states of Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee and Florida.

Clinton has been ratcheting up her advantage over Thompson in each of the last three polls of the match-up. Two weeks ago, Clinton led Thompson by five. Two weeks before that, she held a four-point edge. And, two weeks before that, in early August, she held a three point advantage over the man from Tennessee. During June and July, Clinton and Thompson were essentially even in national polling.

Hillary Clinton is now viewed favorably by 52%, unfavorably by 46%. These numbers equal her highest favorables and lowest unfavorables in our polling since November. However, throughout the year, Clinton's numbers have rarely strayed more than a point or two from an equal number of favorable and unfavorable ratings.

Senator Thompson is now viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 37%. A fifth of all voters have no definite opinion of him. Last week, 45% offered a favorable assessment of the actor/politician.

Giuliani is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 45%, a low for the year. This marks the second straight week that Giuliani's favorable ratings have been below the 50% mark.

This national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports September 24-25, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is between +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports, September 28, 2007

TRENTON - The two front-runners in the presidential race got more good news from New Jersey as the second poll in less than a week found them maintaining sizable leads against their nearest opponents.

The Fairleigh Dickinson University-PublicMind Poll finds former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 48 percent support among Republicans and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with 46 percent of Democrats' support.

On the Republican side, Giuliani's closest rival is former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson with 12 percent. Among Democrats, Clinton's closest competitor, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has 19 percent.

The poll, released Friday, mirrors Wednesday's Quinnipiac University survey. That poll had Giuliani leading Thompson 45 percent to 12 percent. It had Clinton ahead of Obama 46 percent to 15 percent.

"New Jersey voters know Clinton and Giuliani, and that name recognition makes them the automatic favorites,'' said Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson and a survey analyst for PublicMind. "The race here is really theirs to lose.''

The telephone survey of 701 New Jersey voters was conducted Sept. 17-23 with a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The survey includes 220 Republicans with a sampling error margin of plus or minus 7 percentage points and 345 Democrats with a sampling error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The Associated Press, September 28, 2007

After months of rising above all expectations, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) just can't seem to close the gap with Hillary Clinton. His strengths are finally counterbalanced by his weaknesses, his inexperience, his multiple political personas and his strong opponent, all of which have stopped him dead in his tracks.

In July, Obama offered to sit down for tea with a who's who of the world's dictators, and followed it up by suggesting that we might bomb our ally Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden. These comments played into voters' fears that Obama lacks experience and that he would be thrust onto the world stage without the proper preparation. Mitt Romney had the best line, accusing Obama of having "gone from Dr. Strangelove to Jane Fonda in one week."

But more importantly for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton hit Obama's softball out of the park. She rightly noted that she would not be used by dictators for propaganda purposes. She portrayed herself as a steady hand at the ship of state. And over and over again, on domestic and foreign policy, she has found ways to emphasize her long history in the political arena.

She has even made a virtue out of the failure of her 1993 healthcare plan. When John Edwards carped that Clinton's new healthcare plan was a copy of his, she brushed his criticism away with the back of her hand--"Been there, done that," she said, putting Johnny-come-lately Edwards in his place.

In addition to his lack of experience, Obama has become entangled in his two political personae. Until recently, Obama had been able to successfully portray himself as both the most vociferous anti-war candidate and as the apolitical, above-the-fray leader of a new generation. At times he is heir to Howard Dean's netroots campaign, and at other times he wrings his hands about the partisan bickering in Washington.

These two messages appeal to younger voters who are against the war and more likely to be politically independent than older voters. Often, however, the passion of anti-war activists and the distaste for partisan politics are at odds.

Trying to balance these concerns, Obama played it too cute when he decided to skip last week's vote condemning MoveOn.org's ad against Gen. David Petraeus. All of the Democratic candidates for president were in a difficult spot because the ad was grossly unfair, but none of them wanted to irk MoveOn and risk the accusation of being soft in their opposition to the war. Half of the Senate Democrats voted to condemn the ad, but Hillary Clinton voted against the resolution. In a tortured explanation of his missed vote, Obama argued that it is "this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics."

But by trying to have his cake and eat it too, Obama came across as calculating and political, not above politics. Voting on the substance, he should have condemned the ad; voting on the politics, he should have stuck with Clinton and MoveOn.org, but his halfway house did him no good.

Unfortunately for Obama, while he has been having problems, Hillary Clinton has become the candidate of the voters who want change and of those who want experience. Her appeal is back to the future.

The vast majority of polls since Aug. 1 have shown Clinton with 40-something percent and Obama with 20-something. Obama is treading water. His remarkable ascension in Democratic politics has been halted, and unless something changes, all he'll have is the consolation prize of first runner-up.

By John C. Fortier, The Hill, September 26, 2007

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The latest University of New Hampshire poll came at an inauspicious, but perhaps useful, moment for Barack Obama. Coming on the eve of Wednesday's Democratic debate at Dartmouth College, the survey highlighted the degree to which his campaign badly needs a booster shot.

Obama is moving in the wrong direction--or at best not moving. Having entered the presidential campaign to great promise, he has yet to deliver fully on his potential. Watching Obama on the campaign trail is like watching an enormously gifted athlete, but one who seems to be holding something back until the moment the competition demands more. For Obama, that moment has arrived.

For the sake of comparison, look back to the contest between Al Gore and Bill Bradley eight years ago. Gore was the Hillary Clinton of that race--the favored front-runner, the candidate of the party establishment, the politician with the bigger network. Bradley was that year's Obama, the insurgent whose appeal for a different kind of politics struck a nerve among Democratic elites and independent voters--particularly in New Hampshire.

Gore began that race with a huge lead, both nationally and in New Hampshire, but by this time eight years ago, Bradley had nearly caught the front-runner in New Hampshire. Over the course of the summer of 1999, Bradley narrowed the then-vice president's margin from 45 points to 40 points. A UNH poll for WMUR-TV and CNN put Gore on notice that he wasn't going to win the nomination without fighting for it. Gore readjusted his campaign, took the fight to Bradley and eventually won.

The opposite has happened in the Democratic race this year. By all rights, New Hampshire ought to be one of the most fertile of the early states for Obama's candidacy. All polling shows that Obama's greatest strength is among better-educated, wealthier Democrats and among independents. The electorate here fits that profile. Education levels are higher than in other early states and the size of the independent vote here gives Obama a built-in audience for his new politics message of change.

But instead of closing in on Clinton, Obama has allowed her to use the summer months to widen her advantage over him and the rest of the Democratic field. What was a 9- percentage-point margin for Clinton over Obama in July has grown into a 23-point lead in September.

The poll suggests that Clinton's campaign time here has improved her image. Although she runs a distant third behind Obama and John Edwards on the question of who is the most likable candidate, she is now seen among Democrats almost as favorably as her two leading rivals. In April, the gap between those who viewed her favorably and those who viewed her unfavorably was 40 points; today it is 62 points.

On two other issues, who is the most electable and who has the experience to be president, Clinton has increased her advantage. More than half of those in the UNH-WMUR-CNN survey (54 percent) said she was the most electable in 2008. Just 13 percent cited Obama. Almost half (47 percent) said she has the right experience, while just 8 percent named Obama.

More discouraging for Obama was the question on who can bring needed change to the country. This is fundamental to Obama, the basis of his candidacy and the core of his message. He has crisscrossed the country arguing that the only way to deliver on universal health care or energy independence or an end to the war in Iraq is by changing the way Washington works. That, he tells his audiences, is as much about them as it is about him. If they mobilize behind his candidacy, together they can change the country.

The new poll shows the degree to which that message has not broken through. Asked who could best deliver change, 37 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents cited Clinton, 25 percent named Obama.

One poll is just that -- one single snapshot of a much more complex dynamic. Other polls may well show a somewhat closer race in New Hampshire. Even this poll showed fluidity in the Democratic electorate, with more than half (55 percent) said they were still trying to decide for certain for whom they'll vote in January.

That means that, while Clinton has a big lead here at the moment, events and performance by the candidates can still have a substantial effect on the eventual outcome. For Obama, Clinton and Edwards, that means the race here is far from over. But for Obama in particular, the results almost demand an acknowledgement that he needs something more than he has been doing.

What that is will be the subject of intense debate inside his campaign. Should he attack Clinton--and risk damaging his image as someone who would rescue the country from slash-and-burn politics? Can he persuade those Democrats still making up their minds that Clinton presents a bigger risk to the party as its nominee than he does? Should he try to make his candidacy even more about his initial opposition to the war in an effort to draw a stark distinction with Clinton, even though there is little evidence to date that such a strategy offers great hope for success?

At its heart, the question for Obama is as clear today as it was when he joined the race last winter. Can he persuade voters that he has the right combination of freshness, toughness and judgment to sit in the Oval Office?

Obama has won hearts all over the country -- demonstrated once again today at a big rally in Peterborough in southwest New Hampshire -- with the promise of something different. But that promise needs to be filled in something more concrete. That is not an easy thing to do, as he has found over the course of many months. But to cross the ultimate threshold, he will need to find a way to do so -- starting soon.

By Dan Balz, The Washington Post, September 26, 2007

THE RACE: The presidential primary race for Democrats, Republicans in New Jersey.

THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton, 46 percent

Barack Obama, 15 percent

Al Gore, 11 percent

John Edwards, 7 percent

Joe Biden, 3 percent

Dennis Kucinich, 1 percent

Bill Richardson, 1 percent

------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NUMBERS - REPUBLICANS

Rudy Giuliani, 45 percent

Fred Thompson, 12 percent

John McCain, 8 percent

Mitt Romney, 6 percent

Newt Gingrich, 4 percent

Ron Paul, 3 percent

Mike Huckabee, 2 percent

Associated Press, September 26, 2007

Hillary Clinton may blunt one of rival Barack Obama's few advantages in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: money.

As the campaigns press donors with predictions that their candidate is losing the fund-raising race, both Clinton and Obama are set to report about $20 million in donations during the third quarter, which ends Sept. 30, according to campaign officials and fund-raisers.

A failure to out-raise Clinton would deprive Obama of the momentum he needs to overcome his rival's significant leads in national and key state polls. Obama raised $33 million to her $27 million in the second quarter and ended up with more cash on hand for the primary elections. His campaign had aimed to be able to outspend her significantly in the last part of 2007 and early next year.

"The Clinton juggernaut is moving if she out-raises him this quarter,'' said Peter Fenn, a Democratic consultant who isn't affiliated with any candidate this year. "It makes the argument for her winnability an easier one.''

A comparatively strong haul for Clinton would allow her to minimize Obama's argument that his larger list of donors reflects a broader appeal to voters. Obama's Web site says he has more than 340,000 contributors. Clinton said she had more than 100,000 in a Sept. 23 interview on NBC. She wouldn't comment further at a news conference the next day.

While the totals may change as the candidates continue to raise cash this week, political giving typically slows in the third quarter as would-be donors take summer vacations and grow weary of requests for money. The fourth quarter often picks up again ahead of the first nominating contests in January.

Maximum Donations

Both campaigns said they had tapped new sources of cash. More of Obama's donors made small donations in the first and second quarters, making them available for repeat requests. By contrast, 70 percent of Clinton's donors had offered up the maximum $2,300 for the primary elections by the end of the second quarter, the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics said. Many have also given $2,300 for the general election, which Clinton, 59, can spend only if she wins the nomination. Obama, 46, points to his donors as evidence that his message is resonating. "Everybody's talking about the kind of money we raised,'' Obama said in a speech to labor leaders last month in Iowa. "We raised it the old-fashioned way -- $5, $10, $25.''

Recruitment

Clinton's lead in the polls and strong performance in candidate debates is helping her with donors and fund-raisers, said Clinton supporter and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Steve Grossman.

"Even people who are grudging in their approval for and respect for Hillary have to admit that she's run an outstanding campaign,'' Grossman said.

Obama fund-raisers and campaign officials said their candidate would have plenty of money to compete in the primaries and that national polls don't reflect his competitive standing in early nominating states such as Iowa. "He gets better and better on his feet,'' said Obama fund- raiser James Torrey, chief executive officer of New York-based Torrey Associates.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the third-place contender in the Democratic race, is pushing to raise $1 million on the Internet in the last 10 days of the quarter. His campaign declined to comment on his fund raising other than to say he is on track to reach his goal of bringing in $40 million before the first contests. Edwards, 54, raised $23 million in the first half, about half as much as Clinton and Obama.

Republicans

Strategists expect Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, to keep winning the money race in comparison with the Republicans. They will be watching to see whether former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 63, or ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 60, brings in the most in their field and whether former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, 65, who entered the race this month, can compete financially.

This quarter's report will also show whether former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, 52, has been able to capitalize on his second-place finish in a Republican straw poll in Iowa in August. The campaign of Arizona Senator John McCain, 71, will get a chance to prove he has been able to recover after fund- raising fell short in the first half and he burned through almost all the cash he raised.

Officials at the Republican campaigns declined to comment on fund-raising totals or didn't return calls.

As they prepare to file their third-quarter reports by Oct. 15, the campaigns are engaging in a time-honored tradition: hyping an adversary's strength. Both Clinton and Obama backers have said publicly that they expect their rival's campaign to raise more than $30 million in the third quarter, a figure no expert takes seriously.

By Jonathan Salant & Kristin Jensen, Bloomberg, September 26, 2007

At the risk of suggesting the unimaginable to the unimaginative, the Democrats who would like to unscrew the "Reserved for Hillary Clinton" plaque from the party's 2008 presidential nomination might want to work overtime tonight.

If Clinton's challengers check their calendars, they will perhaps note that this evening's debate at Dartmouth will be the first serious forum of the fall. In barely three months, perhaps less, grassroots Democrats will begin participating in the caucuses and casting the primary votes -- in Iowa or New Hampshire or Michigan or Florida or some other pretender to "first-in-the-nation" status -- that will quickly seal the deal.

Clinton is not the preferred candidate of the majority of Democrats nationally or in most of the early caucus and primary states. But Democrats have a tendency to nominate candidates they don't like. This has something to do with political calculus; remember the passionless decision of 2004 Iowa caucus goers to back John Kerry because he "looked like a winner."

Clinton has run a smart, efficient and generally mistake-free campaign and that appeals to discouraged Democrats. Clinton's strength also has something to do with her genuine appeal to certain sections of the party base -- especially young women and some communities of color. But, make no mistake, Clinton is not the ideological soul-mate of the average Democrat.

On most major issues, she stands well to the right of Democrats and independents.

Fortunately, all of Clinton's opponents for the nomination (with the possible exception of the lamentable Joe Biden) stand to her left.

Unfortunately, all of Clinton's opponents for the nomination (with the possible exception of the lamentable Joe Biden) stand to her left.

It is certainly good that there are Democratic contenders such as Barack Obama, who is arguing for more diplomacy and reconciliation in the world and at home; John Edwards, who is striking populist chords; Bill Richardson, who is saying its time to bring all the troops home from Iraq; Dennis Kucinich, who is speaking to legitimate fears about the administration's seeming determination to make war with Iran; Chris Dodd, who has spoken up well and wisely on a number of Constitutional issues; and Mike Gravel, who reminds us that we should fear candidates who speak casually about using nuclear weapons.

But, while those appeals may well attract more than 50 percent of the Democratic vote, the raw numbers favor Clinton.

Consider the latest poll from New Hampshire. According to the survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire for WMUR and CNN, Clinton is at 43 percent. That's a seven point hike since July for the New York, suggesting that she's got the momentum that matters a good deal at this point.

Obama is at 20 percent, and slipping; Edwards is at 12 percent; Richardson is at 6 percent. Kucinich is at 3, as is Biden. Dodd's at 1. So is "Other," which is one point better than Gravel.

Eleven percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided.

If this scenario continues, the headline from New Hampshire come January -- or, perhaps, December -- will likely read: "Clinton Sweeps First Primary."

Any candidate who would prefer another headline might want to say something meaningful -- or inspiring, or simply distinguishing -- tonight. We really are reaching the point where there will not be that many more opportunities.

The Nation, September 26, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many Democratic Party supporters in the United States want Hillary Rodham Clinton as their presidential nominee next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 39 per cent of respondents would back the New York senator in a 2008 primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 25 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 14 per cent. Support is lower for New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Delaware senator Joe Biden, and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich.

On Sept. 23, Kucinich discussed his foreign policy views, saying, "What we're offering is a whole new vision for America. Not peace through strength, but strength through peace. (...) If we believe war is inevitable, then war is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe in peace, it can happen."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 25, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Rudy Giuliani is the most popular presidential contender for Republican Party supporters in the Golden State, according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. 22 per cent of respondents would vote for the former New York City mayor in next year's primary.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson are tied for second with 16 per cent, followed by Arizona senator John McCain with 15 per cent. Support is lower for California congressman Duncan Hunter, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, and Texas congressman Ron Paul.

In the sample of Democratic Party supporters, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is first with 41 per cent, followed by Illinois senator Barack Obama with 23 per cent, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 14 per cent. Support is lower for Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and Delaware senator Joe Biden.

The Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in California will take place on Feb. 5, 2008. In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic California primary with 64 per cent of the vote. Incumbent president George W. Bush won the Republican contest unopposed.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 25, 2007

"The only answer to this entire set of circumstances is public financing," the New York senator said during an appearance on ABC's This Week. "The cost of campaigns … and all the things that people have to do in a modern campaign are just out of control."

Clinton, who has pledged to return $850,000 raised by Hsu, said her campaign was among about two dozen that failed to detect a 15-year-old outstanding arrest warrant against Hsu.

Clinton and several leading candidates decided not to seek public funding in 2008, freeing them to raise unlimited private dollars. Clinton has raised $53 million, not including $10 million transferred from her Senate campaign account. Only her Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has raised more: $58.6 million.

Clinton, who leads national polls for the Democratic nomination, appeared on five Sunday talk shows, where she also touted her new health care plan.

In the interviews, Clinton also:

- Said she would apply the lessons learned from her failed 1993 health plan to achieve "quality, affordable coverage for everyone." Her new plan would require Americans to buy health insurance but allow them to keep what they have. Federal taxpayers would spend $110 billion annually to help pay the costs.

Republicans, who have rejected proposals for universal health care, last week criticized Clinton's approach. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for instance, called it a "socialized medical plan." On Sunday, Clinton hit back, saying, "I'm waiting for any Republican candidate to come out with a plan that can be really scrutinized."

- Reiterated calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Clinton said that if elected, she would expect to use U.S. forces there for "limited missions" - specifically, to combat al-Qaeda in Iraq, train the Iraqi army and protect Kurds. She declined to say how many troops it would take to accomplish that. "I don't know what I'm going to inherit," she said in the ABC interview.

By Fredreka Schouten, USA Today, September 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said Sunday she won't vote for any more money to support the four-year-old war in Iraq without a plan to start bringing U.S. troops home.

"I've reached the conclusion that the best way to support our troops is begin bringing them home," the New York senator and former first lady told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I don't believe we should continue to vote for funding that has an open-ended commitment, that has no pressure on the Iraqi government to make the tough political decisions they have to make, or which really gives any urgency to the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts."

Clinton's declaration comes as the Senate debates the Defense Department's 2008 spending authorization bill. It follows her vote against a $120 billion war-spending bill in May, when Congress dropped a call for the withdrawal of American combat troops by March 2008 after President Bush vetoed a bill containing that provision.

"The president has no intention of changing his policy in Iraq," she said. "He's now talking about leaving it to his successor."

Meanwhile, the Senate's Republican minority routinely filibusters Democratic proposals to wind down the war, which is costing the Treasury about $10 billion a month and has claimed the lives of nearly 3,800 American troops. May's spending bill made continued U.S. support contingent on a set of benchmarks for Iraq's government. But the Iraqis met only 11 of the 18 benchmarks, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

"Even those who are implementing this policy of the president's cannot tell us it will make America more safe, nor that it will lead to the kind of political decision-making that we have to expect from the Iraqis themselves," Clinton said.

Nearly two-thirds of the American public now opposes the war, according to a CNN-Opinion Research poll conducted in early September.

Clinton said, if elected president, she would end the conflict "as quickly and responsibly as I can," but said some U.S. forces would likely remain as trainers, to protect Americans and to battle Islamic militants loyal to al Qaeda.

The two-term senator, who leads her Democratic presidential rivals by a double-digit margin in national polls, made the rounds of all five Washington talk shows Sunday.

Last week, Clinton supported two amendments that would have forced the Pentagon to begin a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

But she said Sunday that even if Democrats muster enough Republican support to break a filibuster -- something they have been unable to do -- Democrats would still be unlikely to get the two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto.

"The answer for this is, let's elect more Democrats in 2008," she said. "That will help solve the problem."

CNN, September 24, 2007

WASHINGTON - The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton for president Monday, saying she had the best chance to win.

"Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to deliver the change America needs," union president John J. Flynn said. "After years of an administration that has turned its back on working families, we need a president whose priorities are our priorities."

Flynn said the union's executive council voted unanimously to endorse Clinton and that the New York senator was the clear winner in a poll of members.

Clinton said she was honored. "In my administration, America's working families will again have a partner in the White House," she said.

Founded in 1865, the bricklayers say they are the oldest continuous union in North America and that they represent about 100,000 skilled masonry-trowel tradescraft workers.

This is Clinton's fifth union endorsement, the most of any presidential candidate so far.

Meanwhile, one of the largest municipal jail unions in the country said Monday it would endorse Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for president. The endorsement would be Obama's first from a union. "Barack Obama is the one candidate who will put an end to the divisiveness in this country so that we can finally achieve greater economic prosperity for the working class and health care coverage for all Americans," said Norman Seabrook, president of the New York City Correction Officers' Benevolent Association.

The group has about 9,000 active members.

Obama said, "It's an honor to have the endorsement of these men and women who put themselves at risk every day to serve on the front lines of our nation's criminal justice system."
Obama also offered support to the striking United Auto Workers, who walked off the job at General Motors plants around the country Monday. This is the first nationwide strike against the U.S. auto industry since 1976. "The demands the union is fighting for - job security, the health benefits they were promised - are things that all workers should expect and that UAW members deserve," Obama said in a statement. "General Motors owes it to the UAW to come back to the bargaining table so that union members can go back to work."

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Clinton said the Bush administration has neglected the needs of the auto industry. "There is a role for presidential leadership," she said, adding that the leaders of the Big Three automakers had for years sought a meeting with the White House. "They were rebuffed repeatedly. Finally there was a meeting that occurred with no follow-up," said Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards also blamed the White House for the problems that led to the strike. "Sadly, the issues on the bargaining table between General Motors and the United Auto Workers are not unique to Detroit - they represent the larger failures of Washington and public policies that have weakened unions and the middle class," Edwards said.

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press, September 24, 2007

President Bush is predicting that Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, according to a new book, 'Evangelical President,' set for release on Monday and written by FOX News contributor Bill Sammon.

Breaking his rule not to talk about presidential politics, Bush told Sammon, who writes for The Washington Examiner, that he thinks the New York senator will defeat Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries, but will fall to the Republican nominee.

"She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary," Bush said. "And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated."

"I believe our candidate can beat her but it's going to be a tough race," the president said.

It has been difficult for Bush to remain silent about the 2008 president race, despite his promises not to be the "prognosticator in chief." He has been talking about the race and handicapping candidates during off-the-record chats with visitors to the White House.

After excerpts were released, the White House did not challenge Sammon's account. "Frankly, it's difficult to not talk about the '08 election a lot," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "There's a lot of interest in it and it does have consequence." She denied the notion that Bush was talking up Clinton's prospects in order to energize the Republican base against her candidacy. "The bottom line is, it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about who will win the Democratic primary," Perino said. "There's going to be a showdown at the OK Corral and they'll figure out whose going to be the nominee and from there the president will campaign vigorously for the Republican candidate.

On the Republican side, Bush has expressed surprise that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner despite his liberal positions on social and cultural issues normally critical to the party base, according to The Washington Post. It ran a story about Bush's recent off-the-record chat with television news anchors and Sunday show hosts. Bush said Giuliani's popularity was a sign of how important the terrorism issue is to Republican voters, the newspaper said. It said Bush cautioned against ruling out Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying he had managed to revive his campaign after an implosion earlier this year.

FOX News, September 24, 2007

The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.

Clinton's goal has been to surround her candidacy with an aura of inevitability, which is certainly common among front-runners. The more she can do that, the more she puts the focus on whether her rivals have a strategy to stop her. The more she does that, the less focus there will be on questions pertinent to what kind of general election candidate or president she actually might be.

The rush to anoint Clinton as an inevitable nominee overlooks the history of nomination battles, which is that few candidate win these contests without a struggle or without at least one serious setback or stumble -- either self-inflicted or inflicted by the voters. What happens before the voters are heard from is not unimportant, but it is rarely decisive.

What could trip up Clinton? Many things: a scandal, a mistake or an unexpected event -- although mistakes seem the least likely given what has transpired to date. The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa. A Clinton loss in Iowa would instantly change perceptions of the Democratic race and bring new scrutiny to Clinton's candidacy that may be overlooked right now.

Iowa is the outlier in the polls at this point in the campaign. Clinton holds a sizeable lead in national polls, and she has, on average, double-digit leads in the other early states. But in Iowa, the polls show a three-way contest that also includes Barack Obama and John Edwards -- and what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire will affect all the other states.

Iowa's electorate is notoriously picky about its choices. The voters there demand considerable attention and, even when they get it from the candidates, wait until the last minute to make up their minds. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin believes more than half the likely Democratic caucus voters have not settled on a candidate. Advisers to the leading candidates say the percentage may be even higher than that. No matter what the polls show elsewhere, Iowa is a real battleground.

An Obama victory in Iowa would deal a serious -- though not fatal -- setback to Clinton. Although Clinton has a lead in New Hampshire today, Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary. If Obama were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton then would be in deep trouble.

An Edwards victory over Clinton in Iowa would present a potential obstacle to her nomination, but perhaps not one as significant as if Obama were to win Iowa. That's because Edwards did not do well in New Hampshire in 2004 and has struggled there this year. Knowing that, he and Elizabeth Edwards have been investing more time and resources in New Hampshire, but no one can say with any confidence whether it could pay off if he wins Iowa.

Clinton is acting as if her whole campaign depends on Iowa -- and it may. She has rebuilt her ground operation there. She has used Iowa as the venue for major speeches on Iraq and health care to position herself favorably for the Democratic electorate. Twice now she has brought in her husband to campaign across the state with her. She and her advisers believe a victory there could secure her nomination. They also know that a loss there would scramble what has so far been generally smooth march forward.

What happens next depends in part on her opponents. She and the other Democrats will assemble in New Hampshire for a two-hour debate on Wednesday night (9-11 p.m. on MSNBC), moderated by NBC's Tim Russert. That event likely will reveal how they intend to try to stop her.

Obama may be forced onto the attack, if only to shake up a race that has been largely unchanged for months. Or he may try to avoid direct confrontation awhile longer, hoping that Edwards assumes that role immediately. Last week's debate in Iowa also found Joe Biden and Chris Dodd willing to challenge Clinton on the key question of whether she is the strongest Democratic standard-bearer in the general election and the kind of politician who could accomplish big things as president.

At some point, the voters will face up to those questions more directly than that have. Whether that will be during the primaries or, if Clinton is the nominee, after she has effectively wrapped up the nomination, depends in part on what the New York senator's opponents decide. But after the week she just wrapped up -- her most dominating week of the campaign to day -- her rivals must be ever more aware of the consequences of not doing so.

By Dan Balz, The Washington Post, September 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton reinforced her position as the Democratic presidential front-runner Sunday as she executed the rare feat of appearing on all five major TV talk shows in one morning, defending her new healthcare proposal and vowing to oppose any Iraq war funding unless it is tied to starting a U.S. troop withdrawal.

"I will not vote for any funding that does not move us toward beginning to withdraw our troops, that does not have pressure on the Iraqi government to make the tough political decisions that they have, that does not recognize that there is a diplomatic endeavor that has to be undertaken," the New York Democrat said on "Fox News Sunday." President Bush plans to ask Congress this week for nearly $200 billion to fund the war through the end of next year.

Clinton -- who holds a 22-point lead over her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, in the latest national Gallup Poll on the Democratic presidential field -- did not criticize her opponents for the party nomination. Instead she focused on her general-election prospects, highlighting her success in winning Republican and independent votes in her two Senate races.

"Anyone who gets the Democratic nomination is going to be subjected to the withering attacks that come from the other side," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think I've proven that I not only can survive them but surpass them."

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" for the first time in more than three years -- and almost exactly a year after former President Bill Clinton had an angry confrontation on the show with host Chris Wallace over attempts in the 1990s to capture Osama bin Laden -- the senator laughed loudly when asked why she and her husband "have such a hyper-partisan view of politics."

"Well, Chris, if you had walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years, I'm sure you'd understand," she said. "But you know, the real goal for our country right now is to get beyond partisanship, and I'm sure trying to do my part, because we've got a lot of serious problems that we're trying to deal with."

Clinton took to the airwaves Sunday after unveiling her long-awaited healthcare proposal, the American Health Choices Plan, last week. It would require everyone to have medical insurance and would offer tax credits to those who can't afford it. Half of the program's $110-billion-a-year price tag would come from savings she says she can squeeze from the current healthcare system, which she calls bloated and inefficient. The rest would come largely from repealing tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year.

"It is not only a moral imperative that we try to cover everyone, it is now an economic necessity," she said on "Meet the Press."

Clinton dismissed criticism from Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani that her healthcare plan amounted to "socialized medicine." She said it created no new federal bureaucracy and addressed a crucial problem. "I'm waiting for any Republican candidate to come out with a plan that can be really scrutinized, that we can ask hard questions about," she said on ABC's "This Week." "It seems as though they're in the 'just say no' category, and I don't think that's good for the country."

But Iraq was the focus of much of the interviews. Clinton again defended her 2002 vote authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Many antiwar activists have called for her to apologize for that vote. "I cast a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that vote," she said on "Meet the Press."

She continued: "It's fair to say that the president misused the authority that he was given, and if I had the opportunity to act now based on what I know now, I never would've voted that way."

Clinton also would not directly criticize the liberal group MoveOn.org for its recent full-page ad in the New York Times referring to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us." Republicans condemned the ad, and Bush said Democrats were afraid to criticize the group because of its liberal clout. "I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military," Clinton said on CNN's "Late Edition." "But let's be clear here. This debate should not be about an ad. This debate should be about the president's failed policies."

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" whether her husband would have a policy role if she is elected president, Clinton responded, "No. No." "Among the many lessons that I have learned, we want to be sure that the president, my husband, does whatever he can, just as I tried to do whatever I could, and I think he has a very special and important role in reaching out to the rest of the world," she said.

Appearing on all five major Sunday talk shows -- the political equivalent of hitting for the cycle in baseball -- is known among TV producers and political operatives as a "full Ginsburg," after the first person to pull it off, Southern California attorney William H. Ginsburg. He made the circuit on Feb. 1, 1998, in defense of his client Monica S. Lewinsky, the onetime White House intern at the center of a Bill Clinton sex scandal. Ginsburg had to scurry from studio to studio that day; Clinton taped her appearances from her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Only high-profile guests in the midst of major news events have the cachet for the five-show circuit. Those who have done it include then-vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney during the 2000 Republican convention; Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, then the Democratic vice presidential candidate, during the 2000 Florida recount; and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during a nuclear weapons showdown with North Korea in 2002. Giuliani and then-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) also did it in 2000 in their race against Clinton for the Senate.



By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times, September 24, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a slight advantage in a potential United States presidential contest against Republican Rudy Giuliani, according to a poll by RT Strategies for the Cook Political Report. 45 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator, while 43 per cent would support the former New York City mayor.

On Sept. 20, Giuliani discussed his views on fiscal policy, saying, "Over time we can figure out how to eliminate (the Alternative Minimum Tax). If we were going to eliminate it, though, we'd have to balance it with additional tax cuts. That might be by making the Bush tax cuts permanent."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 23, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Rudy Giuliani is the most popular United States presidential contender for Republican Party supporters in Florida, according to a poll by American Research Group. 26 per cent of likely GOP primary voters in the Sunshine State would vote for the former New York City mayor in next year's primary.

Arizona senator John McCain is second with 18 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 16 per cent, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with 14 per cent. Support is lower for former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Texas congressman Ron Paul, California congressman Duncan Hunter, and Kansas senator Sam Brownback.

In the sample of Democratic Party supporters, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is first with 47 per cent, followed by Illinois senator Barack Obama with 19 per cent, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards with nine per cent. Support is lower for Delaware senator Joe Biden, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Connecticut senator Chris Dodd.

Earlier this year, a law passed in Florida mandates for the state's presidential primaries to be held either on the first Tuesday of February, or seven days after the New Hampshire contest. The Republican and Democratic primaries in Florida are tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29, 2008.

In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic Florida primary with 77 per cent of the vote. The Republican contest was cancelled, after incumbent George W. Bush was nominated by the state's party.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, September 23, 2007

DES MOINES - As summer turns to fall, the presidential race is heating up: Candidates are swinging elbows in debates, flaying each other in speeches and siccing newspeople on their party rivals. The question is which candidate takes the next step -- airing the first negative TV advertisement of the 2008 campaign.

"We've seen swiping and sniping," said media analyst Evan Tracey. "The natural progression is to take that to the airwaves and put it in an ad." But it's not that straightforward. Although voters may assume that negative campaigning is the natural order of things -- birds fly, fish swim, politicians wrestle in mud -- the launching of an attack ad is one of the most difficult and important tactical decisions a campaign can make. With the balloting in the presidential nominating race less than four months off and the holiday season looming, the timing has become even more acute.

In a two-person race, a negative spot runs the risk of backfiring, damaging a candidate as much as or more than it does the intended target. The dynamic is trickier in a crowded contest like the presidential primaries. The cycle of attack-and-response can lead to the political equivalent of murder-suicide, killing off the candidates fighting on the airwaves while benefiting those not engaging.

Examples abound, including the 2004 race, when Democratic Iowa front-runners Howard Dean and Richard A. Gephardt turned the state's airwaves into a free-fire zone and finished third and fourth, respectively, killing their White House hopes. There were other reasons that contributed to their poor showing -- Dean, for one, turned in a lackluster debate performance just days before the vote -- but the lesson most political professionals took away was "that Iowans are so nice they'll punish anyone who brings negativity into the race," said a strategist for one Democratic hopeful. "So that's having a real influence on people's thinking this time." (Most campaign insiders agreed to talk about negative advertising only on a not-for-attribution basis, so they would not associate their candidate with such tactics.)

The calculations are especially fraught for a handful of top-tier candidates. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York on the Democratic side and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani on the Republican side are already seen as combative, polarizing figures; lashing out on the airwaves might feed that. For his part, Demo