It's a cultural cliche: Americans don't care about the past. De Tocqueville noticed it in the 1830s, speculating that in 50 years Americans would know less about the America he visited than the French knew about the Middle Ages. Nearly two centuries later, people are still making the point.

Five years ago, Bruce Cole, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, bemoaned a "worsening of our case of American amnesia." His evidence? More than half of high school seniors didn't know whom we fought in World War II; 18 percent thought Germany was our ally.

This is bad news for Barack Obama. As a candidate, the junior senator from Illinois has several advantages over the junior senator from New York. He's more charismatic, he's less polarizing and he's a fresh face at a time when many Americans are sick of the old ones. But in the Democratic primary, surely his biggest advantage is that a little more than five years ago, he denounced the Iraq war and Hillary Clinton voted for it. In other words, on what many Democrats consider the biggest issue of their adult lives, he was right and she was wrong.

Yet he's getting virtually no credit for it. In late September, when The Post and ABC News asked Democrats nationally whom they trusted most on the war, Obama trailed Clinton by 30 points. Even among Democrats who support an immediate withdrawal, he trailed her by more than 25 points, in a recent Pew poll. That's true in the early primary states, as well. In New Hampshire, for instance, according to the Los Angeles Times, likely Democratic primary voters who say they want U.S. troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible" choose Clinton over Obama by more than 2 to 1.

How is this possible? Part of it is that Clinton has moved steadily and skillfully toward where most Democrats are. She now regularly pledges that if President Bush doesn't end the war, she will. Critics say she's fudging - that asterisks in her plan would keep combat troops in Iraq as far as the eye can see. But most Democratic voters don't seem to care. From what they can tell, there's no difference between Clinton and her opponents. As of today, she's as antiwar as anyone else.

That's why the 2002 vote is so important. If the debate is about Iraq today, Obama looks like he's splitting hairs. But if he can get Democrats to focus on 2002, he has a clean shot. So he keeps bringing it up, saying his original opposition to the war proves he has the judgment to be president and that (by implication) Clinton does not.

And that's where Obama runs smack into America's strange indifference to the past. Recent American history is littered with candidates who were right about war and weren't rewarded at election time. In 1972, when most Americans considered Vietnam a mistake, they still overwhelmingly rejected George McGovern, an early war critic, in favor of Richard Nixon, an early supporter. In 1992, they spurned George H.W. Bush, who had recently presided over a stunning victory in the Persian Gulf War, in favor of Bill Clinton, who famously said he would have backed the war if the congressional vote had been close but that he agreed with the arguments against it. (On Election Day, only 10 percent of American voters told pollsters that they even considered foreign policy a major issue.)

And in 2004, Iowa Democrats chose John Kerry, who, like Hillary Clinton, had voted for the war, over Howard Dean, who, like Obama, had denounced it. Dean's opposition initially propelled him to the front of the pack. But in the homestretch, when Kerry co-opted Dean's antiwar and anti-Bush message and voted against $87 billion in war funding, Democrats forgave and forgot.

In the end, Iowa caucus voters who said they strongly disapproved of the war still backed Kerry over Dean by five percentage points.

So what's Obama to do? He has to convince voters that his original antiwar stance still matters, that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Clinton different now. That's why Obama keeps trying to connect Clinton's Iraq vote to her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, suggesting that once again she is giving Bush the green light to launch a war.

Unfortunately for him, history doesn't generally repeat. The Iran resolution was rewritten to avoid any suggestion of military force precisely because Senate Democrats don't want to make the same mistake twice. In a sense, Obama should be flattered. On foreign policy, Clinton is not the same person she was five years ago. Much of what she says about the Middle East these days represents a tacit acknowledgment that she was wrong and he was right. Unfortunately, in our amnesiac country, you don't get elected president by saying, "I told you so."

By Peter Beinart, Union Leader, November 30, 2007

NEW YORK - Hillary Clinton narrowly leads the pack of Democratic hopefuls in New Hampshire, with Barack Obama coming in a close second. In addition, while Bill Richardson is barely on the radar screen nationally, he receives double-digit support in the Granite State and comes in fourth behind John Edwards.

A FOX News poll of likely New Hampshire Democratic voters finds that Clinton has the support of 30 percent followed by Obama at 23 percent. Edwards comes in third with 17 percent, Richardson receives the support of 12 percent. All other candidates receive 3 percent or less.

Although Clinton has a slim advantage in the trial heat, slightly more Democratic primary voters say they would be very or somewhat satisfied if Obama (74 percent satisfied) were the party's presidential nominee than if Clinton won (69 percent satisfied).

"We seem to be seeing a softening in the Clinton vote everywhere," said Opinion Dynamics CEO John Gorman. "The inevitability of a month ago has been replaced by serious sound thoughts. What's interesting is that this seems to be not a surge to second place Obama, but reexamination of candidates even farther down the list. Edwards is closer to Obama than Obama to Clinton and Richardson closer to Edwards than Edward to Obama. An Edwards second or a Richardson third might shake things up as much as a Hillary defeat."

Looking at the primary vote among some key groups, by a 33 percent to 24 percent margin, women favor Clinton over Obama. And married women are even more likely to back Clinton (38 percent to 24 percent).

Among men the results are more evenly divided, although Clinton still has the advantage: 26 percent say they would vote for Clinton, followed by Obama at 21 percent, Edwards at 18 percent and Richardson at 14 percent.

Voters with a college degree split almost evenly between Clinton (26 percent) and Obama (24 percent); voters without a college degree strongly back Clinton by a margin of 42 percent to 17 percent for Obama and 16 percent for Edwards.

Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire say the most important issue in deciding their vote is the candidate's position on the Iraq war (36 percent), followed by health care (25 percent) and the economy (18 percent).

Voters who put Iraq and health care at the top of their list are slightly likely to support Clinton. Among economy voters, Clinton (41 percent) is the clear choice, as she outperforms Obama (27 percent) by a double-digit margin.

The poll finds that these New Hampshire Democratic voters are looking for the candidate who is the "most honest and trustworthy;" nearly one third of voters (32 percent) say this is the most important quality in deciding which candidate to support. The other top factors include having "the right experience" (22 percent), understanding "average Americans" (16 percent) and having "new ideas" (13 percent).

Both Obama (28 percent) and Edwards (24 percent) top Clinton (18 percent) among those looking to vote for the "most honest and trustworthy" candidate.

Obama has a significant advantage among voters who are looking for new ideas (51 percent to 17 percent for Clinton).

For voters who say they are looking for a candidate with the right experience, Clinton is the clear choice (55 percent) and Richardson comes in second (22 percent) followed by Obama in the single-digits (7 percent).

With less than 40 days until they go to the polls for New Hampshire's January 8 primary, more than 4 in 10 Democrats say they are "extremely interested" in the election, and half say they have settled on the candidate they will support.

More Clinton voters are committed to their candidate than Obama voters are: A 70 percent majority of Clinton's supporters say they are certain to vote for her, while 56 percent of Obama's supporters say they are certain to back him.

The telephone poll was conducted for FOX News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 1,000 likely presidential primary voters in New Hampshire, including 500 likely Democratic primary voters, from Nov. 27 to Nov. 29. The entire poll has a 3-point error margin and a 4 point error for the subgroup of Democratic presidential primary voters.

By Dana Blanton, FOX News, November 30, 2007

A tense standoff at a presidential campaign office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Rochester, N.H., ended shortly after 6 p.m. this evening when a man later identified as Leeland Eisenberg was taken into police custody after holding at least four people hostage. There were no apparent injuries.

Mr. Eisenberg was described by friends and relatives as despondent, with his wife recently asking for a divorce. One person said he had been drinking for 72 hours before he entered the campaign office. Mr. Eisenberg also called CNN to rant about the state of the nation’s mental health system, the network reported.

Once the situation was resolved, Mrs. Clinton said, "I am very grateful that this difficult day has ended so well."

Mrs. Clinton praised the "courage" of both the hostages and their families, who she said she spoke to throughout the day and then left to fly to New Hampshire to join them.

Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, was preparing to give a speech in suburban Virginia at a Democratic National Committee forum, but immediately canceled it upon hearing the news of the unfolding events. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, also canceled an event scheduled for tonight in New York City.

"Everything stopped," Mrs. Clinton said, "We had nothing on our minds except the safety of these young people."

Bill Shaheen, a co-chairman of Mrs. Clinton's New Hampshire and national campaign, said that the campaign had received no specific threat against Mrs. Clinton.

Rochester Police Captain Paul Callaghan, in a telephone interview, said they were alerted to the situation when a woman carrying a baby ran out of the Clinton campaign office around 12:30 p.m., crying and going to the nearby Carney Medical Supply company.

"A young woman with a 6-month- or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears," Lettie Tzizik, a Carney employee told the local television station WMUR. "You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape."

The police then began sealing off the area, evacuating local businesses, residents and one grade school. The campaign office of Senator Barack Obama, only a few doors down the street, was also evacuated. The usually serene town of Rochester was transformed into a garrison, with bomb squad teams, heavily armed officers with their weapons drawn and armored vehicles encircling to office, located in a storefront of small red-brick building at 28 Main Street.

Inside, Mr. Eisenberg ordered everyone to the floor, demanded to speak to Mrs. Clinton, and then allowed the woman to take her child and leave. Ms. Tzizik said the woman who had been released told her there were four paid staff members and two volunteers in the office when the man entered.

The campaign workers were frightened for their lives despite assurances by Mr. Eisenberg that he would not harm them.A man identified only as Daniel, an office volunteer for the Clinton campaign who was not in the office at the time, told WMUR that when he heard the news, he called a friend being held hostage on her cell phone.

She was "very hysterical," he said, but she also told him that Mr. Eisneberg said his intention was not to hurt them, only to talk to Mrs. Clinton. Daniel said he called the woman back four or five times. "He let her answer her cell phone, which was nice," Daniel said. "It gave me some kind of peace of mind." Daniel said the woman told him that the suspect, Mr. Eisenberg, had a device strapped to his chest and that it "looked like a bomb."

Mr. Eisenberg did not have a gun, the girl in the office said.

About an hour after he entered the office, Mr. Eisenberg released another hostage in one of the more dramatic moments of the stand-off.

Six heavily armed law enforcement officers were shown on television making their way slowly to the office around 2 p.m., forming a human shield. When they got to the door, they tossed in a package.The officers, weapons drawn, then backed slowly away a few yards from the entrance of the office. Moments later, the woman in the green sweater emerged. She walked slowly at first and then ran, with an officer by her side, to safety behind an armored vehicle. On the video, she looked distraught.

Shortly after 6:15, a young man, presumably one of the last hostages, was led out of the office.

Moments later, Mr. Eisenberg was led out of the office - an older man, wearing a white shirt, dress pants and a tie. He unwrapped a large piece of clear plastic from around his body and held his hands in the air. He then lay down spread eagle on the street and was patted down by police. A state police explosives unit moved into the office.

Local and national television stations did not show the video live for security reasons, at the request of police, national cable channels reported.

A profile of Mr. Eisenberg also started to develop, with several accounts of his recent marital troubles and depression.

Mr. Eisenberg had been scheduled to appear in Strafford County Superior Court at 1:30 p.m. today with his wife for a domestic violence hearing, according to WMUR.

Herman Ejarque, the co-owner and manager of the nearby Governor's Inn, said in a telephone interview that a relative of Mr. Eisenberg had come into the inn about 2 o’clock this afternoon after being interviewed by police. The man, whose relationship to the suspect was not clear - he is either the son, step-son or son-in-law 0 talked with the inn's front-desk receptionist, Chelsea Coul, telling her he was cold and looking for a cup of coffee but the town had been evacuated and everything was shut down.

The man told Ms. Coul that the suspect's wife had sought a divorce a few months ago and that he was unemployed and "hasn't been in the right state of mind" for three months. Ms. Coul said the man told her that the suspect had been drinking for 72 hours and that he needed help and quoted the suspect as saying, "I don't know what to do with my life."

He also said he believed the suspect was "harmless."

The man told Ms. Coul that the suspect had asked him where he could buy roadside flares.

It was not clear what kind of weapons Mr. Eisenberg actually carried into the office.

An area of roughly four-to-five-square blocks was sealed off as heavily armed officers, weapons drawn, took up positions around the office, and armored vehicles were seen moving along local streets as helicopters circled overhead.

Mrs. Clinton has 16 similar field offices across the state. It would be unusual for there to be security since the satellite offices are meant to be inviting and a gathering place for volunteers.

The office in Rochester was typical, resembling a storefront shop, with a blue "Hillary" banner in the window.

As it became evident that the hostage crisis was real, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made an announcement in a ballroom of the Sheraton Premier Hotel at Tysons Corner, Va., where a forum was taking place. All the major Democratic presidential candidates except Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut were scheduled to address the group.

Gasps were heard from the crowd of several hundred delegates and party officials.

"Details are sketchy at this time," Mr. Dean said. "We will keep them in our prayers and hope for a resolution of this situation."

Mrs. Clinton's rivals, Senator Obama, former Senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had already spoken.

Mrs. Clinton had just arrived at the hotel when reports of the hostage situation began to trickle in. She was in private meetings in the hotel, officials said, when the decision was made that she would not address the D.N.C. It was not for her own security reasons, officials said, but rather out of a concern for her staff in New Hampshire. Aides said she wanted to go monitor developments.

When Mr. Dean made the announcement that her speech had been canceled, dozens of her supporters wearing "Hillary" shirts began to leave.

As he addressed the D.N.C. this afternoon, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware commented on the incident, saying he heard about it as he was driving out here. "I pray to God it all works out as she heads to New Hampshire," Mr. Biden said.

When the ordeal ended, Mrs. Clinton would not go into the details of what had happened, saying that was for the police. But her relief was evident.

"This has been a very hard day for all of us in our campaign," she said. "I want to thank them for their extraordinary courage and coolness under some very difficult pressures and dangerous situations."

By Marc Santora and Katharine Q. Seelye, The New York Times, November 30, 2007

DES MOINES - In the midst of one of this city's more struggling neighborhoods, the music rocked and Sen. Barack Obama swayed and clapped to the rhythm at Union Missionary Baptist Church. When associate minister Calvin Lewis rose to the pulpit, he prayed the Illinois Democrat would "soar from the back streets of Chicago to the White House."

A few minutes later, state Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad suggested God has helped level the playing field for Obama. "So, there is nothing the senator can't do," he said, introducing the Democratic presidential candidate.

Far removed from pancake breakfasts and school gymnasiums, the scene last Sunday at one of Iowa's most iconic black churches was not one typically associated with campaigning in heavily white Iowa.

But Obama, perhaps more than any other presidential candidate, is seeking to reach out to African-Americans and other minority groups in a state where they represent just 7 percent of the population and an even smaller proportion of likely participants in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

As the Democratic candidates gather here for Saturday's Iowa Black & Brown Presidential Forum, it will be the first time racial issues have taken center stage in a state better known for debates about ethanol and Social Security.

That is despite this being the most diverse Democratic field in history, with a black man (Obama), a woman (Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York) and a Hispanic (New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson).

In many ways, the discussion on Saturday will also be about later contests in states such as South Carolina and Nevada with significantly larger minority populations.

Even in Iowa, however, winning requires building coalitions. With the race here exceptionally tight among Obama, Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, several thousand votes could make a difference amid turnout for the caucuses not expected to exceed 150,000 people.

Obama's campaign has 14 staff workers in Iowa dedicated to reaching out to various groups, ranging from African-Americans to Hispanics to veterans. "It's a much deeper relationship when you can reach people on issues that really matter to them," said Michael Blake, Obama's deputy political director in Iowa and the leader of the outreach effort. Since March, Blake, an African American himself, has worked across the state to help Obama network with various niche populations. He took the candidate to a first black church in Iowa on Palm Sunday. That stop was in Sioux City, a western Iowa community not typically considered one of the state's more concentrated for blacks. Obama has also made five visits to Waterloo, where 12.4 percent of the population is black. He has met privately there with African-American ministers and repeatedly spoken on black radio stations.

"There are so many registered Democrats who have never caucused before," Blake said. "We want them to feel invested."

Clinton, meanwhile, said she has no intention of surrendering the minority vote to any candidate. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is exceptionally popular with many African-Americans.

"We are trying to run a comprehensive outreach campaign to every constituency," she said in a Tribune interview this week. "The goal is to try to get supporters in every one of those precincts, so we are certainly making a concerted effort to persuade Iowans from every part of the state to come and caucus for me."

To hear Obama in a black church, meanwhile, is a very different experience than seeing him at other campaign stops. When he addresses African-American audiences, a different cadence emerges, along with more animation and slang. To establish his credentials, he first told those at Union Missionary that he was bringing them greetings from his pastor at "Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago," drawing applause. He then thanked Blake and another staff member, calling them "a couple fine brothers." Throughout his 18-minute speech, Obama was repeatedly interrupted with "that's right," "amen" and "alright," as he used the refrain "it's not going to be easy" when he talked about making changes.

The nation often forgets about slavery's toll, Obama told the roughly 250 people gathered. "Some folks still have barriers before them, barriers of discrimination, lack of education, families that have disintegrated because this country has systematically devalued the black family," he said.

Obama was nearly yelling when he addressed economic matters. "If you're workin' you shouldn't be poor," he said. "If you're workin' full time, you should be able to afford to support a family."

Obama expressed both optimism and pessimism on whether blacks will turn out in greater numbers than in past elections. "Folks who haven't voted in a long time, they're thinking maybe I should vote this time," he said. "Cousin Pookie, he's off on the corner somewhere, he says, 'You know, I might vote this time because I know we need a change.'"

Later, he said he realizes how some think the nation is not ready for a black president and worry about his safety. "First of all, I've got Secret Service and they're good," he said. "So I just say be strong and have courage because God is walking with us."

Michelle Obama said her husband has various levels of emotion in his speech and does not always believe a fiery presentation is appropriate. "Barack struggles with authenticity, and he doesn't always want people to be taken away by the passion of the moment because the problems that we face are really serious," she said in an interview this week. "There are moments when he can go there…But to be there all the time is not realistic and it's not helpful because then people feel like in order for [him] to do anything, you've got to sing and dance, you gotta make me laugh."




By John McCormick, Chicago Tribune, November 30, 2007

Barack Obama stepped onto the Clintons' turf in the fight for the black vote last night, appearing at the historic Apollo Theater in Harlem, near the office President Clinton has worked in since he left the Oval Office.

Obama didn't speak much about the Clintons, but comedian Chris Rock did.

He told the audience they'd be "real embarrassed" if Obama won and they had been backing Clinton instead. "You'd say, 'I had that white lady! What was I thinking," he said, according to the Associated Press.

Obama's Harlem fundraiser came in a week in which Hillary Clinton picked up the endorsements of a group of black ministers in South Carolina, while Oprah Winfrey announced she would campaign for Obama. And the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had his own historic presidential run two decades ago, blasted the Democratic candidates for not focusing on the issues of Africans Americans, a rebuke that undoubtedly referred to both Obama, whom Jackson has praised in the past, and Hillary Clinton, whose husband Jackson has previously supported.

Obama and Clinton are courting influential African Americans, anticipating what could be a pivotal primary in South Carolina in January, where blacks make up roughly half the population. But the most important voices in swaying the black vote are likely to be white: the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Polls this year have shown black voters have serious doubts that America will elect an African American president, which gives them another push toward a candidate whom they already like, Clinton. The former first lady leads in polls in South Carolina, but a win by Obama in one or two of the early votes would give him momentum and directly address the electability question.

Obama's campaign has run ads on gospel radio stations in South Carolina, and he's given speeches at events in the state that clearly evoke the racial significance of his candidacy. It's not something that's a big emphasis in Iowa and New Hampshire, both states with black populations of less than three percent. But in Berlin, New Hampshire earlier this week, he was asked about his views on race relations from a person who noted "I know it doesn't seem appropriate in the whitest place on earth to ask a question."

"I'm not interested in having these conversations about race sort of in the abstract," he said, according to the New York Observer. "When everyone is sort of self-flagellating and saying well are we racist or do we still have discrimination in our society? I don't find those useful. Often times African Americans will get all riled up, a lot of African-Americans will get defensive. It doesn't produce anything. What I want to find is concrete plans for change. And most of the problems that affect African Americans affect everybody."

He said of himself "I'm an African American, but I am somebody, like many African Americans, who has all kinds of stuff in him...You should have seen Thanksgiving, we were like the United Nations...But I self-identify as an African American. That's how I am treated and that's how I am viewed and I'm proud of it."

Iowa voters will soon hear more the racial views of not only Obama, but also the other Democratic candidates, who are attending a forum on minority issues in Des Moines on Saturday.

By Perry Bacon Jr., The Washington Post, November 30, 2007

ROCHESTER, New Hampshire (AFP) - A man claiming to be armed with a bomb took over one of US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's campaign offices for more than five hours Friday before surrendering to police.

The man, believed to have a history of mental illness, walked into the New Hampshire office at around 1:00 pm (1800 GMT), taking three women, a man and a baby hostage and reportedly demanding to speak to the former first lady.

Clinton, who was near Washington at the time of the incident, said after the drama ended that the tense standoff had been hard on her and her campaign. "It's been a very difficult day, personally and emotionally," Clinton told reporters, adding that she had been in touch with the families of those being held hostage throughout the day.

"I'm so grateful this day has ended well," said the former first lady, who was due to travel to New Hampshire to thank law enforcement officers.

A young woman initially raised the alarm after fleeing the building with her baby almost immediately after the hostage-taker entered Clinton's office.

Witness Lettie Tzizik told local television station WMUR she spoke to the woman shortly after she fled the building to a nearby shop. "A young woman with a six-month or eight-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape," WMUR quoted her as saying.

Armed police rapidly arrived on the scene, with units setting up across the street while negotiators established communication.

The hostage-taker, named by police as Lee Eisenberg, released another captive around two hours into the standoff before giving up the last two around three hours later.

Live television images showed Eisenberg surrendering to police with his hands in the air before getting down on the ground, being arrested by armed officers and taken to a police vehicle. He was later charged with several offences including kidnapping, police said, adding that the suspected bomb turned out to be several road flares strapped to his body with duct tape.

US media said that Eisenberg was well known locally, had a history of mental problems and wanted to draw attention to the state of psychiatric health care in the United States. He had reportedly been scheduled to appear in court Friday for a domestic violence hearing and had previously spent time in jail. He was also believed to be going through a divorce and reportedly had a history of alcohol abuse.

Sherman Ejarque from The Governor's Inn in Rochester interviewed Eisenberg for a job as a dish washer earlier this year and told AFP the hostage-taker "seemed like a habitually unemployed drifter."

The incident came as campaigning for the 2008 White House race began heating up towards the first nominating contests in Iowa, just five weeks away on January 3, followed by the first primaries in New Hampshire on January 8.

Clinton, who was first lady during her husband Bill Clinton's tenure in the White House 1993-2001, has been riding high in the polls, but she remains a deeply polarizing figure.

A New York senator and a veteran of the fiercely partisan war raging through US politics, she has in the past lambasted a "vast right-wing conspiracy" which she says has targeted her and her husband.

An object of anger since her husband's 1992 White House campaign, she has also provoked the ire of anti-feminists and conservatives, which is being whipped up again as she strives to be America's first woman president.

A USA Today poll in October gave Clinton a 53 percent favorable approval rating, compared to a 44 percent unfavorable rating.

And despite polls showing the race narrowing in key states ahead of the Iowa caucuses on January 3, she still leads nationwide in almost every significant opinion survey of the Democratic field.

AFP, November 30, 2007

The New Republic: Many Fear That A Clinton Nomination Will Hurt Democratic Chances In '08

Even with Barack Obama looking more and more competitive in the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite to win the 2008 Democratic nomination. But that hasn't quieted the grumbling - hell, downright speechifying - from some Democrats that if she were to become the nominee, Clinton would drag down Democratic chances in congressional and local elections in ways that neither of her main opponents (Obama and Senator John Edwards) ever could. "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off," warned Missouri House Minority Whip Connie Johnson, an Edwards supporter, last October. "I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag," Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of nearby Indiana told the AP in August.

While there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for her, concerns about Clinton's down-ballot drag are overwrought. Though she could have a marginal effect on a few races here and there, our electoral system has become so shock-absorbent that presidential candidates barely have a down-ballet effect anymore. In 2004 George W. Bush posted what by today's lights was a solid win, and yet what coattails did he have? The Republicans made no net gain among governors; they added four U.S. senators (their biggest achievement) and a mere four U.S. house seats; and they lost about five dozen state legislative seats overall and net control of four state legislative chambers. Not since Gary Coleman last donned a tuxedo have we seen coattails this short.

Partly, this is a consequence of states holding their elections in non-presidential cycles. Only 11 states elect their governors in presidential years, and in many states, some or all seats in either state legislative chamber are off the ballot. Meanwhile, the increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of both national and state legislative districts further limits the ability of presidential candidacies to ramify down-ballot. Finally, because straight party-line voting is on the rise, the performance and approval of presidential candidates is less likely to cause partisan defections in other races. So, whether Hillary Clinton is a greater asset or liability than Edwards or Obama is secondary to the fact that neither she nor they are likely to have much effect on their fellow Democratic office-seekers.

Those who warn about "Clinton drag" point to her poll numbers. As Karl Rove noted in his inaugural online column for Newsweek, "For a front-runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history." But a closer look shows that, on many measures, she fares no worse and often a bit better than Obama and Edwards. Take the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, which shows that her national favorability rating of 52 percent is statistically identical to Obama's 53 percent and John Edwards' 50. Democrats rate her higher in terms of "leadership" ability (88 percent; Obama, 68 percent; Edwards, 64 percent), though Republicans rate her lower (22 percent, 40 percent and 33 percent, respectively). The case against Clinton is usually pegged to her favorable/unfavorable splits. Typical of this trend is the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, which shows Clinton with a +3 favorable/unfavorable margin (49 percent to 46 percent), compared to Obama at +16 (50 percent to 34 percent) and Edwards at +11 (46 percent to 35 percent).

In short, while Americans view Clinton about as favorably as they do her two chief rivals, Democrats think she is a better leader, Republicans think she'd make a worse leader, and a greater share of voters who do not approve of her actually disapprove of her - which sounds like a redundancy, but is not when you realize that many voters have neither a favorable nor unfavorable view of Obama or Edwards. If either of them wins the nomination, however, don't doubt for a second that the Republican machine can't or won't ratchet up their negatives later.

Still, is there something unique about Clinton that could put other 2008 Democratic candidates at risk? The strongest claim to that is she's an uncommonly unifying figure - for Republicans and the right. So while the intensity of Clinton hatred may not multiply a voter's vote, it could motivate citizens to engage in other ways, such as donating to Republican candidates, walking precincts, or persuading their friends and co-workers to vote against Clinton and other Democrats. Such activities have the potential to alter the composition of the electorate from the one currently being polled - with potentially damaging ramifications for Democratic candidates in close races.

But at the heart of the Clinton drag thesis is the notion, typified by the comments from the Missouri and Indiana Democrats above, that she will disproportionately hurt Democrats running in red states or red areas of blue states. This is in sharp contrast to Obama, who it seems like everyday benefits from a story about his "red state appeal," his ability to draw in people who typically wouldn't vote Democratic. Let's presume for a moment that Clinton would be a drag. What down-ballot races would she likely affect?

Of the 11 gubernatorial races, three Democrats (Montana's Brian Schweitzer, New Hampshire's John Lynch, West Virginia's Joe Manchin) and three Republicans (North Dakota's John Hoeven, Utah's Jon Huntsman, Vermont's Jim Douglas) are safe incumbents likely to be re-elected no matter what. Contests that could be affected include the re-election bids of Washington Democrat Christine Gregoire, Republicans Matt Blunt of Missouri and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and the race to replace term-limited Democrat Mike Easley in North Carolina. Blunt's head-to-head numbers against expected Democratic nominee Jay Nixon are probably too lousy to matter, but Washington and Indiana are swing states that might be influenced by the presidential campaigns. So, at worst, Clinton could make it slightly tougher for Democrats to re-elect Gregoire, unseat Daniels, and replace Easley. On that latter count, the nomination of Tar Heel native Edwards might be more helpful.

Turning to the Senate, Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner look solid in New Hampshire and Virginia. The races most likely to be affected by presidential politics included two with endangered Republican incumbents (Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Gordon Smith in Oregon), and two where Republican retirements in Colorado and New Mexico have provided Democrats with great pickup opportunities. In the two southwestern open-seat races, Edwards and Obama might be less helpful down-ballot than Clinton, who enjoys strong support among Hispanics. In the other two, Clinton could cause problems for Democrats in culturally conservative northern Minnesota and eastern Oregon, but probably no more so than Obama - the perceived difference between the two is likely quite small among white rural voters. Again, only Edwards might have some positive impact here. As for U.S. House races, though too numerous to discuss in detail, the wave of Republican retirements -- 10 announced so far in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and New Mexico alone -- will turn many of the key races into referenda on the quality of the parties' House, not presidential, nominees.

There is one other key factor to consider: Hillary's support among women - the one demographic that is disbursed evenly across almost every precinct, county, and state in the nation - could even make her a down-ballot asset in 2008, especially if she can turn out under-mobilized, unmarried female voters. But the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers. Pantsuits don't have coattails anyway, so perhaps it is appropriate that a woman could become the first major-party presidential nominee at a time when presidential candidates don't pull many fellow partisans into office with them.




By Thomas F. Schaller, The New Republic, November 30, 2007

CONCORD, N.H.-Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign chief on Friday had a simple message for rival Barack Obama's camp: stop running a misleading television ad.

Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle sent the letter to her counterpart, David Plouffe, and told him the ad contains incorrect information about Obama's health care plan. The ad claims Obama's plan would provide insurance for everyone, but critics say the Illinois Democrat's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance.

"On an issue of this magnitude, Americans are looking for more than a nice ad or a good speech. It's not enough for Sen. Obama to say he covers everyone, especially when that is inaccurate," Solis Doyle wrote. "Until the time comes when Sen. Obama has a plan that will cover everyone, you should stop running this false advertisement. The American people deserve an honest debate about health care."

Obama's campaign said it doesn't plan to take down the ad that has been running for weeks in Iowa. Polls there show a tight contest between Clinton, Obama and John Edwards. The ad went on the air in New Hampshire this week.

"The Clinton campaign didn't say a word when this ad was released a month ago, and the only thing that's changed since then is the poll numbers," Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a statement. "Rather than spending their time attacking Barack Obama, the Clinton campaign should explain how exactly they plan to force every American to buy health insurance even if they can't afford it."

Solis Doyle's letter on Friday also said Obama hasn't even been consistent in describing his plan. "Your advertisement not only contradicts the judgment of health care experts, but public statements by your campaign and your candidate. Sen. Obama has pledged to put 'honesty first' in this campaign," she writes.

"Even Sen. Obama himself has admitted that his plan would not cover everyone, calling the plan 'virtually universal.'"

Obama, hoping to parry the ongoing dispute, told reporters in a conference call earlier this week that Clinton was making "more of a political point" than anything else. He said that while her plan nominally requires coverage for all, "she hasn't told anybody how she would enforce this mandate."

During a conference call with reporters, Clinton policy director Neera Tanden said a mandate is the only way to guarantee universal coverage. She said anyone who seeks emergency room treatment or has contact with government agencies -- such as paying taxes -- would be automatically enrolled. "She'd look at other steps as well: working with employers to automatically enroll employees, going through and withholding part of their salaries to pay for it -- those are reasonable steps to enforce a mandate," she said.

By Philip Elliot, Associated Press, November 30, 2007

NEW YORK (Reuters) - After more than a year of political campaigning and tens of millions of dollars raised and spent, some experts believe the contests to choose the Democratic and Republican nominees for U.S. president could be over in a mere five days.

The first political caucus in Iowa on January 3 and the first primary in New Hampshire on January 8 could produce the nominee for each party, leaving millions of voters headed to nominating contests later in the spring with the nominees already effectively chosen, they say.

If so, the longest U.S. presidential nominating season ever -- one that began two years before the November 2008 election -- could wrap up in the shortest time ever.

"My opinion is that whoever wins Iowa on the Democratic side will probably be the nominee, and whoever wins New Hampshire on the Republican side will probably be the nominee," said Mark McKinnon, media adviser to Republican candidate Sen. John McCain. McKinnon spoke at a panel discussion on Thursday on the Internet's impact on the presidential race. "There won't be time," he said, "for candidates to come back or rebuild after losing early primary states."

Compressing the selection process is the short gap between the caucus in Iowa, the first state battle to choose the Democratic and Republican candidates for the November 2008 election, and the primary in New Hampshire five days later. The two typically have been eight days apart or more.

A win in Iowa and New Hampshire can create momentum for later contests, while a loss can mean collapse of a campaign.

Others dismiss that argument, including Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

She argued that demographics of various states -- roughly half of the 50 U.S. states will hold nominating contests as of February 5 -- are so diverse that candidates with money would stay in the race to reach a primary where they have support. Largely white, rural Iowa and New Hampshire are far different from states later in the nominating calendar, she said.

For example, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is almost certain to stay in the race until the January 29 primary in the more diverse and delegate-rich Florida, where he has support and has campaigned heavily, she said.

"You've got one day when 40 percent of the (nominating) delegates are decided. Anybody who drops out of the race whose got the money to compete is a fool," Jamieson said.

WINNING SCENARIOS

But plenty of scenarios showing nominations decided by Iowa and New Hampshire exist, experts say, especially if the same candidate wins both states.

Among Democrats, said Dante Scala, political science professor at the University of New Hampshire, if New York Sen. Hillary Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama wins both early states, "the race for the nomination is essentially over."

Among Republicans, a split with different candidates winning Iowa and New Hampshire is more likely and could stretch the race into January or February, he said.

Jennifer Donahue, political analyst at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, agreed that the nominations could be sewn up in less than a week if front-runners win both early contests but noted the strong possibility of other outcomes.

"If a front-runner goes two-for-two, it's over," she said, yet a scenario such as a surprise victory by former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa could weaken support for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and extend the contest for the Republican nomination.

"These are all possible scenarios," she said. "If any of us could really predict which scenario is going to occur, we would probably be either extremely wealthy or running the country."

By Ellen Wulfhorst, Reuters, November 30, 2007

SEN. Joe Biden's long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has been hyping a new poll that shows him faring as well as any other Democrat against the various likely Republican nominees. Problem is, this isn't so much good news for Biden as it is a wake-up call for the Democratic Party - and whoever does win its nomination.

And it's not one poll, but many: As in 2004, "Democrat to be named later" does well in matchups against a similarly generic GOP nominee. But once you insert actual names, the race tightens. Nationally, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards find themselves in a dead heat against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani (with a slight edge over Mitt Romney).

That's troubling for Democrats, who couldn't ask for a more hospitable electoral environment. The public is fed up with Republicans; the top Dem candidates boast astronomical name-ID and Democrats are trampling the GOP in fund-raising. The lackluster GOP field has devolved into The Bickersons, with a slew of flawed candidates who've left Republican voters frustrated and underwhelmed.

So why the dead heat? It can't help that the Democratic race is looking a bit like another contest whose contenders will do almost anything to win: the Miss Puerto Rico pageant.

No one's pepper-sprayed Clinton's pantsuit or spiked Obama's foundation, but the front-runners have abandoned the patina of party unity. Obama drips with sarcasm when challenging his chief rival, Clinton; she, in turn, barely acknowledges his existence when they're on stage together. Edwards just fumes.

Which brings us back to Biden. He just released a Web video, "Joe is Right," highlighting heaps of praise from the top-tier candidates. Compliments come easy when nobody thinks you're a threat.

Biden has done admirably in the debates, maximizing the crumbs of time doled out to second-tier candidates and steering clear of his signature gaffes. (He even got off a perfect one-liner on Giuliani: "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence - a noun, a verb, and 9/11.") In short, he's set a good example of what a strong general-election candidate might look like.

Meanwhile, the top three candidates have managed to highlight many of their negative qualities with increasing precision.

Obama represents change and hope, but is full of airy rhetoric. Clinton represents experience, but many voters think she panders and don't trust her. Edwards wants change, too - but has abandoned his sunny optimism of 2004 and sounds more fiery activist than president with his obsession with "shaking up Washington." They could do worse than to learn from Biden.

People may flock to hear Obama's soaring oratory, but when push comes to shove, voters are far more concerned about their day-to-day lives than they'll ever be about "uniting the country." Biden steers clear of platitudes and talks frankly about what he'd do, and has done, to better American lives in a tangible way.

It's hard to imagine Biden getting tangled up over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants as Clinton did, reinforcing voters' fear that she says what she thinks people want to hear. When the left formed an angry mob demanding that Democrats vote against the emergency supplemental bill for Iraq , Biden voted for it - making no excuses for wanting to protect US soldiers in combat.

Biden is tough, but he knows that Americans have tired of the gratuitous battling that has become Edwards' signature. Instead, he highlights his ability to bring people together and work across party lines, most recently on an Iraq resolution that garnered 75 votes, including 26 Republicans.

Chances are slim that Biden could Huckabee himself into the first tier. But as his fellow Democrats offer him praise, they should recall that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

By Kirsten Powers, New York Post, November 30, 2007

Caucusgoers beware: It's roughly a month away from the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, and the political shenanigans are in high gear.

Such tactics by people who play dirty have moved beyond the destruction of yard signs or push polls that ply caucusgoers with misleading or inaccurate information.

This time, they've taken to the Internet in the form of e-mail accounts made to look like they were sent from campaign officials.

The latest was an e-mail that was sent this week, using the name of a field director for Republican Mitt Romney's campaign and telling voters that one of Rudy Giuliani's advisers is a "pedophile priest." The e-mail directed voters to a blog item on InsideCatholic.com about Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani's. Placa, who officiated at Giuliani's second wedding and works in his consulting firm, has been accused of molesting two boys in New York.

Giuliani has defended his friend as recently as last month. "We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt," Giuliani said in Milwaukee, Wis. "And, of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."

The e-mail came from an Internet account with David Overholtzer's name. Overholtzer, the Romney supporter, vehemently denied involvement.

Such accounts can be set up by virtually anybody with Internet access. "It's a fabrication. The whole thing is," said Overholtzer, who is also co-chairman of the Pottawattamie County Republicans. "The whole thing is a lie."

Arthur Sanders, a Drake political science professor, cautioned Iowans to think twice before taking such e-mails as fact. "There are a lot of dirty tricks that campaigns use, and the Web makes it easier," Sanders said. He noted that it's almost a given that campaigns will deny involvement and, unless they are directly caught, the undercurrent of such attacks can linger and erode voter confidence. "We know they're going to say they're not involved, whether they are or not," Sanders said. "It doesn't put the rumors to rest," he added.

Paul Pate, the chairman for Giuliani's Iowa campaign, called the e-mail "dirty." "These kind of dirty tactics have no place in the political discourse," Pate said.

Other recent rumors or offensive tactics have also attracted headlines.

Earlier this month conservative columnist Robert Novak said in his nationally syndicated column that "agents" of Hillary Clinton campaign were "spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information" about Barack Obama, her chief Democratic presidential rival. Clinton's campaign dismissed the assertion as a "Republican-leaning journalist" running "a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another."

Earlier this week, a hand-written campaign flier found in Ames, Slater and Ankeny advised caucusgoers to vote for John Edwards and referred to Clinton and Obama in abusive language.

Campaign officials for Edwards' campaign called the sign disgusting.

"You have to be careful and you need to be skeptical of claims that are made, particularly those who are attacking something about someone on the other side," Sanders said.

By Jason Clayworth, Des Moines Register, November 30, 2007

John Edwards tells voters that there are still two Americas. What Iowa caucusgoers must decide is if there are two John Edwardses.

Four years ago, the fresh-faced then-North Carolina senator defended his support for the Iraq war, prescribed a gradual approach to health care reform and told Iowa caucusgoers not to expect him to criticize his fellow Democrats running for president.

Today, he calls his Iraq vote a mistake, embraces universal health care and regularly attacks party front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

Edwards says the changes are the natural consequence of his persistent outrage with the influence of moneyed interests, but some Iowa Democrats and party strategists view them as politically calculated.

A glaring difference between Edwards' two campaigns is the expectation he faces this time in Iowa's leadoff caucuses. His success in 2004, when he finished in second place in Iowa, and his nonstop effort since then put pressure on him to do well again.

At its core, Edwards' message of fairness is the same in his 2008 campaign it was in 2004, scholars and political observers say. However, it is sharper and more confrontational, reflecting the increased urgency felt by Democratic voters to reverse course, and the pressure on the candidate to remain relevant in an altered political environment.

"I think it's the same core message, adapted to a different mood and a different time," said E.J. Dionne, a scholar with the Brookings Institution.

Claims consistency

Edwards rejects the suggestion that he recanted his vote for the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq and now embraces universal health care as moves choreographed to endear him with his party's left in 2008. Instead, he insists the positions are consistent with his 2004 campaign's message of countering unfairness. But rather than targeting the Bush administration, he has trained his assault on corporate interests.

"Anybody who's really been watching for the whole time and is thinking about it would see there's a very clear pattern to this," Edwards said in a Des Moines Register interview. "If you were to sort of sum it up, what I would say is in 2004, I talked about two Americas. In 2008, I'm talking about taking on the fight and the substance necessary to create one America."

Edwards is referring to the metaphor that fueled his late Iowa surge and second-place caucus finish in 2004. In a Des Moines speech in late December 2003, he condemned the notion of "one America that does the work and another that reaps the reward."

Four years later, Edwards continues to discuss his upbringing in a North Carolina textile mill town. But he is far more specific in discussing his policy proposals. He describes himself as more seasoned, having run once before on his own and as John Kerry's vice presidential running mate in 2004.

He has adopted a more casual dress code as he campaigns in Iowa - faded blue jeans vs. the dress pants of four years ago. But Edwards is more combative this time around. He is no longer content to talk about economic inequity - he prescribes an aggressive effort to root out special interests in Washington, D.C. "It is time to give these entrenched interests, that are standing against America, hell," Edwards told thousands of Iowa Democrats this month at the state party's fall fundraiser in Des Moines. "That's the only way we're going to win this fight."

Growing discontent

Eric Johnson, an undecided Democrat from Iowa City, said the changes he sees in Edwards seem to have mirrored the growing discontent of Democrats, and voters in general, since the 2004 election.

For example, Americans were evenly divided about four years ago about President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, which was then less than a year under way. Today, polls show nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of it.

The narrow majority of Americans who believed it was the federal government's responsibility to make sure people have health insurance has grown in the past four years to roughly two-thirds.

"The political climate is more open to solutions that might have been deemed politically unpalatable," said Johnson, a University of Iowa graduate student who is considering supporting Edwards in the caucuses. "I'm glad to see him taking advantage of that climate. I'm glad to see what I see as an evolution in his thinking."

Edwards readily says he was a more careful candidate in 2004. And while he dismisses the idea that he has lurched to the left out of political expedience, he contends that the issues that dominated the 2004 campaign now warrant bolder solutions.

"Health care has become a much graver crisis, for instance," said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Edwards. "The divide between the two Americas has gotten wider."

Trippi embodies a difference in Edwards' two campaigns. He managed the 2004 campaign of Howard Dean, who at times lumped Edwards in with "Washington politicians" whom the former Vermont governor accused of bending to Bush. Edwards left the Senate in 2005 after his only term.

Some national Democratic strategists say caucusgoers may view Edwards' change in position and tone as part of a tactical shift to appeal to the party's increasingly angry left in the presidential campaign.

"So the struggle for John Edwards becomes one of authenticity," said Erik Smith, a top aide to 2004 Democratic candidate Dick Gephardt's campaign.

"And if Iowa caucusgoers believe this transformation is an authentic one, then he'll be OK. If caucusgoers believe it is opportunistic, and political, he won't.

The stakes in Iowa are higher for Edwards in 2008. He finished within striking distance of Kerry, the 2004 caucus winner, and was the early leader in Iowa polls this cycle. That cushion has eroded and he now narrowly trails Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Retains loyalty

However, he retains the loyalty of many of his 2004 supporters. He has been endorsed by 10 state legislators, including most of the five who endorsed him four years ago.

Bonnie Crawford, a Tama County Edwards supporter from 2004 who plans to caucus for the candidate in January, described the differences between his first and second campaigns as evolutionary. "These are all improvements that show his growth," said Crawford, a Toledo Democrat. "Last time, he had the same passion, but he played it safer."

Edwards dismisses the idea that his persistent criticism of Clinton marks a retreat from his 2004 campaign mantra to refrain from attacking his opponents. He has repeatedly faulted Clinton for not prescribing a detailed plan for ending the war in Iraq. He has proposed immediately withdrawing at least 40,000 troops and having all combat troops out within 10 months.

Dionne said Edwards' other criticism of Clinton, that her acceptance of campaign contributions from federal lobbyists ties her to special interests, does not come solely out of political necessity.

"I think it strengthens the forcefulness of his challenge to the status quo in Washington," Dionne said.

By Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register, November 30, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. - With Hillary Clinton faltering in polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary is looming as a possible make-or-break moment for her - in a place where she has most of the party's key endorsements and a sizable lead in the polls, but where a defeat could be devastating.

Unlike in Iowa, where the major endorsements are split among several candidates, Clinton has the support of most of the Democratic party establishment in New Hampshire. She has other important advantages here that she lacks in Iowa, including a history of campaigning for her husband and New Hampshire's recent tradition of electing female politicians.

However, her lead in the New Hampshire polls has narrowed in the last month, and analysts say her enviable organization does not guarantee protection against the wave of momentum that could propel Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, if he were to win the Iowa caucuses, which are five days before the Jan. 8 primary.

Because of New Hampshire's traditional influence and the high expectations generated by Clinton's mass of endorsements here, analysts say, she could not lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and survive in the race.

"I would argue that New Hampshire is the firewall of last resort," said Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist. "New Hampshire has to come through for her if Iowa doesn't."

Clinton's campaign expresses confidence about her performance around the country, including in both the crucial early states. But it has also flooded Iowa with new staff in the days since her poll numbers began dropping, and Clinton is expected to spend much of December traveling the state.

There is also a growing sense of urgency among the New York senator's Granite State ranks. The New Hampshire campaign recently opened several field offices and hired staff to bring the total in the state to about 100. "We need you to step it up now, we need you to turn up the heat now," New Hampshire's speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, told a crowd of prominent supporters gathered in Concord to see Clinton on Monday. "We need you not just to do one phone bank, but to do many phone banks. We need you to talk to your neighbors, we need you to write letters to the editor."

Each week, hundreds of campaign volunteers knock on an average of 25,000 doors statewide, and they have made close to a million phone calls seeking and solidifying support from voters, according to Clinton's New Hampshire state director, Nick Clemons.

But Obama's campaign has also stepped up its efforts and is preparing for a showdown as well. Obama's campaign said it has kept pace with Clinton's in paid staff and its volunteers are just as busy knocking on doors, making phone calls, and writing postcards. Obama spokeswoman Leslie Miller, who said the campaign knocks on 20,000 doors a week, questioned the Clinton figures, saying Obama canvassers rarely run into their Clinton counterparts.

But outside political observers say Clinton's campaign is more agile, thanks to her backing from members of the local party establishment, who are better-schooled in what it takes to win the first-in-the-nation primarily.

The state's two leading Democrats, Governor John Lynch and former governor and current senatorial candidate Jeanne Shaheen, are staying neutral in the race, but their spouses have endorsed Clinton, which analysts see as a clear sign that their political organizations will be supporting her. In addition to Norelli, Clinton has the backing of the state Senate president, the state party chairwoman who led the Democrats to victory in 2006, and most of New Hampshire's top political operatives.

It is unusual but not unprecedented for so much of the Democratic muscle in New Hampshire to coalesce around one person in a primary without an incumbent. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore had the backing of most of the party establishment, and eked out a four-point win against Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. His victory was enough to seize the momentum going into larger states, and he won the nomination with ease. Some Obama supporters point to Bradley's close finish, even without the momentum of a win in the Iowa caucuses, as evidence that establishment backing does not erase all vulnerabilities.

Obama's biggest endorsement is from freshman US Representative Paul Hodes; the only other Democratic member of Congress from New Hampshire is neutral. But Obama's supporters say it is natural that Clinton would monopolize the endorsements. "The reality is that Barack Obama has been on the scene for 10 months running against the most powerful Democratic political force for two decades, the Clintons," said Obama cochairman Ned Helms. "They were busy all spring and summer courting the names you would recognize, at the same time we were engaging people . . . on 'what are your passions?' "

Helms said people do not enter the voting booth pondering whom their state representative has endorsed, especially the independent voters who make up a large chunk of the state's electorate. But the support of a broad swatch of the party's elected leadership will translate into on-the-ground organizational support on primary day. And Clinton's supporters say the endorsers have been working hard in all facets of the campaign.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen recently brought a crock-pot full of homemade chili to Clinton's Manchester headquarters, while Kathy Sullivan, the former state party chairwoman, cooked pasta for a volunteer potluck. "People will say, 'Oh, the establishment is for Hillary Clinton,' but people forget that the establishment is the people who have been making the chili and the pasta for years," Sullivan said, referring to herself and Larsen.

New Hampshire is considered friendlier territory than Iowa for Clinton for several reasons. She spent a lot of time campaigning for her husband in 1992 while bypassing Iowa because home-state Senator Tom Harkin was running. Women are unusually prominent in New Hampshire politics, perhaps because its part-time Legislature has attracted female candidates for decades.

Clinton has maintained a clear lead in polls, though recent ones have gotten tighter. A CNN/WMUR poll in September put her ahead of Obama by 43 percent to 20 percent. In a Suffolk University/WHDH poll this week, she led him 34 percent to 22 percent.

And the results of the Iowa caucus could significantly influence the New Hampshire primary, said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic strategist who is not affiliated with a campaign. An Iowa victory by former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is vying with Clinton and Obama for the lead in some Iowa polls, would not translate much in New Hampshire, where Edwards fared very poorly in 2004, Mellman said. But if Obama won Iowa, there would be a flood of positive press about him and questions about whether Clinton is electable. "It's unfair and inaccurate, but it would be a lot of chaff to have to navigate through in five days," he said.

If Obama wins Iowa, Scala said, Clinton's imperative will be to hold on to college-educated, professional women, among whom she has done surprisingly well, considering that Obama's idealistic campaign is attractive to their demographic.

"If they stick with her, her firewall will hold up," Scala said. "But if not, it will be five sleepless nights for the Clinton campaign. Actually, it will be five sleepless nights no matter what."

By Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe, November 30, 2007

A wise man once said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven - and it used to be nearly as tough for a Democratic candidate to take a presidential campaign to a conservative evangelical church.

But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did just that Thursday with a visit to one of the country's most influential megachurches that dramatized the new Democratic efforts to win support from evangelical voters that the party once considered out of reach.

Clinton received a standing ovation from a full house at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest at the annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church hosted by the Rev. Rick Warren and his wife, Kay. Warren, a youthful, bearded, blue-jeans-wearing pastor who hails from San Jose, is the author of "A Purpose Driven Life" - which has sold more than 23 million copies and ranks as one of the best-selling nonfiction books in history. The church that he and his wife lead attracts as many as 20,000 attendees to its diverse Sunday services - gospel, traditional, "worship rock," Polynesian and singles among them.

Last year, Warren welcomed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois to the stage at Saddleback, and this year, the minister invited all the presidential candidates in both parties to address his congregation on the HIV pandemic. With just five weeks until voting begins in the presidential nominating contest, only Clinton came in person; Republicans Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney and Democrats Obama and John Edwards addressed the congregation through videos.

Clinton delivered an unusually personal, often emotional speech that quoted regularly from Scripture and explored issues including her religious experiences. "I was fortunate enough to be raised to understand the power and the purpose of prayer ... but had I not been, probably one week in the White House would have turned me into one," she said to laughs.

Clinton said that in her most difficult times, there was a White House prayer group "whose love and support sustained me."

But Clinton told the audience of about 1,700 people that action goes hand in hand with faith. She won applause when she proposed $50 billion for AIDS treatment and prevention and promised to "set a goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa" - where 1 million die annually from the disease - by the end of a second term.

The Democratic candidate did not shy away from more controversial ground, telling congregants "it is long past time that we do everything we can to stand up for the proposition that women's rights are human rights."

"Girls denied their human rights are girls at risk for AIDS. ... Even in our own country today, women are now the face of AIDS," she said, arguing that world and church leaders must address the sexual trafficking of girls worldwide.

The visit by the Democratic front-runner to the Orange County megachurch highlighted a changing political strategy among Democrats. National Party Chairman Howard Dean, who once dismissed Republicans as a "white Christian party," has more recently urged Democrats to open their arms to young evangelicals and a new generation of religious leaders such as Warren.

Burns Strider, the national director of faith-based outreach for the Clinton campaign, said the New York senator - a United Methodist - relished the opportunity to "join with people of faith" to talk about fighting AIDS. He said Clinton believes that Democrats "have got to find a common ground" with millions of evangelical voters - a widely diverse, engaged constituency.

"Younger leaders are opening the door ... and we welcome the dialogue," Strider said.

Religious scholars said such efforts could change the parameters of a once-predictable political strategy: Democrats aiming for dominance in urban African American churches with the help of politically liberal leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton and Republicans courting conservative white evangelicals with televangelists such as Pat Robertson and the now-deceased Jerry Falwell.

Now there is a fertile new middle ground to be plowed in churches such as Saddleback, whose leaders like Warren eschew divisive partisan talk and political wedge issues. Instead, they "emphasize much less the notion of a vengeful, judgmental God," said Mathew Schmalz, professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.

The approach has proved successful in appealing to millions who want religious experiences that "emphasize the Bible and teachings of Jesus as a blueprint for living, a guide for living a full and healthy life," he said. That has forged a new evangelical profile which "is becoming more diverse ... interested in more socially progressive issues" such as poverty, illiteracy, the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the violence in Darfur.

Churches such as Saddleback now offer Christian families "a sense of community and Bible-based truth, but they apply it more flexibly," Schmalz said. "They are people who are more upwardly mobile, urban professional types who don't necessarily live within a traditional evangelical homeschooling world."

GOP consultant Patrick Dorinson said California is particularly important for the new political constituency of these evangelicals. "This is a new movement that has come into the suburbs," Dorinson said. "They want spirituality in their lives, and they got kids, and they want an anchor. They join these churches to be uplifted ... and they don't want to be told who to hate. "You'll see a fight for these voters," he said. "And for Hillary to go is a smart political move."

California Democratic political strategist Garry South - raised as a devout evangelical by churchgoing parents in rural Montana - said that in 2008, Clinton and his party's candidates appear to have acknowledged that "if we don't engage these voters, we deserve to lose."

South noted that churchgoing Americans were historically a Democratic-leaning, working-class demographic "whose dads remembered FDR" and whose main concerns were fiscal: "trying to feed a family, get a better job and get their kids into college."

But powerful lobbying groups such as the Christian Coalition and leaders such as Falwell and Robertson gained clout and took a direct role in GOP politics in the 1980s and 1990s, firing up religious voters on explosive issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

"They wanted to peel (evangelicals) away to the Republicans ... and the strategy largely worked," he said.

Clinton, in her talk at Saddleback, told the audience of what she said was one of her favorite Scriptural passages, "the line from James: 'Faith without works is dead.' "

"Here, in what you're doing, faith and works come together - and you understand that," she said. "And what extraordinary, important work your faith supports."

A Saddleback Church congregant, Tonie Kennedy, said after the speech that Clinton's venture to the evangelical congregation "was a good decision."

"It shows me she has her own faith," Kennedy said, "and that she has an interest in what's going on in the churches."

Clinton is competing with fellow Democrats Obama and Edwards to expand their bases to include these "values voters" found in churches such as Saddleback.

"Sen. Clinton has the boldness to broaden her base ... it shows she's done her homework and she's open to new ideas," said Vivian Berryhill, president and founder of the National Coalition of Pastors' Spouses, one of the groups courted by Clinton's campaign.

"We're very religious in this country, and these are the people who helped elect (Republican President) Bush," said Berryhill, motioning around at the convention-center-size Saddleback worship hall. "So for her to come here is a gutsy move."

By Carla Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle, November 30, 2007

Reporters Following Hillary Clinton on the Campaign Trail Are Covered in Dust

CONCORD, N.H. -- ABC correspondent Kate Snow was ready to push through the crowd and ask Hillary Clinton a question until an aide blocked the path of Snow's sound man as he aimed his boom mike in the senator's direction. "Sorry, we've gotta go," the woman said, though it was clear that Clinton would be shaking hands for some time.

Moments later, as the Democratic presidential candidate was mobbed by well-wishers, Boston television reporter Joe Battenfeld managed to shout a question -- a meaningless question, truth be told -- about whether she needed to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton was defiantly bland in response, as if determined that her comments not be used.

"Oh, I don't think about it like that. I'm just thrilled to be competing in Iowa and New Hampshire... There's something very special about the New Hampshire primary... I take nothing for granted... We have wonderful candidates running."

Such is life spent trailing the Clinton juggernaut, where reporters can generally get close enough to watch but no further, as if separated from the candidate by an invisible sheet of glass.

National correspondents are increasingly frustrated by a lack of access to Clinton. They spend much of their time in rental cars chasing her from one event to the next, because the campaign usually provides no press bus or van. Life on the bus means journalists don't have to worry about luggage or directions or getting left behind, since they are part of the official motorcade. News organizations foot the bill for such transportation, but campaigns have to staff and coordinate the buses -- and deal with the constant presence of their chroniclers.

With rare exceptions -- John McCain chats endlessly with reporters aboard his bus -- leading presidential candidates take a wary approach to the press, doling out access in carefully limited increments. Journalists sometimes question whether it is worth the time and energy to trail politicians who rarely engage them. In this regard, Clinton differs only in her degree of discipline, honed during eight years of often testy media relations in her husband's White House.

Clinton blames an overtaxed schedule for the arm's-length approach, but something more fundamental is at work here. She, like her rivals, wants to deliver a daily message, usually framed around some policy prescription, while reporters want to ask her about the latest polls, tactics or blast from Barack Obama or John Edwards. And answering questions off the cuff always risks the possibility of a blunder, as when Clinton told NBC's Andrea Mitchell during the 1992 campaign that she had chosen to pursue a career rather than stay home and "bake cookies."

At the same time, much of what Clinton wants to communicate -- the nuances of her health-care plan, for instance -- doesn't fit the media's cramped definition of news.

Clinton did a phone interview this week with the Chicago Tribune and a previously scheduled feature interview with The Washington Post, which included a question on her husband's claim that he had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But such opportunities are relatively rare. Obama, for his part, held a conference call with reporters Wednesday.

Clinton aides say they try to stage a "press avail," or brief news conference, every five or six days, but they acknowledge the schedule often slips. (Obama is also on a weekly schedule; Edwards, third in the national polls, is more accessible.) The result is little red meat for the press pack. In fact, much of the chatter among the reporters is about MapQuest and GPS devices and Hertz's NeverLost technology as they trade tips on how to track their constantly moving quarry.

Earlier this month, Snow ignored the speed limit as she chased Clinton from a Manchester diner to a Concord state office where the candidate was filing to run in the primary. "I parked seven blocks away," Snow says. "I ran up the street in my high-heel boots. I got there out of breath, and the Secret Service stopped me and said, 'You can't come in.' "

Snow and other late-arriving reporters talked their way in through the back door, but the room was so packed with supporters that her crew couldn't get near the former first lady, whose news conference was almost over. "We're constantly playing catch-up," Snow says.

Newsweek's Andrew Romano says the press didn't even get to take the tour when Clinton visited a Las Vegas sheet-metal factory. "The way we were herded into a small area to watch her walk into a room and meet with union officials just seemed slightly absurd," he says. When a colleague asked the staff for a chance to question Clinton, "they just kind of laughed it off."

My day-long pursuit of the senator on Monday was typical. She arrived more than an hour late, from Iowa, at a 19th-century Victorian mansion here and spoke for all of nine minutes about the importance of health care. With half a dozen cameras rolling, Clinton accepted the endorsement of pediatrician Susan Lynch, wife of the state's Democratic governor, John Lynch.

When Clinton stepped away from the microphones, Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" began blaring from the speakers, which effectively drowned out any attempted queries from the journalists sprinkled throughout the room. Battenfeld, the Boston reporter, launched his horse-race question during a brief lull between songs.

"It's kind of an art form," he said afterward. "I would have asked her about Obama, but I figured she would have turned and run."

While candidates operate in something of a bubble, their headquarters staff conducts an outside game with tougher language, and Clinton is no exception. As reporters awaited her arrival here, an e-mail arrived by BlackBerry, sparked by a Washington Post report on Obama using a political action committee to make donations to officials in early primary states. "It was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws," the Clinton release said.

After the Concord event, Clinton retreated to a previously scheduled taping with Katie Couric, her only sustained encounter that day with the national media. The CBS anchor asked how disappointed she would be if she isn't the nominee. "Well, it will be me," Clinton said. When Couric pressed, Clinton insisted -- not terribly convincingly -- that she hadn't even considered the possibility she could lose.

Reporters, meanwhile, were making their way along unmarked back roads, past moose crossings and flocks of geese, to find a home on an isolated cul-de-sac in Goffstown. There, Judy Lanza, a nurse, and her husband, Joe, a retired police officer, hosted Clinton in a small kitchen adorned with pumpkins, apple baskets, a cookie jar and a straw doll affixed to the wall.

For more than an hour, 30 journalists watched from the small, darkened living room as Clinton chatted, awkwardly at first, with the five preselected guests. Her rhetoric against health insurance companies was harsher than might have been expected. They give patients the "runaround," deny care, "slow-walk" the payment of bills, she declared. "This is all part of their business model. This is how they make money. . . . The small-business health-care market is really rigged."

From there, Clinton drifted into special education, meetings she had as first lady on religious tolerance, how she was "deeply involved" in the Northern Ireland peace process, and her plans for a "post-Kyoto agreement" on global warming. But although the meeting was staged for the assembled journalists, there was no chance for follow-up, and the event received virtually no coverage.

As Clinton made her way to the door, she observed: "All this good food -- can we feed the press?" But the press was feeling undernourished.

Campaigns often brush off national correspondents in favor of local journalists, who tend to be less critical. Clinton did hold an off-the-record session with New Hampshire reporters and spoke to an Exeter radio station on Monday. But she paid a price for her limited interaction with reporters on the 6 p.m. newscast of WMUR-TV, the state's only network affiliate.

Obama, in New Hampshire that day, was shown talking to one of the station's reporters about Oprah Winfrey's decision to campaign for him. Edwards, also in New Hampshire, was seen talking to reporters about the need for a candidate who "tells the truth." But Clinton's endorsement by the governor's wife warranted only a brief mention, with no sound bite from the candidate.

Her last major event was a potluck dinner at a cavernous union hall in the town of Brentwood. But only a handful of reporters attended and I arrived late, driving down unlighted streets in a heavy rain as confused Clinton aides kept giving me the wrong directions.

The candidate spent half an hour signing campaign posters and posing for pictures, and I persuaded her tired-looking staff to grant me a single question as she made her way out. The question: Wouldn't providing more media access help get her message out?

"We try to balance what we do every day," Clinton said. "I'm trying to reach as many voters as possible one-on-one" while also dealing with the local press, "which has a very big role to play," and making time for occasional interviews with national news outlets. "It seems I have mushrooming demands," she said. "The balancing is really intense."

With that, she was off to a waiting plane to South Carolina, while reporters headed for commercial flights to follow her there.

By Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post, November 30, 2007

LANSING, Mich. - At first glance, Hillary Rodham Clinton should easily win Michigan's Democratic primary, since no other top candidates are on the ballot.

But she faces an unusual opponent: "Uncommitted."

If enough backers of the candidates who aren't on the ballot - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden - mark "Uncommitted" when they vote Jan. 15, it could take some of the luster off what's otherwise a certain Clinton victory.

"We will see if over the next two or three weeks the people who aren't on the ballot ... urge everyone to vote 'uncommitted.' I think that's an intriguing prospect," said Democratic activist Bob Alexander of East Lansing, Mich. "It would get a lot of national attention."

The four withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status in the primary calendar.

Despite last-ditch legislative efforts to put the four missing Democrats back on the ballot, Clinton will be up against only Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

A poll conducted earlier this month by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA showed 49 percent of likely Democratic voters back Clinton. But 18 percent support Obama, 15 percent prefer Edwards and 12 percent are undecided, leaving a potentially large pool of uncommitted voters who could muddy the perception of a Clinton victory.

Under Alexander's scenario, backers of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden would get some of the uncommitted slots when Michigan Democrats hold district conventions in late March to choose 83 of their 156 national convention delegates.

He hopes a few might even go to Al Gore supporters, even though the former vice president isn't running and Alexander was unsuccessful in getting him on the Michigan ballot.

But seats will be set aside for uncommitted delegates at district conventions only if at least 15 percent of voters in the Democratic primary in that congressional district chose uncommitted, or if at least 15 percent of Democratic voters statewide choose uncommitted.

If enough Michigan Democrats vote "uncommitted," it could slow some of Clinton's momentum if she does well in the earlier Iowa and New Hampshire contests. If she has done poorly until that point, the disaffection with her candidacy shown by uncommitted Michigan Democratic voters could harm her even further.

So far, the Clinton campaign doesn't seem too worried. A spokesman declined to comment on the possibility of "uncommitted" doing well.

By Kathy Barks Hoffman, Associated Press, November 29, 2007

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton says young women today have it tougher in some ways than they did more than four decades ago when she was growing up.

There are so many competing messages now like 'You're not thin enough' or 'You're not sexy enough.' It's overwhelming," Clinton said. "And very young girls spend time absorbing these messages from TV or music videos instead of just going out and playing."

The Democratic presidential hopeful answered questions from members of iVillage.com. The Web site posted her responses Thursday, along with a slideshow of photographs from her life.

Clinton, 60, described what she was like as a teenager when watching "The Ed Sullivan Show" with her family, a Sunday tradition.

"Think of the students in the movie 'Grease' or the television show 'Happy Days' and that's very much like the world I grew up in," said Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs.

Clinton served as president of the local fan club for Fabian, who gained fame in the 1950s and 1960s with songs such as "Turn Me Loose" and "Tiger." The club "consisted of me and two other girls," she said.

Politics interested Clinton at an early age, she said. She was member of the student council and vice president of her junior class. As a senior in high school, she ran for student government president against several boys and lost.

"I wasn't surprised about losing, but I really minded when one of my opponents told me I was 'really stupid if I thought a girl could be elected president,'" she said.

Associated Press, November 29, 2007

NEW YORK - Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are in a tussle over whether the government should require everyone to carry health insurance.

Arcane as it may sound, the debate has become a proxy battle over questions of leadership, judgment and who is more committed to bringing health care to all Americans.

AT ISSUE:

All the leading Democratic presidential contenders have laid out comprehensive plans that they say will reduce the cost of health care and provide coverage to the 47 million uninsured. But they part ways over the issue of an "individual mandate," which would require everyone to have insurance just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance.

Clinton has made such a mandate the centerpiece of her plan, insisting that it is the only way to bring coverage to all. The New York senator would offer federal tax subsidies to help consumers pay for insurance, with the expectation that costs would come down over time as insurers begin to compete for a larger pool of consumers.

She has not yet said specifically how she would enforce such a mandate, saying those details would be worked out in consultation with Congress. She has spoken favorably of a so-called "default enrollment," in which those without coverage would be placed in a plan through school, work or when they seek health care.

John Edwards has also proposed an individual mandate and this week laid out the steps he would take to enforce it. Under his plan, those who refuse to participate could see their wages garnished or face penalty payments.

Obama's plan does not include an individual mandate for adults. The Illinois senator has argued that people cannot be compelled to buy insurance until the cost of coverage is substantially reduced. He would require all children to be covered and would offer subsidies to the working poor. Over time, he says, the cost savings realized through his plan would enable everyone to afford to purchase insurance.

THE SPIN:

Clinton has sought to portray Obama as unwilling to fight for universal coverage, settling instead for a plan that could leave as many as 15 million people uninsured. Obama, in turn, has tried to depict Clinton as unrealistic and evasive on the issue.

"He has called his plan universal, then he has called it 'virtually universal,' but it simply does not deserve that label," Clinton told an audience in Iowa on Wednesday. "When it comes to truth in labeling, his plan simply flunks the test."

Obama responded to Clinton's criticisms Wednesday, reiterating his view that people cannot be forced to buy coverage until it is made more affordable. And, he said, she has never explained how she would enforce her requirement that everyone must obtain coverage. "So until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate - is she going to fine people, is she going to take other steps to enforce it - this is more of a political point that she's trying to make than a real point," Obama said.

FACT CHECK:

Health policy experts generally agree that the best way to achieve truly universal coverage is to enact a "single payer" health care system that is run by the government. While the health systems in most other wealthy industrialized nations are largely government-run, the single-payer model has been rejected as "socialized medicine" in the U.S.

Absent a single-payer system, many experts believe the individual mandate would help move the country toward universal health care but would not automatically result in everyone being covered. And Massachusetts, which last year became the first state to require its residents to carry health insurance, has vividly demonstrated its limitations.

Officials there have granted waivers to 20 percent of state residents who cannot afford coverage, even the new, lower-priced plans subsidized by the government. Hundreds of thousands more have refused to purchase coverage despite the mandate, risking a tax penalty that could be as high as $1,000 next year.

When she unveiled her health care plan in September, Clinton told The Associated Press that she was aware of the problems in the Massachusetts system but felt confident the federal government had "tools" at its disposal to address problems a state government might not.

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press, November 29, 2007

LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton used an appearance at one of the nation's largest evangelical churches Thursday to sketch a broad agenda to take on disease around the globe, calling it "the right thing to do."

The centerpiece of a speech laced with Biblical references and reflections on her own faith was a call to spend billions of dollars to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases at home and abroad. She said she would try to stamp out malaria deaths in Africa within eight years.

Money and government alone cannot solve the problems, she said. AIDS "is a problem of our common humanity, and we are called to respond with love, with mercy and with urgency," she said.

With the presidential campaign intensifying in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Clinton was alone among leading candidates to fly to coastal California to appear at Saddleback Church in Orange County, where pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren convenes a conference each year to highlight the global threat posed by HIV/AIDS.

Earlier this week Clinton released her proposal to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, which focuses in part on fighting the spread of the illness in minority communities. As president, she would double the HIV/AIDS research budget at the National Institutes of Health - to $5.2 billion annually - and spend at least $50 billion within five years around the globe.

On Thursday, speaking to about 1,700 conference attendees, she said as president she would also call for spending $1 billion a year to address malaria infection in Africa. She set a goal of eradicating malaria deaths in Africa by the end of her second term.

Many Christian conservatives dread the possibility of another Clinton White House, a point of agreement in a year when prominent leaders in the movement have divided their loyalties among GOP contenders.

There was a sprinkle of criticism from conservatives in response to Clinton's appearance at the church, but it was muted compared to last year when more than a dozen conservative leaders signed a letter urging Warren to rescind an invitation to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who supports abortion rights. The church defended his appearance.

Warren is theologically and socially conservative, but he is known for avoiding the scrum of partisan politics. The author of "The Purpose-Driven Life" has devoted much of his time in recent years mobilizing evangelicals to fight AIDS in Africa.

The speech gave Clinton a chance to appear on stage with the popular pastor - who greeted her with a hug - as well as talk at length about her own faith.

"I've been raised to understand the power and purpose of prayer," she said at one point.

Warren thanked her for attending. "We invited all of them to come, but she was the one who showed up," he said.

By Michael R. Blood, Associated Press, November 30, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton holds the upper hand in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. At least 49 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in head-to-head contests against four prospective Republican rivals.

Rodham Clinton holds a five-point edge over former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a six-point lead over Arizona senator John McCain, a 13-point advantage over actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, and a 16-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

On Nov. 27, in an op-ed published in the Chicago Sun-Times, African American leader Jesse Jackson expressed disappointment with several Democratic presidential hopefuls, writing, "The Democratic candidates-with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign-have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention."

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

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the clear favorite among gay and lesbian voters, who see her as a champion of gay rights, according to new nationwide poll released today by Hunter College in New York. Almost 63 percent of respondents said they supported Senator Clinton, with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois a distant second with just over 22 percent.

The survey of 768 respondents, all of whom identified themselves as gay or lesbian to an interviewer, suggests a voting bloc that is overwhelmingly Democratic in its leanings - more than six-to-one over Republicans among the 579 who said they were likely primary voters. Of the Republican minority, 50 percent favored former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, with Senator John McCain of Arizona second at 23 percent.

The poll, which had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, also went where most voter surveys never tread - into matters of sex and identity and how those issues are connected or disconnected with political views.

About one-third of the respondents, who were interviewed through an internet system link by Knowledge Networks Inc. between Nov. 15 and Nov. 26, said they became more liberal and more interested in politics after coming out about their sexuality. Overall, about 33 percent of the respondents described themselves as very interested in politics and public affairs, compared to about 22 percent of the general population asked the same questioned by Knowledge Networks.

By Kirk Johnson, The New York Times, November 29, 2007

With roughly a month to go until the nominating process actually begins in Iowa, the contours of the 2008 presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. And on the Republican side, which we'll review in depth next week, there are still, incredibly, five candidates with a legitimate chance to gain the GOP nod.

Because the mainstream press focuses on the day-to-day machinations of the campaign -- a process exacerbated by the rise of Internet coverage, which takes every minute-by-minute development and blows it up out of proportion -- it's often difficult to get a sense of the big picture.

But each race has now assumed a discernible story line. For any of the Democrats not named Clinton, the key is to beat her in Iowa, lest they see their chances for an upset slip away. Sure, the nomination likely won't be decided until February 5, when more than 20 states hold their contests. But if Clinton's challengers can't beat her in Iowa on January 3, they're unlikely to win in the other key Democratic tests before Super Tuesday -- namely New Hampshire on January 8 and South Carolina on January 26. The race, then, will be over almost before it started.

(Michigan will also hold a primary on January 15, but the DNC declared the state to be in violation of the rules on the ordering of primaries, so most of the Democratic contenders have asked to have their names removed from the ballot. As a result, the press is unlikely to cover it extensively. The Nevada caucus on January 19 is also likely to receive little coverage, since caucuses, which require voters to meet at a designated spot and time to declare their preference publicly, tend to attract fewer voters than primaries. Plus, South Carolina Republicans are holding their primary the same day, so that's bound to steal some headlines from Nevada.)

Hillary's heels

Clinton currently holds about a 20-point lead in most national polls, which should give her some security. After all, one has to go back to 1972, when George McGovern bested early leader Edmund Muskie, to find a race in which a front-runner blew such a large lead going into the primaries. That doesn't mean it can't happen again. But it does mean, despite Clinton's well-publicized recent travails -- specifically her sub-par debate performance in late October and some narrowing opinion polls in Iowa and New Hampshire -- that it's unlikely.

Clinton does, however, have two Achilles' heels. The first is that an unusually large number of voters just don't like her, raising the possibility that, if an opponent could galvanize all the anti-Clinton voters on his behalf, he might have a chance of upsetting her.

The second is that, if she had to rank all 50 states in which she'd like to be tested first, Clinton would probably put Iowa last. There's a bit of a culture clash between New York, Clinton's designated home, and Iowa -- which is one reason Rudy Giuliani has, by and large, stayed away from the Hawkeye State. Clinton's husband didn't even run there in 1992, conceding Iowa to favorite son Tom Harkin, so she has had to build her organization from scratch. And Barack Obama is a senator from a neighboring state, which, on paper at least, should be a huge advantage -- even though the press seldom mentions it. (Although Clinton grew up in Illinois, it's not the same as representing it in an elected national body.)

Most important, Iowa is not a primary contest but a caucus state, so level of participation is far lower than in an ordinary primary. That's bad news for Clinton, since her voters tend to be poorer than Obama's more upper-middle-class constituency and, historically, poorer voters don't vote in as great numbers. All things being equal, her voters in Iowa are simply less likely to turn out.

In truth, however, should Clinton lose that state, it's not at all clear that she would then go on to lose New Hampshire five days later. There's a long history of candidates losing Iowa and coming back to win New Hampshire -- such as Ronald Reagan against George Bush the elder in 1980.

And New Hampshire is, after all, a primary state where Clinton should do better -- though the participation of independents in that Democratic primary could skew that, since she polls better among registered Democrats.

But as long as Clinton wins New Hampshire, she is likely to remain the front-runner and go on to win South Carolina on January 26 and wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday 10 days later. Conversely, both Obama and John Edwards must finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa to remain viable. And they probably have to win one of the other two big January contests, too, in order to seriously challenge the front-runner. Again, it's not impossible. But it won't be easy.

By Steven Stark, RealClearPolitics, November 29, 2007

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Every politician in the U.S. presidential race claimed to be fighting for the middle class, and it seemed a sound strategy -- until the Democratic front-runners tried to define who, exactly, was middle class.

While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama couldn't agree during a recent debate whether someone earning $97,500 or more could be considered middle class, voters have little difficulty judging who isn't -- the presidential candidates themselves.

"None of them really represent the middle class," said Rick Fulmer, 52, who works at the YMCA as a fitness trainer. "Both parties are tied to big business. It takes millions to run for president."

While Republicans and Democrats alike have appealed to middle-class voters for support ahead of the November 2008 presidential election, the sudden attempt to define that category has hit a nerve.

Sparring over tax policy during a debate in Nevada, Obama said those earning $97,500 or more are among the top 6 percent of income earners, and thus upper class. Clinton disagreed, citing incomes of firefighters and school supervisors.

While her rivals can try to paint Clinton as out-of-touch with poorer Americans in early voting states like Iowa, class has always been an ill-defined concept in America, where all but the poorest and richest consider themselves part of an amorphous middle class aspiring for better.

Census data show about a third of American households earned between $35,000 and $75,000 a year in 2005. The liberal Drum Major Institute for Public Policy says the middle class has come to mean families with incomes of $25,000 to about $100,000.

But economists and voters alike say the definition depends not only on income, but geography, family size and even lifestyle.

By that measure, Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos said it is no surprise that New York Sen. Clinton has a higher ceiling for the middle class.

On the East Coast, a two-income family making $200,000 can be struggling to pay the mortgage, college tuition or childcare -- while the same income would go a long way in the heartland.

DEFINING THE MIDDLE

Panagopoulos said the fact that most Americans consider themselves middle class makes them an impossible demographic to ignore, and a reason candidates like former Sen. John Edwards, the son of a millworker, emphasizes a modest background. "Voters can connect to the type of story that someone like John Edwards can tell having grown up in a working-class family and worked his way to the top," Panagopoulos said.

Candidates with modest backgrounds win points with Cincinnati sales manager Andre Williams, 32. "If they were grounded at a young age and grew up ordinary, no matter where you go, you're going to have that perspective. You remember where you came from," said Williams, a Democrat.

Jessica Yarber, a 25-year-old medical student, also gave Democrats an edge on middle-class issues. "I think Republicans have more old money and wealth than do Democrats, and that makes them more out of touch," she said.

But the assumption that Democrats represent the middle class and Republicans the wealthy has been challenged.

A recent study found Democrats -- who have strongest support in big cities and along America's Northeast and West coasts, where living costs are high -- often represent wealthier districts than Republicans.

Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said 2005 tax data showed Democrats represent nearly 60 percent of the wealthiest one-third of congressional districts -- those with a high number of people earning more than $100,000 per year.

Franc said his study has annoyed some.

"A lot of people of the leftist persuasion don't seem to like it. It's counterintuitive to people," Franc said.

He argues the pressure from wealthy constituents may leave Democrats fighting over where to levy taxes to pay for promised social programs like health care or Social Security -- the point that sparked the debate between Clinton and Obama.

Either way, Cincinnati stay-at-home mom Deborah Taylor said the struggles she and her husband face raising their toddler daughter on $80,000 a year are lost on politicians.

"Neither party cares about the middle class," the 37-year-old Republican said. "At after a certain point they're all out of touch."

Reuters, November 29, 2007

Do we have to wait for soup lines in Shaker Heights before we have a serious debate on the economy? In the last two Democratic debates, not one question was directed at what to do about the economy. Iraq, health care, the politics of parsing, pearls or diamonds -- all got attention. But the economy -- growth, jobs, wages, inflation -- the basic stuff has been missing in action. Now, with Republicans headed into the YouTube debate on Wednesday night, it's time for the unctuous moderators to cut to the chase.

The news that Oprah will campaign for Barack Obama has been catnip for cable news.

Is there anything more irresistible than the prospect of one of the world's most recognizable women campaigning for the opponent of another of the world's most recognizable women? Add into that mix the enhanced role of Bill Clinton as his wife's leading surrogate and the politico-celebrity meter can't get much higher.

But there is a practical and potentially crucial political role for Oprah as she heads out on behalf of Obama. More than anything, Obama needs her help to improve his standing against Clinton among African American women voters -- especially in South Carolina, a state that could prove pivotal in the Democratic race if there is no decisive outcome from contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The battle between the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency and the wife of the man dubbed the first black president has split the African American vote. Through much of the year, Obama and Clinton have run roughly even among African American voters in Washington Post-ABC News polls, but there is now a decided gender gap.

Neither is good news for Obama. He needs a decisive edge overall among African American voters and needs to cut into Clinton's advantage among black women. David Bositis, senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, believes the decision to put Oprah on the campaign trail is part of Obama's attempt to deal with that problem.

"I think he's recognized that he has a problem," Bositis said. "It's important to remember that black women are women. They're African American yes, but they're also women. Hillary is the first candidate with a real chance of winning who's a woman. That's not a small thing to a lot of women. So he has to overcome that natural advantage she has among women."

The Joint Center released a national survey Tuesday of 750 likely African American voters (margin of error about 4 percentage points) that sheds light on Obama's challenge. According to Bositis, Obama has achieved a remarkable degree of approval in the short time he has been on the national stage. The only others to score as high in Bositis's surveys over the years are Colin Powell -- and the Clintons.

In the survey, 74 percent of African Americans gave Obama a favorable rating while 10 percent gave him an unfavorable rating. For Hillary Clinton, it was 83 percent favorable and 10 percent unfavorable. No other Democratic candidate was viewed favorably by as many as half of African Americans.

"He is very admired," Bositis said. "It's not a question of any shortcoming. For someone who three years ago was a state senator in Illinois, he doesn't have anything to be ashamed about in how he's viewed. He's viewed very, very favorably. But the person he's running against is... somebody African Americans really admire and who knows black politics too."

Black men and black women have equally positive views about Obama, according to the survey. But Clinton is seen even more favorably among African American women than among African American men -- 86 percent positive and just 7 percent negative. Among men it's 78 percent positive to 15 percent negative.

Clinton has improved her standing among African American women during the course of the campaign, according to an analysis of Washington Post-ABC News polls. Jennifer Agiesta, polling analyst for the Post, combined two recent national surveys and found that, while Clinton and Obama split the votes of black men, the New York senator now has a clear edge among black women.

Last summer black men and black women supported Obama and Clinton in almost identical percentages. That's was still the case in polls taken this fall among African American men (44 percent each for Clinton and Obama), but among African American women, the findings were Clinton 52 percent, Obama 35 percent.

The Joint Center survey found that among all African American voters, Clinton has an even more decisive edge over Obama on issues and on leadership.

Black voters give Clinton's positions on health care, Social Security and Iraq significantly higher ratings -- a 2-1 advantage on both health care and Social Security.

The poll found that about three in five African Americans prefer a candidate committed to change while about a third prefer one with significant experience -- a finding that ought to play to Obama's new generation candidacy. But when asked which candidate is more likely to break the gridlock in Washington on health care and economic security, those surveyed cited Clinton far more often than Obama -- again by a ratio of about 2-1.

Although Hillary Clinton has a network of friends and supporters in the black community owing in part to her work for the Children's Defense Fund as a young lawyer, she can thank her husband for a considerable amount of the good will black voters feel toward her.

According to Bositis, the average income of African American households grew by $5,000 during Bill Clinton's second term -- more than did white household income. So positive were blacks toward the Clinton record that Al Gore won 90 percent of the African American vote in 2000, a higher percentage than Clinton received in either 1992 or 1996. "Al Gore got a percent of the black vote that Bill Clinton never got," Bositis said. "He didn't get 90 percent of the vote because he was the second black president."

The prospect of Bill Clinton back in the White House as first spouse is especially appealing to African American voters. A Post-ABC News poll found that while 55 percent of white Americans said they would welcome the former president back in the White House, 89 percent of black Americans said they would welcome him back.

Bositis said Obama has another hurdle to overcome, which is doubt within the black community about prospects of winning. In his studies over the years, he said, he has found that many African American voters in many southern states doubt that a black candidate can win statewide office.

"Whatever else Oprah Winfrey is, Oprah Winfrey represents winning," Bositis said, comparing her to billionaire Warren Buffet. "If she can get Tolstoy back on the bestseller list in an era of shortened attention spans, then there's not much she can't do. That's something else that would be good for Obama. Especially for southern blacks and in southern states."

When Oprah finally hits the campaign trail, there will be plenty of attention given to the glitz and glitter of her appearances. But pay attention to what she says and how she says it. Will she be able to move voters, particularly African American women, the way she moves television ratings and books?

By Dan Balz, The Washington Post, November 28, 2007

OPRAH for Obama. Susan for Hillary.

On Monday, Hillary Clinton countered news that Oprah Winfrey will be stumping for Barack Obama with endorsement news of her own. She has the backing of Susan Lynch, the wife of Governor John Lynch, who describes herself as the first lady of New Hampshire, a pediatrician, and "most importantly" a mother. Lynch's husband is officially neutral in the race to win the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton arrived an hour late for this announcement. The candidate offered no apology to the 50 or so supporters who waited it out in a small, overheated room, designed to make a small gathering look large. Lynch sounded sincere, but her comments lacked emotion or spark. And so did Clinton's follow-up remarks, which focused on healthcare, the one topic that should stir her passions.

Write it off as one flat, 10-minute interlude on a long, winding campaign trail packed with many emotional highs and lows. Even so, the event felt oddly disconnected from shifting political realities that stand to reshape the race for the Democratic nomination.

Recent polling shows a tightened contest in Iowa, with Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards bunched together, within the statistical margin of error. Clinton doesn't have to win Iowa, her supporters insist, but the possibility of a second- or even third-place finish makes New Hampshire even more of a necessary firewall. Now that inevitability is no longer succeeding as her main campaign theme, the Clinton strategy for victory seems harder to pinpoint.

Obama is working to undermine Clinton's claim as the most experienced candidate, diminishing her role as first lady during the Clinton White House years. At the same time, he is pumping himself up as the candidate of change and Oprah-enhanced excitement.

Clinton is sticking with women, as illustrated by the framing of the Lynch endorsement. Her political touchstone remains the Clinton era, as illustrated by the endorsement that followed from Barbra Streisand. Is any Hollywood entertainer more associated with Bill Clinton than Babs?

Up to this point, the Clinton campaign has been all about tactics. It has to get more visceral - less Streisand and more Springsteen.

In an interview in Concord with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, Clinton said she takes nothing for granted. But, she also declared that the nominee "will be me."

In the interview, Clinton sounded like she really doesn't believe a rival can steal victory from her. She should believe it; her supporters do.

At the Concord event, Kathleen Strand, Clinton's New Hampshire communications director, responded to a reporter working on a magazine article about Clinton with this question: "Is this contingent on anything?" In other words, if there's no Clinton victory, is there still a magazine story?

"The American people put you through your paces. They don't allow front-runners to coast to a coronation. I think she understands what she has to do ... We have to see if she can do it," said a Clinton fund-raiser from Massachusetts.

The race is fluid. No one yet has closed the deal. There are more debates ahead, giving Clinton an opportunity to remind voters why she held onto front-runner status for so long. But now comes the moment of truth, when voters look to candidates to demonstrate more than facility with language and familiarity with policy. They are looking for substance, character, leadership, and humanity.

Polling shows Clinton is having trouble connecting with male voters and is vulnerable on the trust issue. Streisand's backing is no help with either.

Enough with obsessive targeting of the women's vote. She won't lose the female supporters already with her, and is unlikely to change the minds of those women who already dislike her.

Clinton wasted valuable time after the Oct. 30 forum in Philadelphia, playing the gender card far too long. Now, she's more aggressively challenging her opponents, and getting inevitable criticism for doing what must be done - drawing distinctions between them, as Obama would say.

Who knows? Maybe Susan Lynch, first lady, pediatrician, and mother, will help Hillary Clinton more than Oprah Winfrey, superstar and TV host, will help Obama in celebrity-averse New Hampshire.

Maybe at some level the Clinton campaign does understand what it takes to win hearts, minds, and votes in the Granite State. As Clinton left the Concord campaign event, the loudspeaker was playing "The Rising" by Bruce Springsteen.

By Joan Vennochi, The Boston Globe, November 29, 2007

DES MOINES - Senator Barack Obama's recent decision to challenge Hillary Clinton's claims of governing "experience" stemming from her days as first lady has split her two most aggressive challengers, with Obama suggesting she deserves meager credit for her husband's presidency and John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, arguing she should be held accountable for its flaws.

Until now, Clinton's rivals ignored the question of whether the former first lady - an unelected confidante whose role in Oval Office decision-making has thus far largely eluded the public record - should be judged by voters as a senior administration official or a bystanding presidential relative.

Initially, Obama and Edwards accepted Clinton's stipulation of her own experience drawn from years inside the White House, instead taking issue with her character, political style, and ability to win.

But last week, in unusually biting language, Obama began to forcefully question how much White House experience Clinton was entitled to list on her resume. "My understanding was that she wasn't treasury secretary in the Clinton administration," Obama said, before suggesting that his wife, Michelle, should not be able to brag of a senatorial record because of her proximity to him.

Now, as Bill Clinton campaigns this week for Hillary, the years they spent in the White House, which many Democrats recall fondly while lamenting some missed opportunities, are receiving increasingly intense scrutiny from her challengers.

Both Obama and Edwards portrayed their common rival as a veteran of Beltway culture, albeit with two different emphases: Obama highlighting her role in the capital's partisan conflict and Edwards her accommodationist attitude toward Republicans.

To make his point, Obama in early October even quoted a long-ago comment by Bill Clinton about the "right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience." In the same speech, in Concord, N.H., Obama said, "You need someone who will tell the truth - not be slick, not triangulate, not maneuver," invoking buzzwords often used critically in reference to Clinton's governing style.

But Obama now argues that Hillary Clinton should be seen less as an agent of her husband's timid and centrist policies than as an incidental appendage to them. "I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said Monday night on ABC News.

Clinton has joked about the "scars" she has from her failed healthcare fight in 1993, but has done little to illuminate the role she played in other aspects of the administration's domestic and economic policy. Often, as in the case of her healthcare quip, Clinton appears to be boasting of her valor in political battles more than her accomplishments in governing.

Nonetheless, those assertions have been essential to Clinton's pitch, and appear to be a source of strength for her among primary voters. A Globe poll of New Hampshire Democrats and independents earlier this month showed 47 percent saying Clinton had the "most experience," compared with 14 percent for Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, 10 percent for Edwards, and 4 percent for Obama.

Clinton responded to Obama's criticism by mocking his own limited experience - less, according to a Clinton spokesman, "than any president since World War II - and his assertion that having grown up abroad gives him a global perspective."

"Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face," Clinton said last week.

Recently her campaign has begun as well to highlight visits she made to 82 countries as first lady, travels that Clinton said on Sunday made her the "face of America." Clinton was defending a comment by a supporter, Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, that she was the "face of the administration in foreign affairs."

Edwards has been happy to credit Clinton with being the administration's face on domestic and economic affairs, suggesting she is a full inheritor of Clintonian centrism. "Senator Clinton's White House experience, which includes supporting NAFTA that cost America millions of jobs, her failed universal healthcare attempt that left millions of American families without universal healthcare, these and other serious issues are valid questions for voters - that the Clinton campaign does not want to address them is not surprising given their lack of good answers," Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis said.

The debate's shift to experience marks a move to friendlier turf for second-tier candidates like Richardson, who is a former congressman and Cabinet secretary; Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware; and Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. The three have struggled for attention while arguing their qualifications exceed that of the troika leading in the polls. Biden has spent 35 years in the Senate and Dodd 27. Clinton has served for seven years, Edwards for six, and Obama three.

"Both senators Clinton and Obama have obvious limitations when it comes to experience," said Biden spokesman Mark Paustenbach. "With respect to both of them, only Biden has shown he knows what to do with the major issues we're facing overseas."

By Sasha Issenberg, The Boston Globe, November 29, 2007

Hillary Clinton's campaign was yesterday wriggling uncomfortably over charges that her husband, Bill, had tried to re-write history with a claim that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning".

The former President's speech in Iowa on Tuesday night may serve to re-focus attention on Mrs Clinton's support for the invasion four years ago - an issue which she has successfully side-stepped over recent months.

"I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," he said in a wide-ranging speech on foreign policy in which he sought to promote the prospect of a Clinton restoration to the White House as bringing America "back to the future".

But this comment appeared to be at odds with the position he had taken shortly after the invasion, when he said in May, 2003: "I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Other remarks Mr Clinton made at the time show he backed President Bush with some reservations. For instance, he called for the United Nations to be involved "not only for the military action - where we don't really need their help - but for what comes after", while also adding: "This has been in Saddam Hussein's hands from the very beginning." His spokesman, Jay Carson, later stressed that Mr Clinton had always made clear that the UN should have been given more time to deal with Saddam. "As he said before the war and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs," said Mr Carson.

Mrs Clinton's chief rival, Barack Obama, has made great play of his early opposition to the Iraq invasion which is hugely unpopular among Democratic voters. But she largely neutered attacks on her Senate vote authorising military action by promising to end the war - and sharply criticising the way it has been fought.

In recent weeks the salience of the issue, even among Democratic voters, has diminished along with the death-toll in Iraq. Both she and Mr Obama acknowledge they would keep US troops in the country for some time, with their clashes increasingly concentrating on domestic issues such as health care policy.

The renewed controversy was expected to provide fresh ammunition for Republican presidential candidates in their scheduled TV debate last night, as well as for Democratic rivals who have accused the Clintons of "double-talk" on key policy questions.

It is not the first time that Mr Clinton has embarrassed his wife's tightly disciplined campaign.

Her aides were recently forced to say he had been speaking out of turn when he compared attacks on her to the "Swift Boat" smears levelled against the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

The former President is still regarded as an enormous asset for Mrs Clinton and he has been wheeled out as a counterweight to Mr Obama's star recruit, talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Both of these "campaign surrogates" will feature prominently over the coming days in Iowa - which kicks off the nominating process on January 3 - where Mr Obama is now neck and neck with Mrs Clinton according to recent polls.

But the Clinton campaign has sometimes struggled to marry its twin themes of "change" and "experience", with rivals reminding voters about the prospect of continuing the uninterrupted occupancy of the White House by the Bush and Clinton family dynasties.

By Tom Baldwin, Times Online, November 29, 2007

Hillary Clinton yesterday launched one of her most pointed attacks yet against chief rival Barack Obama, charging that his healthcare plan would leave millions of uninsured Americans "virtually invisible."

Continuing her aggressive new tack against her Democratic primary opponents, Clinton said that Obama, by not mandating that individuals have health insurance, would fall woefully short of the goal of universal coverage that all the leading Democrats share.

The New York senator argued that Obama's plan would leave uninsured as many as 15 million of the estimated 47 million Americans without coverage, and she asked Iowa voters to imagine the outrage had presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson created Social Security or Medicare but not offered them to all seniors.

"If you don't start with the goal of covering everybody, you'll never get there," Clinton said at Des Moines Area Community College in Ankeny, Iowa. "I don't understand why we have this difference on the Democratic side. If anything, Democrats should stand for universal healthcare."

Obama, in a conference call with reporters before Clinton's speech, said that he will cover all Americans by ensuring that health coverage is affordable. "I believe that the reason people don't have healthcare is because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it," the Illinois senator said, going on to say that while several Democratic candidates had worthy plans, the question is, "Who's actually going to be able to deliver on this."

The back-and-forth between Clinton and Obama over their healthcare proposals, which began at the last Democratic debate two weeks ago, illustrates the heightened intensity of the party's primary race, particularly in Iowa, which holds its caucuses just five weeks from today.

Over the last two weeks, Clinton has criticized Obama and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina on foreign policy experience, Social Security, and other issues with a directness that would have been unthinkable a month ago, before her lead narrowed nationally and in key states. Clinton lamented in the last debate what she called mud-throwing among Democrats, but told CBS anchor Katie Couric this week: "After you've been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you can't just absorb it. You have to respond."

The stakes on healthcare could hardly be higher, with polls showing that Democratic voters care more about that issue than any other.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, who are closely bunched in Iowa polls, all say their plans would bring universal coverage, but they differ in how they would accomplish it. Clinton and Edwards would require individuals to carry health insurance, as Massachusetts now does under its new healthcare law, while Obama focuses on lowering costs and would only require parents to have coverage for their children.

Clinton pounced on that distinction yesterday, charging that Obama's plan would "leave 15 million Americans virtually invisible." By her calculation, that number would include 100,000 in Iowa, or, as she noted pointedly, more than half the population of Des Moines.

"When I'm president, there will be no invisible Americans and there will be no Americans without healthcare," she said, suggesting that Obama was giving up "before the fight has started."

For their part, Obama and his campaign argue that Clinton's unsuccessful attempt at universal coverage as first lady in the 1990s is symptomatic of her failed leadership, saying she is too beholden to special interests and lobbyists to pass meaningful reform. "Another day, another desperate attack," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement yesterday. "Demonizing anyone who doesn't share her exact plans on healthcare is exactly why Hillary Clinton flunked the opportunity she had to pass universal healthcare in 1993." Obama's camp also says that Clinton has changed her mind on the merits of a so-called individual mandate, pointing reporters to a series of comments she made in the 1990s in which she was critical of such a requirement. (Clinton's campaign counters that those remarks were taken out of context, and that her healthcare legislation did compel everyone to have coverage.)

Edwards joined yesterday's debate by criticizing both Obama and Clinton - Obama for not mandating coverage, Clinton for failing to include in her plan a way to enforce that requirement. "Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people . . . But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there," Edwards said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea, much less a detailed plan, of how this 'mandate' would work." Edwards says he would require people to show proof of insurance when they pay income taxes or receive healthcare, and that he would garnish wages and use collection agencies for those who refuse to pay.

Clinton yesterday suggested several possible ways to ensure that her mandate is followed, saying, "We'll work to make sure that these mandates are enforceable."

Polls have shown that voters believe Clinton is the best Democrat to fix healthcare, suggesting that despite efforts by Obama and Edwards to hold her past failures against her, she has succeeded in turning that experience into an asset.

"We're going to get it done this time," Clinton said yesterday. "Fourteen years later, I'm a little older, I hope I'm a little wiser, but I'm still committed to universal healthcare."

By Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, November 29, 2007

THE RACE: The race for the Republican and Democratic presidential nomination in New Hampshire

------

THE DEMOCRATIC NUMBERS --

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 34 percent

Barack Obama, 22 percent

John Edwards, 15 percent

Bill Richardson, 9 percent

Undecided, 12 percent

THE REPUBLICAN NUMBERS --

Mitt Romney, 34 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 20 percent

John McCain, 13 percent

Ron Paul, 8 percent

Mike Huckabee, 7 percent

Undecided, 14 percent

------

OF INTEREST:

Compared to a June poll by Suffolk University, Clinton appears to be losing ground to Obama. In the earlier poll, Clinton had an 18-point lead over Obama compared to a 12-point spread in the latest poll. On the Republican side, Romney is pulling away from Giuliani, while Fred Thompson is losing ground to all the other major candidates. The former Tennessee senator was at 2 percent. Nearly half of those polled said they may change their minds.

------

The telephone poll conducted by the Suffolk University Political Research Center for WHDH-TV Nov. 25-27 interviewed 600 likely primary voters, or 300 from each party. It had a margin of sampling error for each party subsample of plus or minus 5.65 percentage points.

Associated Press, November 28, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in the United States, according to a poll by YouGov/Polimetrix released by The Economist. 47 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in a 2008 primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 18 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 16 per cent. Support is lower for Delaware senator Joe Biden, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Connecticut senator Chris Dodd.

Yesterday, Dodd discussed the possibility of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, saying, "I've been down this road too many times in the past and watched our hopes get dashed here because expectations exceeded what the realities could produce. I don't like the fact that they're raising the expectations too high on this. I think that's a dangerous thing to do. It went from being a summit to a conference and now I think it's a gathering. I think it's wise to downplay the significance."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, November 28, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed steps Tuesday to strengthen the government's strategy to battle HIV and AIDS in the United States and the rest of the world, becoming the latest Democratic presidential candidate to commit to a significant expansion of federal efforts to combat the epidemic.

Clinton's two main rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, have already released plans of their own. Taking Clinton's into account, the three approaches are similar in terms of spending, goals and differences with President Bush's AIDS policy.

Like her rivals, the New York senator proposed spending at least $50 billion cumulatively on global initiatives to combat HIV and AIDS by 2013; the Bush administration has budgeted $30 billion for that period. She would also double money for HIV/AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health to $5.2 billion annually.

Edwards, in a plan released in September, promises to strengthen financing for such research. Obama, who put out parts of his plan at different times this year, said he would expand such financing.

The three candidates would also not limit prevention strategies to abstinence-only sex education, as Bush has emphasized.

"In many ways, our fight against HIV/AIDS is at a crossroads. While we have made progress in education and developing medicine that keeps those living with HIV/AIDS healthier, we need to be vigilant in ensuring that people are getting the information and care they need," Clinton said in a statement released Tuesday by her campaign. "I believe with leadership and smart investments we can significantly reduce the number of new infections, develop treatments that turn HIV/AIDS into a chronic but manageable condition, and expand toward an eventual vaccine."

Clinton supports giving young people "age-appropriate information about HIV/AIDS and how to protect themselves against it," according to documents provided by the campaign. She also backs federal financing for needle-exchange programs, as do Edwards and Obama.

HIV infections have leveled off at an estimated 40,000 new ones in the United States annually for about a decade. Clinton said that, in addition to working toward reducing the number of new infections, she would set measurable goals and timelines for increasing prevention efforts and expanding access to treatment.

Obama's approach to reducing new cases is almost identical to what Clinton proposes.

Edwards has said his strategy would include holding his administration's health and human services secretary accountable for issuing an annual HIV/AIDS report that shows progress on his goals. He also has said he would appoint a "strong" director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy.

All three candidates have pledged to provide and improve medical care for people with HIV and AIDS, chiefly through multibillion-dollar health insurance programs that each has proposed this year.

Clinton says that the federal strategy for fighting HIV and AIDS is diffuse and uncoordinated, campaign advisers said.

Strategies to combat AIDS have not been a major point of discussion among the leading Republican presidential candidates. But some of them have talked on the campaign trail about the need to do more.

At a town hall meeting Saturday in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he would add to the money that Bush has provided to combat AIDS in Africa. He said he would also give aid to fight malaria and try to help Africa by increasing trade and commerce between the United States and its nations.

By Patrick Healy and Lawrence K. Altman, The New York Times, November 28, 2007

Can Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination if she loses in Iowa?

Probably not without a struggle, Democratic strategists agree, now that a new poll shows Barack Obama leading Clinton and the rest of the Democratic pack in that state.

In fact, Clinton could ultimately lose the nomination if she loses by a wide margin in Iowa.

With a front-loaded primary schedule that could determine the Republican and Democratic nominees by the end of the first week in February, the Iowa Caucus matters more than ever, strategists agree.

The Jan. 3 event comes just five days before the New Hampshire primary, so the outcome in Iowa could greatly influence voters in the Granite State.

After New Hampshire, there is less than a month before 20 states participate in Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, at which point enough delegates could be committed for a nominee to emerge in each party.

“Without a doubt, if anyone bests Clinton in Iowa, there is going to be an opening for them absolutely,” said Ted Devine, who was a top campaign strategist for John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president.

Devine has experience with surprises in Iowa. He was advising Kerry in January 2004 when the Massachusetts senator was trailing Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean in state polls. But Kerry shocked everyone by winning the caucus by a substantial margin, and the victory pumped new life into his campaign. Kerry then won the New Hampshire primary and went on to capture the Democratic nomination.

Losses by Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, Devine said, would result in "a very long month for her and a very difficult nominating process despite the advantages she has going into the primaries."

But Devine, like other Democratic operatives, said he believes Clinton will not suffer the same fate as Dean or Gephardt and will likely become the nominee, barring a catastrophic defeat in Iowa or another major primary.

Devine said he believes recent Iowa poll numbers showing Obama drawing 30 percent of support compared to Clinton’s 26 percent are probably not accurate because most Iowa voters are still undecided. The poll included 500 participants. About 100,000 Iowans voted in the 2004 caucus.

The new poll figures, however, appear to have energized Obama's already vigorous campaign, putting him in the position of front-runner, while Clinton tries to catch up.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted in an ABC News interview that he believes Obama will win by a substantial margin in Iowa, in part because "the emotional energy that Senator Obama's building is more powerful than the emotional energy Senator Clinton's building."

Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said one poll showing Obama in the lead does not mean Clinton will stumble in Iowa, but if she does, it could seriously damage her candidacy.

"If she ends up losing Iowa, she is going to have to fight hard for that nomination through February 5," Mellman said. "She could still win, but it won't be quite the easy march that people have predicted. She could win it, but she might not."

By Susan Ferrechio, The Examiner, November 28, 2007

A recent Gallup poll testing hypothetical general election match-ups showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama edging out most of their potential Republican rivals in 2008.

The poll, conducted of 897 registered voters from Nov. 11-14, gave Hillary Clinton, who is leading the Democrats in most national polls, an advantage over everyone in the GOP field.

The hypothetical race was closest between Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Clinton and Arizona Sen. John McCain. The poll gave Clinton a 5-point edge in a match-up with Giuliani, 49 percent to 44 percent. In a race with McCain, Clinton received 50 percent, McCain received 44 percent.

The New York senator held a much stronger lead over former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. She held a 53-40 point edge over Thompson in the poll and a 54-38 point lead over Romney.

The results were similar to those in a FOX News-Opinion Dynamics poll taken at nearly the same time, Nov. 13-14, of 900 registered voters. Head-to-head match-ups in the general election showed Clinton with a 47-43 lead over Giuliani, a 49-40 lead over Thompson and a 50-37 lead over Romney. However the poll showed McCain, with 45 percent, nipping at Clinton's heels, trailing her by just one point.

In the Gallup survey, Clinton's predominance over the GOP candidates remained about the same as it was in a similar poll conducted in June and July. But her lead over Thompson bloomed from 3 to 13 points in the latest poll.

Obama, too, held a lead over most Republican candidates. The poll showed him in a 45-45 point tie with Giuliani. But in a match-up with McCain, the Illinois senator got 47 percent to McCain's 44 percent. Like Clinton, Obama held stronger advantages against Romney and Thompson, 52-35 and 51-38 respectively.

Though the Democratic frontrunners appear to at least be competitive with Giuliani and McCain - GOP candidates considered to have broad appeal across party lines - their leads still fall within the poll's 4-point margin of error.

FOX News, November 28, 2007

Poll Positions: Low Turnout, Chance To Vote For Second Choice Make Contest Difficult To Forecast

The Iowa caucuses are five weeks away, and while polls there have for weeks charted an improvement in Mike Huckabee's support, the former Arkansas governor still must overcome Mitt Romney's financial and polling advantages there.

But at least the votes that get taken at the Republican caucuses on January 3 will be straightforward in support of a candidate. In most places, caucus-goers write down their vote for a candidate on a secret ballot. Those votes are recorded and sent on to the state party for tabulation. There is a winner. But the Republican caucus process has a twist -- those straw votes are not binding: the delegates elected at local caucuses to go to county conventions on March 8 may or may not have the same preferences as the people who attended and voted at the caucuses.

In contrast, what Democrats do at their caucuses is directly related to who gets elected as a delegate to their county conventions on March 15. But the Democrats have a twist, too. Their caucus-goers have to state their preferences publicly, by sitting or standing with other attendees who share their candidate preference. And if there aren't enough people who do (a minimum 15 percent of the total attendance in most places, 20 percent in a few), they have to join another group, and support another candidate.

Pre-Iowa-caucus polls can tell us about those initial preferences. But it's harder to work out what those preferences mean for the Democratic delegate selection process (which will determine who wins). The three frontrunners (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards) will probably meet the 15 percent threshold at nearly all caucuses, but supporters of other candidates could find themselves below the threshold in many places. And who those disappointed voters support on the second round may not necessarily be their true second preference, since they need to join up with enough other caucus-goers to equal 15 percent or more.

So while pre-caucus polls tell us about overall preference, asking likely caucus-goers to name their second choice has practical limits. It's much more important to establish the second-choice preferences of supporters of second-tier candidates than to learn the second choice of supporters for the frontrunners.

But there are other polling issues, too. There are no exit polls for the Iowa caucuses. Instead, there are "entrance polls." Voters are interviewed as they enter the caucus locations, so what gets tallied are their first preferences, with statewide totals estimated from those results. Entrance polls can't pick up what might happen inside, between the first-preference vote and the allocation of delegates. In 2004, some caucus-goers didn't or couldn't know that there had been an arrangement between the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns -- that they would merge their supporters in caucuses where one or the other didn't meet the threshold. That benefited Edwards, who finished a stronger second in the delegate totals than he did in the preference tallies, stronger than his second-choice entrance poll results suggested.

There are other reasons to treat the results of entrance polls with caution. In typical exit polls, tallies of the gender, race and apparent age of those not responding to the interview request are kept, and it is possible to adjust (and correct) the responses for those demographics. Historically, the largest non-response in exit polls has come from older voters. This often doesn't matter; it shouldn't matter if there is no difference in whom older and younger voters support. But historically that correction hasn't been made in the Iowa entrance polls. And this year, on the Democratic side, there is an age difference in candidate support. In the CBS News/New York Times Iowa poll, younger caucus goers -- those under the age of 45 -- favor Barack Obama: he gets 39 percent of their support, and Hillary Clinton 24 percent. The oldest caucus-goers -- those over 65 -- favor Clinton over Obama, 30 percent to 11 percent. Pre-election polls show less of an age difference among Republican caucus-goers.

In 2004 about 124,000 people attended Iowa Democratic caucuses, out of a statewide population of about 2,200,000 adults. Even if that Democratic turnout is matched on the Republican side (which might not happen, given the greater enthusiasm of Democratic voters this year), that would still mean a turnout of only 11 percent of the adult population. The hard part for polling is finding them in advance of the caucuses!

Using lists of past caucus-goers risks missing first-time attendees (who could make up as many as half the attendees). Using random-digit dialing (RDD) techniques could mean calling -- and reaching -- 10,000 households to interview only 500 attendees from each party. And relying on State-provided registered voter lists (although more efficient and less expensive than RDD) misses those who have changed phone numbers since they registered to vote, or who did not provide a phone number in the first place.

In addition, we know that people usually over-report their likelihood of participating, so making the estimate of who will attend may be more complex than usual. CBS News used a combination of past voting, self-report of attendance this year, and other questions to create its January Iowa estimate. We interviewed samples of Iowa adults from the registered voter list, from a random sample of numbers not from the list, and a small sample of cell phone numbers.

The fact that we and other polling organizations go to these lengths for accuracy shows how important Iowa is for the coming election.





By Kathy Frankovich, CBS News, November 28, 2007

The stakes in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's current debate over health care are fairly straightforward: all or nothing. All, as in Clinton's description of her universal plan that offers coverage to everybody. Nothing, as in the lack of enforcement that Obama says Clinton has outlined to make sure that her universal plan actually works.

Clinton addressed her criticisms of Obama's plan, which does not require Americans to purchase health coverage and will result, she argues, in more than 15 million Americans left without insurance, at an event at the home of a supporter in Goffstown, New Hampshire on Monday. The New York Senator pointedly said "my plan is universal, meaning everybody is covered. Most of the Democrats have plans that cover everybody. Senator Obama does not." Earlier in the day, in talking to reporters, Obama said that until Clinton details how she would enforce the proposed mandate, her attack was "just a political talking point" and Obama advisers dispute the number of uninsured would be anywhere close to 15 million.

Experts say that without a mandate, many Americans would still not have health insurance, and the picture of who those millions are is an interesting one.

For people who want to get health insurance and make an effort to do so, Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same plan: increasing the number of poor who can qualify for Medicaid, offering tax credits or subsidies for people who need help paying their health care bills and requiring insurance companies to offer everyone coverage, with the government subsidizing those who can't pay the full amount.

So the 15 million people without insurance under Obama's plan would be a combination of relatively well-off people who choose not to purchase health insurance and people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid who don't sign up. It could be a struggle for Clinton to find someone who wants health insurance but doesn't qualify under the Obama plan, because it's not clear such a person exists.

Most health care experts want those 15 million to get health insurance even if they aren't asking for it, a point Clinton nodded to when she said Medicare, the health program for the elderly, works in part because "everybody is required to be in."

People who are uninsured and can't afford it are effectively subsidized by the government when they show up without health insurance at hospitals with major illnesses or injuries. Having them covered might reduce that cost to taxpayers. And by requiring people to purchase insurance, Clinton would get the millions of relatively healthy people without insurance into the system. Insurance companies create what are called "pools" of people under their plans; a pool with a mix of young healthy people who don't spend much on health care and older, less healthy people would likely result in lower average prices than if healthy people chose not to enroll in health plans, as they have the option to under Obama's plan.

While Clinton has not detailed how she would mandate health insurance, Massachusetts has launched a new health care proposal along the lines of what Clinton is proposing. Next year, the state has suggested it will fine people who can afford insurance but don't buy it around $1,000, or about half the average cost of a year's worth of health insurance bills.

While $1,000 a year may not seem like a huge amount of money for the nine million Americans who make more than $60,000 a year and don't have health insurance, a mandate implemented in this way would require a segment of Americans to spend more than $1,000 either on health insurance or the fee for not getting insurance. This is unlikely to be a very popular position, which is perhaps why Clinton has avoided detailing how she would enforce the mandate. Based on the Massachusetts model, a less onerous mandate may not be effective; this year the state is simply denying people who don't get insurance a $218 tax exemption and so far more than a third of the state's uninsured have not signed up for coverage.

"Some of these people are saying now I don't want it," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a major advocate of the mandate idea. "That's where you get the political difficulty and you don't know how big that group is."

Clinton addressed this point at an event at the home of a supporter in Goffstown, New Hampshire on Monday, where she was joined at the dining room table with a handful of Granite State residents while more than two dozen reporters looked on. The New York Senator pointedly said "my plan is universal, meaning everybody is covered. Most of the Democrats have plans that cover everybody. Senator Obama does not." Earlier in the day, in talking to reporters, Obama said that until Clinton details how she would enforce the proposed mandate, her attack was "just a political talking point."

Experts say that without a mandate, millions of Americans would not have health insurance, and the picture of who those millions are is an interesting one.

For people who want to get health insurance and make an effort to do so, Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same plan: increasing the number of poor who can qualify for Medicaid, offering tax credits or subsidies for people who need help paying their health care bills and requiring insurance companies to offer everyone coverage, with the government subsidizing those who can't pay the full amount.

So the 15 million people without insurance under Obama's plan would be a combination of relatively well-off people who choose not to purchase health insurance and people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid who don't sign up. It could be a struggle for Clinton to find someone who wants health insurance but doesn't qualify under the Obama plan, because it's not clear such a person exists.

Most health care experts want those 15 million to get health insurance even if they aren't asking for it, a point Clinton nodded to when she said Medicare, the health program for the elderly, works in part because "everybody is required to be in."

People who are uninsured and can't afford it are effectively subsidized by the government when they show up without health insurance at hospitals with major illnesses or injuries. Having them covered might reduce that cost to taxpayers. And by requiring people to purchase insurance, Clinton would get the millions of relatively healthy people without insurance into the system. Insurance companies create what are called "pools" of people under their plans; a pool with a mix of young healthy people who don't spend much on health care and older, less healthy people would likely result in lower average prices than if healthy people chose not to enroll in health plans, as they have the option to under Obama's plan.

While Clinton has not detailed how she would mandate health insurance, Massachusetts has launched a new health care proposal along the lines of what Clinton is proposing. Next year, the state has suggested it will fine people who can afford insurance but don't buy it around $1,000, or about half the average cost of a year's worth of health insurance bills.

While $1,000 a year may not be a huge amount of money for the nine million Americans who make more than $60,000 a year and don't have health insurance, a mandate implemented in this way would require a segment of Americans to spend more than $1000 either on health insurance or the fee for not getting insurance. This is unlikely to be a very popular position, which is perhaps why Clinton has avoided detailing how she would enforce the mandate. Based on the Massachusetts model, a less onerous mandate may not be effective; this year the state is simply denying people who don't get insurance a $218 tax exemption and so far more than a third of the state's uninsured have not signed up for coverage.

"Some of these people are saying now I don't want it," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a major advocate of the mandate idea. "That's where you get the political difficulty and you don't know how big that group is."

By Perry Bacon Jr., The Washington Post, November 28, 2007

It was inevitable. A poll comes out and it dominates the news and changes the way people are thinking about the campaign. That's just what happened last week when ABC News and the Washington Post released a poll of Iowa caucus goers.

While the authors of the poll from the two media organizations chose words like "close" to describe the race, others had a different take. Words like "surge" were being used and Barack Obama was suddenly thought to be the "front-runner" for the Democratic nomination in Iowa.

The poll even showed up in a New York magazine column about the holiday season. They never mentioned who did the poll but wrote: "Barack Obama sledded ahead of Hillary Clinton in the latest Iowa poll, while Hillary Clinton settled for the Democratic equivalent of coal in her stocking."

That was pretty much the news story last week, "Barack Obama sledded ahead." But he didn't "sled ahead." The poll actually found the race to be close, with results similar to those found a week earlier by The New York Times and CBS News when they polled Iowa, and another by KCCI-TV. The Washington Post headline on the poll story read: "For Democrats, Iowa Still Up for Grabs."

On the face of it though, the ABC/Washington Post numbers looked dramatic - and they were portrayed dramatically, too, as they often are by the news media. When asked whom they would vote for if the Democratic caucus were held today, 30 percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus goers said Barack Obama, 26 percent said Hillary Clinton, 22 percent said John Edwards and 11 percent said Bill Richardson. Support for the other candidates was in single digits.

The poll's margin of sampling error is plus or minus five percentage points. That is five percentage points on each number. That means support for Mr. Obama could be as low as 25 percent, and support for Mrs. Clinton could be as high as 31 percent.

In theory, when a poll says 40 percent, with a 3 percentage point margin of sampling error, that means that 19 times out of 20, the number would be between 37 and 43 if you interviewed every adult American. But it's a bell curve. So 40 is the most likely number. Thirty-nine and forty-one are a little less likely. Thirty-eight and 42 are even less likely than 39 and 41. And 37 and 43 are still less likely.

News organizations differ on how strictly to apply the margin of sampling error. But when looking at horse race numbers in a political poll, particularly in Iowa, with its quirky caucus system, historically low turnout (5 percent of Iowans participated in the Democratic caucus in 2004) and rules that change from one year to the next - this year Iowans can register to vote at the door on caucus night - the margin of sampling error is probably best applied in its strictest sense.

Gary Langer, the director of the ABC News poll who has made adhering to polling standards something of a crusade, said: "You're never going to get a significant lead unless it's a blow out."

By Janet Elder, The New York Times, November 28, 2007

Hillary Clinton is drawing sharper contrasts with chief rival Barack Obama as the crucial Jan. 3 Iowa vote looms closer, telling the Chicago Sun-Times Tuesday he is "trying to have it both ways" when it comes to covering the nation's uninsured.

Health care is a central issue in the Democratic presidential primary, and Obama stands apart from Clinton and John Edwards, his major rivals, because his health plan does not mandate adults to obtain insurance.

All Democrats support universal coverage: the debate is over the value of mandates. Obama's plan calls for mandating coverage for children and driving down the cost of insurance so adults who need it buy a policy.

"Once again he is trying to have it both ways. He is for a mandate, he is against a mandate. He is for universal coverage, he is against universal coverage," Clinton said in a phone interview from South Carolina."It is frustrating to people who care deeply about this issue because we have a chance to finally do this."

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said, "Two weeks ago, Sen. Clinton said she wouldn't attack fellow Democrats. But her poll numbers have dropped, so the Washington political textbook dictates that she attack the candidate who's on the move."

"Now it is an attack a day," said Obama chief strategist David Axelrod.

To buttress her point, Clinton noted that an Illinois health care task force Obama helped create when he was a state senator called for a system where people would be required to obtain health insurance.

"And one of the things that he takes credit for as a state senator is a health care task force to look into the question, how do you provide universal health care in Illinois?

"Well, they came back with their report earlier this year and it is very clear; if you want universal health care, you need to have a mandate."

Clinton added, "so it is puzzling to me that he is out criticizing the idea of a mandate when his own task force said it was the only way to get there."

The "Adequate Health Care Task Force" did urge a plan where "all Illinois residents will be required to obtain health care coverage." However, the 216-page report was not completed until Jan. 26, 2007, years after Obama left for the U.S. Senate. The task force suggested the insurance requirement be enforced by applying state income tax penalties on the willfully uninsured.

A plan (stalled in the Illinois legislature) crafted by Gov. Blagojevich earlier this year did not include the mandates the task force proposed.

Obama has accused Clinton of dodging giving an answer as to how she would enforce her mandates. Obama proposes parents be forced to show proof of insurance -- just like they have to do for shots -- in order to enroll in schools.

Clinton told the Sun-Times several ways she would enforce a health insurance law:

"You could have default enrollment, you could have a system set up for people at schools, workplaces and other settings would be automatically enrolled in health care. You can look for incentives and advantages that people will bear in their insurance once they do sign up."

The Clinton interview came in advance of her return to her native city on Dec. 18 for two major fund-raisers, expected to yield about $1 million.

By Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, November 28, 2007

Hillary Clinton has raised questions about Democratic rival Barack Obama's use of a political action committee to funnel money to Democratic candidates in New Hampshire and other key early voting states.

Through the fund - commonly referred to as a leadership PAC - Obama has given $73,000 to New Hampshire candidates and Democratic committees from July through November, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Several of those candidates have endorsed Obama, some after receiving a donation.

At issue is how candidates use their leadership PACs, which are designed to distribute money to other candidates and political committees. Candidates are forbidden from using leadership PACs to directly advance their campaigns, campaign finance experts said. After the Washington Post reported the donations earlier this week, the Clinton campaign released a statement implying that Obama was flouting campaign laws.

"It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down Hill PAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House," the statement said. "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system, so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."

Obama's campaign responded by denouncing the statement and upping the conflict, attempting to demonstrate larger differences between the candidates on financial disclosure. "Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances.

"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband's presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public - she's not really in a position to point fingers at others," Burton said.

The Obama campaign response prompted more reaction from the Clinton camp. "Instead of launching irrelevant attacks, Sen. Obama should answer a simple question: Did Obama campaign officials direct the (PAC) to make contributions to officials and entities in states holding nominating contests?" Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said. "If the answer is no, they should just be direct and say so." The Obama campaign's attorney, Bob Bauer, maintained that the PAC's activities were entirely within bounds. "It's really a political attack because it has no merit at all as a legal attack," he said.

Leadership PACs

Critics of leadership PACs argue that they allow candidates to sidestep some fundraising regulations, since donors can contribute more to a leadership PAC than a campaign: A leadership PAC donor can give $5,000 a year, while donors can give only $2,300 to a political campaign for each election, said Paul Ryan, an attorney at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center.

"Leadership PACs have become a wide-open slush fund," Ryan said.

In theory, he said, candidates aren't allowed to use leadership PACs to advance their own presidential campaigns. Most politicians considering a presidential run will create leadership PACs, which allow them to lay the groundwork for a campaign before they officially announce their candidacies. Candidates "use them to pay for repeated trips to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina two or three years before an election to talk about issues," Ryan said.

And as long as the candidates don't mention that they're running for office, they can use leadership PAC money, he added. If a candidate visits an early voting state "just to talk about the war in Iraq or minimum wage or right to life, and you're carefully coached by your attorney to stay away from talking about your candidacy, you pay for it" with the leadership PAC.

Before announcing her candidacy, for example, Clinton used her leadership PAC to pay salaries to employees who would later become high-ranking members of her presidential campaign. She also used the PAC to donate to candidates and Democratic efforts in key presidential nominating states. In October of last year, for example, Carol Shea-Porter, now a New Hampshire congresswoman, received a $2,500 contribution from Clinton's PAC.

Democrats Mark Warner and Evan Bayh, who both considered presidential runs, also contributed heavily to New Hampshire Democrats.

While most candidates stopped making contributions from their leadership PACs soon after officially announcing their candidacies, however, Obama continued to make contributions. The PAC no longer accepts donations and is simply doling out the balance of the fund, Bauer said.

While the law treats certain leadership PAC expenses as in-kind contributions to the presidential campaign - such as the cost of polling voters and setting up offices in early presidential nominating states - it has never treated contributions to candidates in that manner, Bauer said.

But Ryan raised questions about dispensing money from leadership PACs at this point the campaign. "To the extent that candidates for federal office are using leadership PAC funds at this stage in the game raises serious questions about the legality of such practices," Ryan said. "It's difficult to imagine leadership PAC expenditures being made at this height of the campaign that don't have the purpose and the effect of advancing the controlling candidates' own campaign. And it's clearly illegal to spend money out of a leadership PAC to advance your own campaign."

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden also gave donations from his leadership PAC to candidates in early voting states, according to the Washington Post.

PAC in New Hampshire

In recent months, Obama's leadership PAC doled out more than $180,000 to Democratic candidates and groups in the important early voting states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, according to the Washington Post, which investigated the campaign reports.

Obama's PAC - called Hopefund - has also supported Democrats throughout the country. From July through September, Hopefund gave $240,000 to congressional candidates nationwide, according to the Associated Press.

In New Hampshire, several Obama supporters received sizable checks from the PAC. Congressman Paul Hodes received a $5,000 contribution in June, followed by a $4,000 donation in September, according to FEC reports. Hodes endorsed Obama in July.

The donation played no part in the endorsement, said Hodes's chief of staff, Matt Robison. "Congressman Hodes made his own independent evaluation of who he felt would be the best leader to take our nation forward, and he endorsed Sen. Obama because he believe he would be able to bring real change to our country," Robison said.

State Sen. Jacalyn Cilley of Barrington received a $1,000 contribution from Hopefund in July, six days before the campaign announced that she had endorsed his candidacy. Cilley said that she had decided to endorse Obama before the check arrived. "I spoke with Sen. Obama and just was very impressed with his integrity, his commitment," said Cilley, who also said she received contributions from Bayh, Warner and Biden. "By the next morning, I had made up my mind. The check came in some time after that. "I think that Sen. Obama gave contributions to people who didn't endorse him," she added. "I think that pretty much demonstrates a commitment to seeing Democrats re-elected and not trying to trade anything for an endorsement."

Hopefund gave to county Democratic committees as well as donating $15,000 to the effort to maintain a Democratic state Senate and $15,000 to the Committee to Elect House Democrats. Chris Pappas, chairman of the Hillsborough County Democrats, said the group received $1,000 from Hopefund this summer. The check was presented by a member of the group who was also an Obama volunteer, Pappas said.

In addition to supporting candidates who signed on to the Obama campaign - such as state Sens. Harold Janeway of Webster and Martha Fuller Clark of Portsmouth - Hopefund gave to state senators who went on to support Clinton, such as Lou D'Allesandro, Maggie Hassan and Iris Estabrook, according to the FEC reports.

Leadership PACs are "another pot of money for the politician to raise; yes, it's supposed to be used differently than campaign money, but it's all with the intent of raising the politician's political profile," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ritsch saw little difference between using leadership PAC money before candidates officially announce their presidential ambitions and after. "When we saw people thinking of running for president showering contributions on officials in New Hampshire and Iowa, it was pretty clear then what the goal was," he said. "It's not any more clear now that they're a declared candidate."

By Sarah Liebowitz, Concord Monitor, November 28, 2007

When 2008 morphed into the fast-track campaign, it was broadly assumed that the slew of big states holding primaries on Feb. 5 would play into the hands of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Her name recognition alone, this theory held, would give her a huge advantage over her lesser-known rivals for the nomination.

But as Feb. 5 creeps ever closer, it is clear that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom, a fight he's pursuing by building the broadest organizational network in the Feb. 5 states.

To date, Obama has 19 offices in 13 states where Feb. 5 primaries are scheduled, including the campaign's newest satellite office in Fargo, North Dakota. In addition to obvious places like Los Angeles, Phoenix and New York City, Obama has opened offices in three Alabama cities (Montgomery, Tuscaloosa and Birmingham), as well as in St. Paul, Minn., Lawrence, Kansas, and Salt Lake City. An Alaska office is also in the offing, according to the campaign.

Clinton, by contrast, has five total offices currently open in Feb. 5 states -- two in California, and one each in New Jersey, New York and Arkansas. The campaign soon plans to open offices in Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota and Arizona, according to deputy communications director Phil Singer, and has held organizing meetings in 46 states.

The breadth of Obama's organizing speaks to the belief among his campaign's senior staff that there is a real chance that the nomination fight will extend until at least the Feb. 5 Tsunami Tuesday balloting. "We fully expect that Barack will be in this through and beyond Feb. 5," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama strategist overseeing much of the organizing in early states. "With at least 25 states competitive over a 33-day period starting with Iowa and ending with February 5, it is vitally important for any serious candidate to organize to the extent that they can in every one of those states."

The reality is that Obama is still a very new commodity on the national stage. Polls taken in Feb. 5 states show Clinton with wide leads. In California, Clinton leads Obama 45 percent to 20 percent, according to the latest Field Poll; a Rutgers-Eagleton poll put Clinton's lead over Obama in New Jersey at 52 percent to 21 percent.

Assuming the nomination battle extends into February, it will likely be because no candidate managed to secure knock-out blows in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. In this scenario, neither Obama nor Clinton would have significant momentum heading into Feb. 5, thus it would put the burden on Obama to make up ground in the large states where he trails Clinton badly at the moment.

Hence the Obama camp's office-opening drive. Having a visible presence in the Feb. 5 states allows Obama to begin to rally people to his flag and make clear to undecided voters that there is (and will continue to be) an alternative to Clinton.

It's important not to equate opening offices with winning a primaries in mega-states like California, New Jersey or Illinois. If Obama can't muster an early win in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire or South Carolina, having offices around the country won't matter one whit.

What then to make of Obama's willingness and ability to finance operations in such far flung locales as Alabama and North Dakota?

First, it's a testament to his massive fundraising operation, a cash-collecting machine that has allowed him to do something that was thought unimaginable just 12 months ago -- match (and even exceed) Clinton organizationally across the country.

Second, it shows that Obama is preparing for the long haul in the nomination fight and has no plans to go away if Clinton scores several victories early on. That calculus may well change if Obama comes under considerable pressure from the establishment to step aside for the good of the party, but it's clear at least right now that the Illinois Senator is digging in for a protracted fight.

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

Democrats are right to be optimistic about this year's elections. Their party, most agree, is positioned well to pick up seats in the House and Senate, and recent polls show not only that a generic presidential Democrat would trump a Republican, but that their front-runners outpace named opponents from across the aisle. Republican primary voters are increasingly worried about electability, their biggest fear being a Hillary Clinton presidency.

It is no wonder, then, that when GOP candidates are not squabbling over immigration, judicial appointments or tax rates, they each boast that they alone can beat Clinton in November. The Democrat is a guaranteed applause line, so much so that in a Republican debate last month in Orlando Clinton garnered more mentions than Ronald Reagan, while no other Democrat was mentioned.

Assertions that one candidate can beat Clinton while others can't range from the ideological, evidenced by early conservative yearning for a Fred Thompson bid to unite the base, to the practical, as seen when Mitt Romney promises the party can't win by acting like Clinton, to the electoral, when Rudy Giuliani says he will put states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, traditionally Democratic-leaning electoral votes, in play.

But it is John McCain whose electability argument rings truest. And, in fact, McCain's point is the simplest to make to Republican primary voters: In poll after poll, he runs closer to Clinton than any GOP contender other than Giuliani, with whom he is approximately tied. The latest RCP Averages show Clinton leading McCain by 2.8 points, about the same as Giuliani's 3.5 point deficit. Thompson trails by 8.1 points, while Romney is 11 points back.

Pollsters say that is no accident, and if Republicans who head to the polls really do make electability a priority, then swallowing doubts about the maverick would give them the best shot at winning the White House.

Giuliani, polls show, would give Clinton a race. But where McCain does have an edge over Giuliani is among independents, a critical group that will sway the election. A recent Fox News poll, released two weeks ago, shows 51% of independents have a favorable opinion of the senator, higher than every other candidate, though only narrowly edging out Rudy Giuliani's 49%. Still, while 36% of independents view Giuliani in an unfavorable light, just 28% view McCain the same way.

The same poll shows McCain narrowly trailing Clinton by a single point, 46%-45%. Giuliani trails by four, Thompson by nine and Romney by thirteen. Among independents, McCain enjoys a nine-point advantage, much higher than the next-highest Republican, Giuliani, who has a two-point edge over Clinton there.

Romney has recently made a point of comparing Giuliani's stand on social issues to Clinton's similar views. And while Republicans may fight over those distinctions, Giuliani, say pollsters, is viewed similarly to Clinton in one important way. "There's an edge to Rudy, much the same as there's a perceived edge to Hillary," pollster John Zogby said. "Rudy has a lot of those negatives that generate bad feelings from the other side, just as Hillary does."

Given the national mood, two candidates with a harsh edge could cause independents to default to the Democrat, their pick on a generic ballot. But with a candidate who appeals more to the center, the GOP may have hope. "There is a faction of [independents and Democrats] who are 'Anybody But Clinton,'" said pollster Ann Selzer, whose Iowa-based company conducts polls for the Des Moines Register. "If you get those independents and Democrats who are sort of anti-Clinton, I think your strongest candidate is going to be someone like McCain."

"Particularly with independent voters, it's more of a comfortability issue" that gives McCain the edge, said Del Ali, of Research 2000. Clinton, seen as divisive by many, "may not be as polarizing when matched up with Giuliani or Romney."

McCain is no stranger to independent voters. His surprising insurgent campaign in 2000 attracted thousands of independents to choose Republican ballots in New Hampshire that year, handing him a huge upset over George W. Bush. From campaign finance reform to bashing earmarks and federal spending, McCain has continued to help himself with those who don't associate with either party.

"This is an election," says Zogby, "that's going to be won in the center." McCain's propensity for bucking all things Washington - be they Democratic or Republican pet issues or projects - positions him perfectly for that atmosphere. "McCain is Mr. Center. It was only when he tried to appeal to the Republican base that he un-defined the real John McCain."

Campaign finance reform, though, hurt McCain with conservative groups. His support for comprehensive immigration reform has failed to win back any right-leaning activists. But while McCain's favorable ratings among Republicans are lower than Giuliani's, the senator and the mayor won the same amount of GOP support against Clinton, the Fox poll found, at 82%. A Quinnipiac University poll from late October actually found McCain outperforming Giuliani by a few points among Republicans.

In short, conservatives do not necessarily like John McCain. But faced with the choice of McCain or Clinton, their decision becomes pretty easy.

So while McCain struggles to regain footing he lost earlier this year, the key to his chances may be among independents who boosted his candidacy eight years ago. "He was a very appealing candidate in 2000, and when you listen to him, he's very earnest and sincere and convinced, I think, and that comes off as very attractive," Selzer said.

McCain, though, faces an uphill battle to get out of his own primary. He has all but pulled out of Iowa and trails in New Hampshire, the key to his meteoric rise during the last campaign, and South Carolina, a state for which he once had high hopes. His standing among independents and his ability to attract them to the party, said Ali, "becomes irrelevant if he's not the nominee." And, perhaps, so does any chance the GOP has of reconnecting with a segment of the voting public that could carry them to victory.

By Reid Wilson, RealClearPolitics, November 28, 2007

DES MOINES - Sen. Hillary Clinton defended her increasingly aggressive approach on the campaign trail Tuesday and stepped up her criticism of Sen. Barack Obama, taking him to task by pointing to an Illinois health-care initiative he backed as a state lawmaker.

The heightened combativeness from the New York senator toward her leading primary rival came in an interview offered to the Tribune by the former first lady's campaign as she traveled in South Carolina.

The two Democratic candidates have been sparring in recent days over health care, with Clinton charging that Obama's health plan would not offer true universal coverage because he would not require all Americans to buy into a plan as she would. Obama has countered that his proposal offers guaranteed access at lower costs.

"One of the things Sen. Obama takes credit for as a state senator is a health-care task force that looked into the question of how do you provide universal health care in Illinois," Clinton said. "[That report] was clear: If you want universal health care you have to have a mandate."

Although the task force did recommend a mandate, it also suggested exemptions to penalties for Illinois residents who couldn't buy insurance or get it from an employer. When Gov. Rod Blagojevich unveiled his health-reform proposal earlier this year, he ultimately stopped short of such a requirement.

Both Clinton and Obama have sought to gain ground on the question of a mandate, with Obama questioning how such a requirement would even be enforced.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Clinton was opposed to an individual mandate when she was pushing for health-care reform in the 1990s. "Two weeks ago, Sen. Clinton said she wouldn't attack fellow Democrats," LaBolt said. "But her poll numbers have dropped, so the Washington political textbook dictates that she attack the candidate who's on the move."

Clinton's campaign later challenged any suggestion that she ever wavered in supporting a mandate.

"The Obama campaign is flat wrong," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. "Sen. Clinton has always believed that an individual mandate is key to achieving universal coverage, which is why the Clinton administration's 1993 health security act contained an individual requirement."

Clinton also pointed out in the telephone interview that Obama's proposal would require parents to provide coverage for their children.

"So, it's not that he's against mandates and doesn't understand that there are a number of ways of implementing them," she said. "He got up to the edge of whether or not to support universal coverage and backed down because it is a more difficult goal to achieve."

Clinton said she is puzzled by Obama's approach.

"Sen. Obama [is] now criticizing a mandate, when he has one in his own plan, when he helped to set up a task force that says there has to be a mandate," she said. "And there are lots of ways to do it, through default enrollment, through going to schools, workplaces to enroll people."

Challenging Obama on his own turf, Clinton touted her recent endorsement by Democrats in Maine Township, Ill., which includes her native suburban Park Ridge. Clinton said she is not writing off the Feb. 5 primary in Illinois to Obama.

"There's obviously a tremendous base of support for Sen. Obama, which is to be expected," she said. "But the polling that's been done shows a relatively modest margin and we're going to compete hard in Illinois."

Her campaign plans two major fundraisers in Chicago on Dec. 18, including one at a hotel that has hosted many Obama events. The holiday-themed gatherings are expected to bring in as much as $1 million.

Although Clinton is expected to win New York, Obama is battling aggressively there because if he can win about 31 percent or more in certain congressional districts, he would be awarded convention delegates. Clinton hopes to win some Illinois delegates using the same approach.

"But I have been attacked pretty regularly by my two leading opponents, and it's gone on for months. So, at some point, as we get toward the end of these campaigns, you have to stand up and rebut what people are saying and put out the contrasts, and that is what I intend to do."

She disputes 'underdog' tag

Clinton said she doesn't consider herself an underdog, as some news organizations have suggested in recent days, as she has turned more aggressive amid tightening opinion polls, especially in Iowa where she is in a tight race with Obama and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

"I never take any of those titles serious," she said. "I don't think any of this really counts until folks start showing up at the caucuses or turning up at the primaries. That's when it really matters."

Clinton brushed aside a statement Obama made in a broadcast interview Monday in which he suggested she is falsely claiming too much credit for White House experience.

"I'm very proud of my record of accomplishment," she said. "If he wants to argue about our relative experience, that's a discussion that I welcome."

Comparing Clinton with his wife, Obama had told ABC's "Nightline" that he didn't think "Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

Asked whether she took any personal offense at the remark, Clinton said she would "let voters make that assessment."

Her greatest liability?

Clinton was asked what she thinks her biggest liability is as a candidate.

"Well, I'm not going to tell you," she responded. "I think that we are in a competitive, exciting campaign and people are going to evaluate what each of us brings to the table, and I think I will leave it at that."




By John McCormick, Chicago Tribune, November 28, 2007

Black voters may be leaning toward supporting Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination because they're dubious that America is ready to elect a black president, a new survey suggests.

The national poll released Tuesday by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a liberal policy organization in Washington, and sponsored by AARP, the senior-citizens group, confirms that African-American likely voters favor the two leading Democrats, and it underscores the stakes for both in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses, where the voting begins. Obama and Clinton are running neck and neck in Iowa, recent polls show, though many voters remain undecided.

If Illinois Sen. Obama were to win there, in a nearly all-white state, that might convince black voters that he's electable and persuade them to vote for him over New York Sen. Clinton in later contests where their votes could spell the difference, such as in South Carolina.

"I think there are a lot of black voters who think Hillary Clinton has a better chance of being elected president," said David Bositis, senior policy analyst for the center, which specializes in analyzing issues important to African-Americans. "They're basing this thought, this feeling, on their own experiences. African-American voters think, 'There's no way in the world a black candidate is going to be elected president.'

The poll didn't ask a straight-up "whom would you vote for" question. Rather, those surveyed gave Clinton an 83 percent favorable rating and Obama a 74 percent favorable rating. Both had unfavorable ratings of just 10 percent. No other candidate from either party came close.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorability of the Republican candidates - 27 percent - but also the highest unfavorable score, 43 percent.

Asked what they consider more important - a commitment to change, the core message of Obama's campaign, or a candidate's experience, which Clinton emphasizes - respondents put a priority on change over experience by nearly 2-to-1. But in question after question, those same voters showed a clear preference for Clinton, even on choices in which the candidates' platforms differ little.

'MUST-WIN'

Bositis said other factors included African-American support for Clinton's husband,

Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland professor who studies African-American voters, said the Bill Clinton effect and blacks' pre-existing comfort with Hillary Clinton probably were bigger obstacles to Obama at first. But now that Obama, a first-term senator, is building credibility with blacks nationally, suspicions about white voters are holding him back with undecided black voters.

"That's a deep-seated sensitivity," Walters said. "If he wins Iowa, there's going to be a whole lot of recalculation, blacks, whites and everybody else. It's a must-win for him."

In a Pew poll of Democratic voters in September, 50 percent of white respondents said that Clinton had the best chance in a general election, versus 20 percent for Obama. The gap was slightly larger among African-Americans, with 58 percent saying Clinton's chances were better, versus 22 percent for Obama.

The telephone survey of 750 African-American likely voters was conducted Oct. 5-Nov. 12 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.





By Margaret Talev, St Louis Post-Dispatch, November 28, 2007

DES MOINES (AP) - It's Jan. 3 in Iowa and you decide, what the heck, I'm going to a precinct caucus.

Not affiliated with a political party? Not registered? Not even old enough to vote? No problem. Come and help choose the nation's next president.

In yet another quirk of Iowa's caucus system, all citizens can participate as long as they sign a statement attesting to residency in the precinct and show that they'll be 18 in time for the general election.

"It has not been a problem,'' said state Democratic Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddins.

Some people do have a problem with the ease of registering for New Hampshire's leadoff primary, which follows Iowa's caucuses by five days.

New Hampshire allows same-day registration at the polls, has no minimum residency period and defines a voter's home as the place where he or she sleeps most nights or intends to return after a temporary absence. The state, not the parties, runs the primary, and changes to residency laws have been hotly contested.

This year, New Hampshire Democrats pushed through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bus in people who could cast a ballot and then vote again in their real home states.

"You can vote in New Hampshire without being a resident,'' said Republican state Sen. Bob Clegg. "You can vote in the primary because you someday may want to live here.''

Democratic state Sen. Peter Burling calls such arguments "part of the campaign of fear to restrict people's right to vote.''

David Scanlan, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state, acknowledged the law is ambiguous about prohibiting people from voting in more than one state. But he insisted there are no widespread problems. "Everybody has the right to vote somewhere,'' he said. "The question is where that place is.''

In Iowa, requirements for taking part in the caucuses are becoming a focus for candidates now that the contest is a little more than a month away. The voter registration rule - or lack of one - is among a handful of unusual policies that make the caucuses puzzling even to many Iowans.

Campaigns have been trying to explain away the mystery in an effort to attract potential supporters.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has produced a video starring her husband, former President Clinton, to explain the caucuses process, and campaign officials hope up to 50,000 activists eventually see it. Rival Barack Obama has launched a "caucus pros'' program, in which seniors and other longtime participants help newcomers know what to expect.

Republican Rudy Giuliani's campaign has held training sessions around the state, led by prominent folks like former pro football quarterback Fran Tarkenton, who played for the Vikings just up the road in Minneapolis.

The caucuses, run by the parties and not state election officials, have long allowed voters to show up and register or switch party registration. If they're found to have lied they can be fined up to $7,500, but problems rarely arise.

Giddins said the only incident in recent memory came in 2000, when an out-of-state reporter tried to register as a precinct resident. He was charged and paid a fine, she said.

If gaining access to your precinct caucus in Iowa is a low-key affair, actually participating can be far more volatile.

Unlike what most Americans are accustomed to, there's no voting booth - and nothing private about the 1,784 precinct caucuses held in church basements, fire stations and libraries.

"Discussions can happen, old wounds can flare again from activists and it can get intense,'' said veteran Democratic operative Matt Paul. "One mistake that people make is underestimating the value of neighbors looking at their neighbors and wondering what they are going to do. You have to publicly stand, physically stand in support of your candidate.''

Although both parties welcome nearly anyone willing to venture out during a cold Midwestern night, they take vastly different approaches.

On the Republican side, activists at each meeting elect a leader, then backers of each candidate deliver speeches on their behalf. Those gathered then publicly vote, often by raising their hands but sometimes by marking a ballot. After the results are phoned in to a central reporting system, activists turn to party business such as beginning to write a party platform, electing precinct officers and picking delegates to county conventions in March. "Ours is fairly simple compared to the Democrats,'' said Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa.

When Democrats gather, they elect folks to run the meeting and then turn to the issue of "viability.'' In essence, a candidates must have the backing of 15 percent of the people who show up at each caucus to be eligible to win any delegates and move to the next step. Once that number is determined, the activists break into preference groups for the candidates they favor.

That's when it gets interesting.

"A couple of things can happen,'' Giddins said.

Backers of candidates who don't reach the 15 percent threshold, can join with other groups to reach that magic percentage. They can also agree to join forces with a group that is viable. Such decisions come after negotiations over issues such as who will be elected as a delegate, or who will back a proposed platform plank later in the evening.

Caucus-goers then gather in candidate groups, and those numbers are counted and run through a formula that results in the number of delegates reported to a central tabulation area.

Although most Iowans can participate in the caucuses, few do.

There are 600,572 registered Democrats and 574,571 registered Republicans in the state, with an additional 737,054 registered without declaring a party allegiance. Most estimates are that somewhere north of 100,000 will show up in each party. In 2004, 124,000 Democrats took part, and about 90,000 Republicans caucused in 2000 for the last contested GOP event.




By Mike Glover, Associated Press, November 27, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has been talking for some time now about how, if she is elected president, she will ask both Democratic and Republican statesmen to hit the road on her behalf to declare that "bipartisan foreign policy is back" in post-George W. Bush America.

While Mrs. Clinton has pointed to her husband as an emissary, it has been unclear for some time which Republicans she had in mind. But in South Carolina today, speaking to a group of black ministers, Mrs. Clinton dropped a name publicly that she has hinted at privately before.

"I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated, but as soon as I'm elected I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties - people like Colin Powell, for example, and others - who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Mrs. Clinton said, according to a Fox News Web report. "Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."

Would Mr. Powell be willing to carry water for Mrs. Clinton, and not-so-subtly rebuke Mr. Bush in the process? While Mr. Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the start of the Clinton administration, and served as a negotiator in Haiti for Mr. Clinton, there is no evidence that he is interested in serving Mrs. Clinton.

And how will anti-war Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere feel about Mrs. Clinton's suggestion that she wants one of the architects of the Iraq war to serve as a goodwill ambassador?

Mr. Powell's assistant said he was out of the office today but had seen the news report from South Carolina. "He's not been in touch with Senator Clinton in regards to this, and has no comment," said his assistant, Peggy Cifrino.

By Patrick Healy, The New York Times, November 27, 2007

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot will include just half the Democratic candidates for president.

The state Senate on Tuesday refused to take up legislation that would have restored the names of four Democratic presidential candidates to the ballot who withdrew earlier from the primary.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, blamed Democrats for not being on the same page with each other.

Some labor groups that support candidate John Edwards have tried blocking the bill putting the candidates back on the ballot because they still favor a caucus, even though a caucus is very unlikely at this point.

"Until they can resolve their differences and come forward with a unified plan, there's no need for us to take it up," Bishop told reporters.

Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson last month pulled their names from the ballot because the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving up its election.

Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, said it's doubtful those Democrats will be on the ballot and blamed Republicans for not allowing a vote. "It's a missed opportunity," Schauer told reporters, adding that Republicans should be worried about Democratic voters crossing over into the GOP primary since they won't be able to vote on the full Democratic field.

Republicans, however, said Democrats had their chance earlier this month to approve the legislation restoring the names of the candidates to the ballot. Both the House and Senate in recent weeks passed the bill, but supporters failed to produce the two-thirds vote needed in each chamber to put the law into effect in time for the election.

That leaves voters a choice of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd or Mike Gravel on the Democratic ballot, while all the Republican candidates are on the GOP ballot.

With Clinton the only Democratic front-runner on the ballot, some fear the primary will just be a beauty contest on the Democratic side, taking away the primary's importance.

Some Democratic activists had been pushing to restore all eight candidates to the ballot to give voters a broader choice and to make the candidates pay more attention to Michigan issues.

The slow pace of the legislation had elections officials warning that they will be hard-pressed to get ready before Jan. 15. Election clerks face a Saturday deadline to begin mailing absentee ballot applications, one reason some election clerks already have had ballots printed without the four Democratic candidates' names.

Those ballots would have had to be reprinted if the Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm had agreed to put Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson back on the ballot.

Bishop said some of the Democratic candidates threatened to sue if their names were restored to the ballot. Republicans said election clerks couldn't afford to delay any further waiting for legislators to act or lawsuits to be settled.

All eight Democratic candidates have agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because they broke DNC rules by moving their primaries ahead of Feb. 5. The Republican presidential candidates all participated in a presidential debate in Dearborn last month and some have campaigned here more often.

Associated Press, November 27, 2007

(CNN) -- Just a couple of weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton said she wasn't interested in attacking her opponents -- she was interested in "tackling the problems of America." But with her lead slipping, things have changed, and the New York senator has found herself in a full out verbal war with Sen. Barack Obama.

"In politics, you can afford to ignore your opponents until you start to feel them breathing down your neck," said CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

Clinton last week saw a 23-point lead over Obama in September fall to 14 points, according to a CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll. That poll came out a day after another poll in Iowa found Obama first in the state, although his lead was within the sampling error.

And as the race gets tighter, it's also getting nastier.

"I think the country is wondering why two weeks ago [Clinton] said she wasn't going to attack Democrats and nine days later she was," Robert Gibbs, communications director for the Obama campaign, told CNN on Tuesday.

According to the Clinton camp, "the debate has moved."

Pointing out differences in the two candidates' health care plans, Ann Lewis, senior advisor for the Clinton campaign, said, "We think these are important distinctions and think the public ought to know about them."

Those distinctions -- and many others -- have been brought up by both campaigns numerous times in recent days. The Clinton and Obama camps have started exchanging jabs over health care, fundraising and foreign relations experience -- and the punches are getting personal.

"I think that I bring unique experience -- 35 years of experience, including the eight years in the White House where I was actively involved in issues both here at home and around the world," Clinton said this week.

But Obama was quick to disagree: "If she wants to tout her experience by having visited countries, that's fine. I don't think that [former Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright would think that Hillary Clinton was the face of foreign policy during the Clinton administration," Obama said.

The latest dispute comes a week after Clinton took a deep dig at Obama's foreign experience, zeroing in on his remark that his "strongest" foreign policy experience came from living in Indonesia as a child.

The Clinton-Obama camps got into a new war of words Monday over reports that Obama's political action committee may have directed a majority of its campaign contributions to politicians in the key early nominating states.

"On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws," Clinton's campaign said in a statement.

Obama's campaign then took aim at Clinton's reluctance to release financial, fundraising and White House records in full. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement, adding that Clinton is in no position to point fingers until she discloses her own White House records.

Clinton also pointed fingers at Obama's health care plan, calling it "confusing," a day after the Illinois senator said his proposal would keep costs down more than any of his rivals' plans.

"There's a big difference between Sen. Obama and me on health care. I have a health care plan that covers every single American. He does not," Clinton told reporters Sunday.

Obama was quick to swing back: "Senator Clinton's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance," he said in a statement released to CNN on Sunday. "She's not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance."

Clinton and Obama obviously aren't the only contenders in the Democratic race, but the other candidates are largely staying on the sidelines of this slugfest.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said he's paid no attention to the "sniping."

When asked last week if Clinton was warranted in criticizing Obama's foreign relations experience, Edwards said, "Can I honestly tell you ... I spend not a nanosecond listening to what each of them are saying sniping toward each other, so I have no idea what you're talking about."

CNN, November 27, 2007

"I think she has proven in all these debates, and especially the last one, that she is the strongest, most reliable person that we could elect," the former president told more than 400 potential voters at a YMCA gym. "And I say that as an admirer of the rest of the candidates. I like this field."

Clinton's visit marked the start of a battle of campaign surrogates - Clinton vs. Winfrey, the former president stumping for his wife and media mogul Oprah Winfrey backing Sen. Clinton's chief rival, Barack Obama, in appearances scheduled for next week.

"Oprah vs. Bill! Now, there's a race," said Gail VanGundy, 59, an undecided voter who said the former president is a bigger draw for her than Winfrey.

"Both have star power," said Alfred Monroe, 76, as he awaited the former president's appearance in this eastern Iowa town.

Clinton himself said Winfrey ought to be for Obama because both hail from Chicago. He didn't mention that his wife is also from suburban Chicago. "I like Oprah Winfrey," he said. "We're friends."

Whether surrogates like Clinton and Winfrey sway voters is debatable, but operatives in both campaigns welcome their ability to draw crowds and attention in the closing days of a hotly contested race. An hour before Clinton was scheduled to arrive in Muscatine, more than 50 people lined up for seats.

Speaking for more than an hour, he discussed his wife's agenda and experience in exhaustive terms, sprinkling the remarks with asides about his presidency and his activities on the world stage since he left office in January 2001.

He seemed to rewrite history at one point, telling the crowd that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning." Clinton, like his wife, has been critical of the Iraq war in recent months, but at one time he gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt. "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in May 2003.

He made a personal appeal for Iowa voters to back his wife.

"I never ask anybody to vote for Hillary because they supported me. I only ask you to listen to my reasons why I think you should caucus for her," Clinton said, adding that his opinion should matter because "I know what it takes to be president" and "because of the life I've lived since I left office."

He seemed to suggest that the nation needs a return to 1990s sensibilities.

"Here's why I think that she is the person to bring us the right kind of change that we need. First of all, what kind of change do we need? We need to get American back to the future. We need to get America back to the solutions business."

He said his wife has the experience to be president, noting among other things her work as Arkansas' first lady on behalf of school standards, her travels as the nation's first lady to 82 countries and her victory as a Senate candidate in several GOP counties in New York.

Left off his list of Sen. Clinton's experiences: her stewardship of the Clinton administration health care plan that failed in the 1990s.

"You need somebody who is strong, competent, has a good vision and never forgets what it's like to be you," Clinton said. "That's why if we had never spent a year together as husband and wife, I'd be here today."

He pulled a pledge card out of his pocket, held it up to the crowd and asked them to caucus on his wife's behalf Jan. 3.

"The reason I want you to sign one of these cards is because I know her," he said. "I hope you make her the next president because she would be a great president and you would never, ever regret it."

Associated Press, November 27, 2007

Barbra Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton today. Tawk amongst ya-selves!

"Madame President of the United States," Ms. Streisand wrote in a statement, "it's an extraordinary thought."

"We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," she said. She said Mrs. Clinton has "transcended the dictates for what is thought to be possible for our time."

The Hollywood diva's endorsement is being rolled out just as plans are being made for Oprah Winfrey to make her first campaign appearance ever, on behalf of Barack Obama.

Ms. Streisand's announcement today deepens the divide among Hollywood donors, many of whom are supporting Mr. Obama. While she is influential among those donors, it is unclear how much her endorsement will translate into votes.

Ms. Streisand likes to spread her wealth. In 2004, she gave to multiple Democrats, including John Edwards, who is running again this year, Howard Dean, who tripped in the early primaries, and John Kerry, who became the Democratic nominee but lost the election.

This year, she has given to an array of candidates - Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, Christopher Dodd and Mrs. Clinton.

But Ms. Streisand has always been a major backer of Bill Clinton. And as a promoter of women's causes, it would have been surprising if she opted out of the chance to support a woman who, as she said in her statement today, "is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."

Her decision to take sides - as the race in the Iowa caucuses, less than six weeks away, appears to be a dead heat - may signal that other Hollywood types who have been playing the field are starting to feel the pressure to commit.

Meanwhile, look out, Ottumwa, the battle of the divas could be coming soon to your front porch.

By Katherine Q. Seeyle, The New York Times, November 27, 2007

As first lady, the senator didn't win every battle. But she was known for showing up thoroughly, perhaps obsessively, prepared.

WASHINGTON -- She always came prepared. From the first planning sessions for her husband's victorious 1992 presidential run through the final 1994 White House meetings she chaired as the Clinton administration's ill-fated healthcare initiative collapsed, Hillary Rodham Clinton was a force to be reckoned with as a decision-maker.

Her debut on the national stage in the early 1990s was a defining era for Clinton, a period when she emerged as Bill Clinton's most influential campaign strategist and policy advisor. She was forceful and methodical in shaping the Clinton administration's domestic policies and political strategy, and proved to be a disciplined partner to her famously disorganized husband: commanding, opinionated, daunting.

"Bill talked about social change, I embodied it," Clinton wrote in "Living History," her autobiography.

Meetings were her milieu. She would arrive toting the crisp yellow legal pads she had carried habitually since her days as a corporate lawyer. Armed with an exhaustively researched grasp of the issues at hand, she would press for still more options while lacerating opposing arguments with surgical precision.

Clinton's all-access pass into the West Wing gave her an intimate education in presidential decision-making that none of her opponents can claim. She observed at close range how big government works, and she learned painfully from her missteps how easily it bogs down.

Yet Clinton has never exercised ultimate executive authority. Unlike some of her campaign rivals, she has no experience in managing massive state budgets or city bureaucracies, a critique pointedly raised by former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The healthcare initiative started out as Clinton's most ambitious experiment in policymaking and ended up as her greatest management failure, trailing criticism that her performance was flawed by hubris, inflexibility and a penchant for secrecy and political combat.

On the campaign trail, Clinton has offered her assurances that the scars left from her healthcare experience came with lessons learned. Her tight-knit New York Senate office, disciplined campaigns and studied effort to win over legislative colleagues are all evidence, her partisans say, of how she would run her own shop differently in the White House.

But her gates-drawn stance raised concerns that shadow her presidential bid today -- that she reacts with a siege mentality under pressure, retreating behind a restrictive wall of presidential and attorney privilege.

"There's no question that her first instinct was to protect herself and the president," said former Clinton chief of staff Leon E. Panetta.

Presidential historian James McGregor Burns, who studied the uneasy dynamics of the Clinton White House, said that even her setbacks amounted to "educational failures" that toughened her for the long run.

"She's been tested over and over again," Burns said. "The question for voters is whether they feel she passed those tests and whether they think she learned from them."

She'd had some practice

Hillary Clinton's emergence as a key advisor in her husband's 1991 presidential run was hardly sudden. She had worked as a field organizer in Texas during George S. McGovern's defeat in 1972 and in Indiana in 1976 as part of Jimmy Carter's winning campaign.

Clinton also had limited management experience -- as a Wal-Mart director and as board chairman at the activist Children's Defense League, where her successor, Donna E. Shalala -- later a Clinton administration Health secretary -- recalled her as a "natural leader. She took on the same kinds of problems that corporate executives deal with."

From the start, Clinton's campaign role was left as amorphous as possible, allowing her to carve out her own domain.

"No one raised a question about how her role was defined," recalled lawyer Mickey Kantor, the campaign chairman. "It was assumed. You wanted her involved at the highest level."

Involved she was, and in everything. She used her ties to New York legal circles to raise cash and tap political pros. While staffers took a breather on a bus caravan through Texas, old friend Bill Burton watched as "Hillary sat in the back and took charge of a press release on natural-gas policy." As she peppered her husband's aides with strategy, she was empire-building -- cherry-picking loyalists who would work at the core of her White House staff.

Kantor and other campaign veterans credit her as the driving force behind the rapid-response "war room" operation. Later, she rode herd on the "defense team," a cloistered group of staffers and lawyers who fended off media queries about the couple's financial deals, rumors of Bill's infidelity and his youthful dealings with Arkansas draft officials during the Vietnam War.

"She methodically set down the counter-strategy in a disciplined way," said Betsey Wright, who ran the unit from Little Rock, Ark.

Anything related to the Clinton investments was Hillary's turf, Wright told an aide in a May 1992 e-mail now filed in the National Archives: "Hillary asked me to have no inquiries about their personal finances go to anybody without my personal decision."

Clinton was just as fierce in guarding her reputation. During the primaries in April 1992, when Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot suggested that two 1970s-era articles she had written about childhood legal rights might be read as encouraging children to sue their parents, Clinton directed her advisors to fashion a full-throttle defense. Aides lined up support from two dozen policy and medical experts, from Shalala to pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton.

The issue lay ignored for months, until George H.W. Bush's nomination at the GOP convention in Houston. When conservative activist Pat Buchanan growled at her "radical feminism," citing her old writings in a prime-time jeremiad, Clinton unleashed her experts. The furor spiked briefly, then flared out.

Clinton's people look back on the episode as a foreshadowing of the congressional investigations and ideological sniping that plagued her as first lady.

They also regard it a defining moment that "showed her thoroughness," said Melanne Verveer, who worked on the response and later was Hillary Clinton's White House chief of staff. "She's fact-based and pragmatic, and she's good at synthesizing issues quickly."

Once she makes a decision, "she sticks to it," adds Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager. "There's no coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Her turf moved west

In the White House, Bill Clinton allowed his wife to define her territory. She quickly took on the healthcare portfolio and prodded support for social programs including the Americorps volunteer program and nationwide immunization for children.

Her aides prospected for a West Wing office, a marked departure from the traditional East Wing exile for presidents' wives. Their search led to a brief spat with Vice President Al Gore's circle over who would roost in a spacious West Wing suite that previously had been the vice president's quarters.

"These physical and staff changes were important," Clinton wrote later in her autobiography, "if I was going to be working on Bill's agenda." Her purview, as she saw it, was "issues affecting women, children and families."

As a boss, she inspired equal amounts of devotion and fear. She built an insular White House fiefdom known as Hillaryland, surrounding herself with a tightknit band of loyalists who skillfully advanced her causes, but who were also criticized for isolating her from political realities. Hillaryland's denizens began to jokingly refer to themselves as "the Stepford Wives." Their unflinching devotion gained them wide berth in the West Wing.

Staffers were expected to work grueling hours and report back any development that involved the first lady. She kept them busy with news clippings that she covered with scrawled questions and filed in a cardboard carton in her office.

Mistakes were tolerated, but Clinton led intense post-mortems to keep her people focused. A well-aimed glare or a roll of the eyes told them all they needed to know. "She'd stare at us and say, 'Who was the cause of this?' And all of us would raise our hands," press assistant Neel Lattimore recalled.

Clinton cemented their loyalty with personal touches. She showed up at the hospital when Solis Doyle's son and daughter were born. She played White House tour guide for Lattimore's parents when he was in China doing advance work for Clinton.

Shirley Sagawa, the first policy aide ever hired by a first lady, was "slightly terrified" when she found herself assigned to a high-profile cubicle just outside Clinton's West Wing office. Clinton reassured her by playing with her toddler while Sagawa was busy lighting fires under Clinton's favored programs.

Clinton acted "like a de facto chief of staff," said James Pfiffner, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "She would focus debate in meetings while Bill Clinton would go on and on. She's a very tough manager, and I think she would run a very tough ship."

But other experts in presidential power caution that White House decision-making is not easily mastered by osmosis. A Hillary Clinton presidency would start out as a gamble, said presidential historian Forrest McDonald. "There's still a world of difference between making the hard decisions and being an advisor," McDonald said.

High-wire act flopped

The first lady's management of the initiative to overhaul American healthcare remains her closest approximation of high-wire decision-making.

She ran the meetings in which seminal decisions were made and set an impatient tone for prodding allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress. In memos, aides tallied 95 meetings Clinton held with legislators. They also plotted how to target balky moderate legislators with preelection visits from "field operatives."

Bill Clinton now insists that she has "taken the rap" over the years for the healthcare debacle. The effort's failings "were far more my fault than hers," he told MSNBC recently.

But under her watch, the healthcare task force became a bureaucratic fiefdom. More than 500 officials churned out reports that funneled into a 1,300-page plan. As they prodded the effort forward, Clinton and her top officials also worried that intrusive media and Washington healthcare lobbyists would "overwhelm the process," recalled Christopher Jennings, then her healthcare liaison to Congress.

She appeared sensitive to scrutiny from the start. Just three days after her husband gave her authority over the healthcare plan, she was already considering limits on public access to the plan's records. In a Jan. 28, 1993, memo, deputy counsel Vincent Foster advised the first lady and Ira Magaziner, who devised the complex healthcare process structure, that task-force records might be withheld from release under the Freedom of Information Act if the files remained "in the control of the president."

Her response is not known because many of her healthcare documents have not been released. The Clinton library in Little Rock has released scores of healthcare memos sent to the first lady. But none of her own memos or notes is available, and though some are now scheduled for release early next year, others may remain locked away until after the 2008 election.

Her doggedness was not matched by her coalition-building skills. Chicagoan Dan Rostenkowski, the gruff, powerful former House Ways and Means chairman, felt that congressional committees should lead the way. "None of the people in your think tank can vote," he recalls telling Clinton. "She wasn't persuaded."

She courted skeptical Senate Finance Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but undercut the stroking with threats. At a weekend retreat after the State of the Union address in 1993, she dismissed worries about meeting a 100-day deadline set by her husband for a healthcare bill. Asked what would happen if they were late, she said: "You don't understand. We will demonize those who are blocking this legislation and it will pass."

"She was naive," recalled former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, who was in the audience.

Clinton's management of the healthcare initiative was further shaken by a spate of personal and legal crises: Foster's suicide, the furor over the firing of White House travel aides, and Republican calls for the appointment of a Whitewater special prosecutor. The constant rounds of meetings with lawyers and aides to contend with the pressure sapped her time and patience and began to divert her attention from healthcare.

"What concerned her when she walked into White House meetings in those days was that she might be blindsided by some new development," Panetta recalled. "She felt she had to grab control of things. To a lawyer, the worst thing you can do is walk into a surprise. But not every case called for a lawyer's mind-set. Sometimes it was more a political problem than a legal one."

By the end of 1994, the landscape had shifted. Congress had gone Republican. There was a new special prosecutor, and more inquiries to come. Healthcare, she lamented later, had "faded with barely a whimper."

But Clinton endured. She coped by withdrawing from her high-limelight policy role. Her power remained, but she was quieter about showing it, more selective in using it. Her legendary preparation turned to taking stock.

She opened up slightly about what she learned from her rough passages in a February 2001 speech. "I learned some valuable lessons," she told her listeners, "about the political process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done."

Her audience was the U.S. Senate.




By Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa - They usually sit in the front row - to hear her better, to see her better and to make sure they have a chance to shake her hand. Some lean on canes. Some have traveled a great distance. Some have never been to a political event before.

The first one who shared her story with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was Ruth Smith, 87. She drove 160 miles to Des Moines from Buffalo Center to attend Mrs. Clinton's first rally in Iowa as a presidential candidate and went up to her afterward. "I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second," said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. "And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House."

Since then Mrs. Smith's story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clinton's stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate's effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many young women have been enthusiastic supporters, but Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has shown particular pride in the women in their 70s, 80s and 90s at her events. She spends extra time with them on the rope line and repeats their stories to audiences.

"A couple of weeks ago in New Hampshire, a woman said, 'I'm 98 years old, this will probably be my last election, we need to hurry up,'" Mrs. Clinton recounted recently in Vinton, Iowa. "And I said, 'I don't know, I may need you for my re-election.' And she said, 'Well, my doctor just put in a new pacemaker, and she says it's good for seven years.'"

The Clinton campaign is courting these women in Iowa as the senator seeks an edge in a three-way fight with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina to win the state's caucuses on Jan. 3.

According to some opinion polls, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are running roughly even among female voters here; she is behind Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards among men. So the Clinton campaign hopes to find an advantage with older women, who might feel an emotional bond with Mrs. Clinton - seeing her like a daughter or seeing something of themselves in her.

In August, on the 87th anniversary of women's suffrage, the campaign sent a letter from Mrs. Clinton thanking hundreds of female supporters who were born before ratification of the 19th Amendment. Mrs. Clinton's weekly "Hillgram" e-mail newsletter is sometimes aimed at older women.

And in Iowa, campaign officials constantly check their numbers of elderly female supporters (currently, 479 of them are ages 90 to 110) - in part to see if they have relatives who might also become supporters.

"These women are the heart of their family network," said Ann Lewis, Mrs. Clinton's senior adviser on reaching out to women, "the 90-year-old mother or grandmother whose opinions really resonate all the way through the family." Ms. Lewis added that they had come out for Mrs. Clinton in other states with early nominating contests.

In interviews with 20 women in their late 70s and 80s, most said they supported Mrs. Clinton based on qualities they saw in her - intelligence, confidence and capability - rather than her positions on issues. Many also said that her qualities would help her cope with challenges.

"I think a woman, as head of the military, would be more apt to keep our boys at home than a man," said Dorothy Weddell, 85, who attended a Clinton event Saturday in Sac City, Iowa. "I'm a Republican, but I vote for the person. And she seems more willing to work things out and compromise."

Several women said they had not attended the Iowa caucuses in years. Though these women said they planned to caucus for the senator, Clinton campaign aides said they were not taking anything for granted, since some people who are not regular caucusgoers skip the event at the last minute.

"I've never caucused before, but I never felt motivated - and then here comes Hillary," said Gwen Whitehill, 78, of Shenandoah, Iowa. "Women have brains, just like men, and sometimes they have attributes that kind of outshine a man."

Some older women were just as adamant that they did not like Mrs. Clinton.

"The fact that she's a woman doesn't matter to me," said Katherine Smidf, 75, of Shenandoah. "Whoever's most qualified and can do the job." She said she preferred another Democratic candidate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Susan Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said older women were often a problem for female candidates because they came of age in different eras. "Some of these women are going to be very divided over Clinton's candidacy," Professor Carroll said. "Running for president is not something women dared to do until very recently, and it's something for voters to become comfortable with."

Mrs. Smith, the senator's touchstone in Iowa, said she heard doubts about Mrs. Clinton from some of her Republican friends but did not care much.

"A lot of them believe a woman's place is by the cookstove," Mrs. Smith said. "But I think Hillary's a very capable girl."

By Patrick Healy, The New York Times, November 27, 2007

Fifty-year-old Carmen Cortez cleans buildings until 1 a.m. as a janitor in San Francisco and lives with her adult son. Courtney Harrell is a 32-year-old lesbian working in the film industry who rents an apartment with three others. Kathleen Moschel is a 63-year-old Republican and former Hallmark card store owner who lives in the Contra Costa County retirement community of Rossmoor.

Despite those differences, some political operatives and pollsters are herding these women into the same sprawling demographic: unmarried women. The "unmarried" bloc is emerging as this year's trendy political moniker, the granddaughter of the coveted "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" micro-targeted by campaigns past.

So what's the reason for wooing unmarried female voters - whom the targeters define as anybody not wearing a ring?

A quarter of all eligible voters - 53 million - are unmarried women, according to an October study by the influential liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, but 20 million did not vote in the most recent presidential election.

"They have the power to reshape American politics further, if they vote," according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner study. "Unmarried women have the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals.' "

They're generally younger and have less household income than their married sisters, and they are turned off by the tit-for-tat repartee of political campaigns and the ensuing horse-race media coverage. And for the first time in a presidential race, there are as many unmarried women in America as married.

The key to appealing to them, said Ann Lewis, a senior strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, is "to tap into their social networks," both online and offline.

What binds unmarrieds of all stripes are economic issues, said Lewis, who prefers the term "single anxious female" because "there's a lot of anxiety about economic issues." While 43 percent of unmarried women have household income of less than $30,000 annually, according to the 2005 American Community Survey, a similar portion of married women earn more than $75,000. More often than unmarried men, unmarried women are taking care of children or are responsible for the health of an older relative.

Pollsters say their research shows that the unmarrieds are in the mood for changing not just who is in office, but how government works. "These women are leading different lives and they want people to know it," said Page Gardner, founder of Women's Voices, Women's Vote, a nonpartisan outfit that is targeting 3 million single women. Gardner said the campaign will improve on its 2004 get-out-the-vote effort and already has heard an increased sense of urgency from its audience. "They're really paying attention, and they know what's at stake," she said.

The Clinton campaign - the most financially and organizationally formidable ever launched for a female candidate - is piquing interest among women. About 20 percent of the women polled last month by Lifetime Television, a cable network aimed at women, said they were more likely to vote because Clinton was running.

Despite the attention, unmarrieds say they're not too keen on being the political flavor of the quadrennial. "It offends me when politicians categorize me in some way," said Gloria Crabbe, a 76-year-old retired lawyer who lives in Rossmoor and has been widowed 18 years. "Why do we all have to be soccer moms or unmarrieds?"

"Even this is a scam," Harrell, the film industry worker, said of the minting of the "unmarried" target group. "Instead of trying to figure out how to come after single women, how about trying to figure out how to help me get health care? I don't have health care. Or try to help people to figure out how to buy a house in San Francisco."

Over several days, The Chronicle chatted informally with groups of unmarried women in the Bay Area to identify what is important to them and collect their views on the 2008 presidential race.

---

Carmen Cortez gets up at 7 a.m. to clean houses in San Francisco for three hours. Then she goes to the SEIU Local 87 office, where she volunteers to help members of the janitors union navigate bureaucracy and translate for them. From 5 p.m. to 1 a.m., she works as a union janitor, scrubbing bathrooms and emptying the wastebaskets in San Francisco high-rise offices.

She immigrated to Fresno from El Salvador in 1974, sent by her family to live with her sister - and to get away from a man they didn't want her to wed. She got married, had three children and was divorced by the time she was 23. She gained her citizenship and has worked two jobs ever since in order to raise her children alone.

Gasoline has become so expensive that she tries not to use her car on the weekends much, meaning she doesn't visit her granddaughter in Daly City as often as she'd like. "It used to cost $40 a week to buy gas, now it costs $60," she said.

Yet when asked her top concern, Cortez said: "Peace. When I had my kids, I encouraged them to go to the military. No. Not anymore. I don't want them to fight for something that is somebody else's business. We need to find a way to bring all of the soldiers home."

Sitting nearby, 31-year-old Teresa Navarro nodded her head. "Paz," said Navarro, who moved from Mexico nine years ago and since has been granted asylum to remain. Neither she nor Cortez has had friends or family members killed or wounded in the war in Iraq. But Navarro's father was a police officer in Mexico for nearly 30 years, and she knows the anxiety of waiting for a loved one to come home.

But Navarro's more immediate concerns are economic. She is on strike from the janitorial job she held in San Francisco. Six years ago, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer, and she has been cancer-free after receiving chemotherapy treatments. But she has no health care coverage and lives with her mother in El Cerrito.

Navarro is studying theology remotely from a school in Los Angeles with the goal of becoming a Christian minister in three years. Until then, she studies during the day and, when there is no strike, scrubs two floors of an office building at night.

As for politics, Cortez is clear about who she wants to be president. "Hillary Clinton," she said. "After Bush, we can have a lady who can do a good job, who is strong and is well prepared to do the job."

Navarro isn't following the race. "She is the wife of (Bill) Clinton, no?"

---

Four Rossmoor residents showed up early for their chat in a common room at the lush retirement community. "Everybody at Rossmoor shows up a half hour early for everything," said Helene Schneider, a 78-year-old retired optician and widow.

"Well, except me," 72-year-old Marcia Elefant said and laughed. "I show up a half hour late, just to show them."

Financial concerns aren't at the top of the list here. The women have health care coverage and would like to see everybody have the same. They want the war to end, but the lone Republican thinks the United States should remain in Iraq "until the job is done." All are regular cable news watchers who banter over their partisan differences, but they agree on one topic: the United States isn't what it used to be. The schools aren't as good, a public university education costs as much a private one used to, the nation's reputation abroad is terrible, corporate CEOs make too much, and the politicians - oh, don't get them started.

"I'm embarrassed that the United States has lost so much standing abroad," said Crabbe, the retired lawyer and a former Republican who has switched her party registration to Democratic. "I'd like to be proud to be an American again."

"The reason that these politicians can't get anything done is that they all owe each other a favor," said Moschel, the GOP supporter. "You did this for me, so I have to do this for you. So by the time they get elected, they can't do what the people elected them to do."

These women were born not too many presidential cycles after the suffrage movement, so they all nodded at the significance of Clinton's candidacy. But beyond that ... well ...

"I'm tickled to see that a woman is running," said Crabbe. "But whether she'd be my favorite, I'm not so sure. Then again, the people I like - like (Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph) Biden - don't have a prayer."

---

Sitting in a cafe in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood, three single lesbians commiserate about growing up in politically and religiously conservative families.

"The only thing that my conservative Southern Baptist family and I agree on is to disagree about everything," said 22-year-old Lauren Fash, who moved to San Francisco from her native Atlanta a year ago to study film. Back in Georgia, her brother is an officer in the local Young Republicans club and teases her about "living in the city of confusion."

All three are regular voters, but suspicious about politicians' motives. They have little time for the daily inter-campaign warfare, two don't regularly follow the news. All are renters, sharing apartments with friends, and want to hear how a politician will help provide more equality - both in pay for women and for civil rights for gays and lesbians.

"No matter if you're a single woman or not, people want health care and quality pay and equal opportunity," said Leanne Pittsford, a 26-year-old database coordinator.

One leaned toward Sen. Barack Obama, and two were supporters of Clinton - but not because she's a woman.

"I want to vote for her because she's intelligent and strong and has learned a lot over the years," Harrell said.

---

Sitting in a tea room in Oakland, three white-collar unmarried women talk about the campaigns so far - and none is impressed.

"It's all done for TV - there's no substantive thinking going on thus far," said Joan Levinson, a 79-year-old retired UC Berkeley employee who made a documentary a few years ago and is an anti-war activist with a group called Grandmothers Against the War. "And the guy I like - (Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis) Kucinich - I know he'll never win. He's short and he's got no pizzazz."

These women live in Berkeley and Oakland, the darkest blue patch in blue-state America. They read voraciously online and off - from the Guardian newspaper in England to the liberal blog the Huffington Post to Utne Reader to mainstream outlets. Here over tea, the conversation revolves around ideas that have rarely have been mentioned in the dozens of presidential debates. They talk about nonviolent conflict resolution and "empire-building" and wish that Kucinich's long-standing push for a federal Department of Peace would get more of a public airing.

"I'd like to see a moratorium on talking about religion in political campaigns," said Nancy Friedman, a 57-year-old branding and marketing consultant who lives in Oakland. "I'm repelled by the need to be holier-than-thou when people run for political office. There has to be a separation between church and state."

Lucy Perry understands why some of her friends in the Bay Area don't vote, but find their public calling through volunteering. Several friends joined her last year to help victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. "They're much more engaged in volunteering because they can see the tangible results of what they're doing," said Perry, 33, who is a Berkeley Web designer. "Whereas, with politics, you don't always see that tangible result."

As for whom she'd like to see in the White House, Perry said, "I'm sad because I wish there was a better woman candidate. But given the choices available to us, I might end up voting for her."

She'd love to see a Gov. Bill Richardson-Sen. Barack Obama ticket, but then she confessed to her ideal candidate: "Oprah. I really wish she would run."

By Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 2007

With polls indicating some 62 percent of the likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa will be women, the party's presidential candidates and their supporters are putting renewed emphasis on winning votes from them.

Specifically, they're trying to attract women who've not been to caucuses before, and they're providing everything from big-name celebrities to computer Web sites to recipes for chicken-noodle casseroles to help do it.

Barack Obama announced Monday that his campaign will bring television talk-show host Oprah Winfrey to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids on Saturday, Dec. 8.

Christopher Dodd outlined his proposals to help working women during campaign stops Monday.

And Emily's List, a fundraising powerhouse for Democratic women, unveiled sophisticated Internet and direct-mail efforts to add new women to Hillary Clinton's total on caucus night.

Like all celebrities, Winfrey will help her candidate attract a crowd. Those crowds should net Obama some additional names of supporters. Winfrey's television audience is large, and if she can sell a candidate as effectively as she sells books, the result will be a big plus for Obama.

Dodd, who is the author of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows workers to take unpaid leave to care for a baby or sick family member, said Monday he wants to expand the act to require paid leave. He spent Monday holding roundtable discussions about women's issues and released a list of women activists in Iowa who are supporting him.

The most sophisticated effort aimed at turning out new women caucus-goers on behalf of a candidate is the effort Emily's List began implementing in Iowa on Monday. The group, which is legally independent of Clinton's campaign, has created a Web site - www.yougogirl.com - to provide information about attending a caucus. Maren Hesla, the director of the effort, said the group culled voter registration lists to find women who are registered as Democrats and voted in 2006 but did not participate in the 2004 caucuses - and who said they were for Clinton or were undecided.

The group now hopes to contact those women to get them to check out the Web site to learn about how to attend their local caucus for the senator. Direct-mail pieces will also show up in their mailboxes. "We're trying to demystify the caucus process," Hesla said. The Web site features video clips of women talking about caucusing and how to do it. She said the group is also providing tips for making it easier to go out to a caucus. That includes directions and recipes for cook-ahead meals to enable a woman to get dinner for her family before heading out to make a 6:30 p.m. start on Jan. 3.

(Hesla said their surveys found some women said they don't attend a caucus because they say they've got to fix dinner. So, she included on the site her recipes for chicken-noodle casserole and taco casserole.) Hesla said that in 2004, about 124,000 people attended Democratic caucuses. "If we can add 5,000 to 10,000" for Clinton in 2008, "that will be huge."

Clinton faces a unique challenge with women in Iowa. She's doing the best with women who are least likely to go to a caucus, such as blue-collar women. Professional women and those with higher incomes or college degrees lean more toward Obama or other candidates. Recent polls show Clinton and Obama each getting just over 30 percent of the women caucus-goers.

One limitation to the Emily's List effort is the heavy reliance on Web-driven efforts. There are a lot of women who might be for Clinton but who don't go on the Web very often or who are older and may not be as proficient with the Web.

At some point, the campaigns are going to rediscover the value of old-fashioned, shoe-leather campaigning. Forget this high-tech stuff. Some of the out-of-state groups rolling into Iowa to help their candidates need to get their hands dirty.

(The logical extension of giving someone a casserole recipe is to actually deliver a casserole so Mom can get away for the evening. How about Casseroles for Clinton?)

And anyone from Washington want to do a little baby-sitting?

By David Yepsen, Des Moines Register, November 27, 2007

Recession. The word alone is enough to send shivers down the spines of many Americans. A Wall Street Journal article today explores the ways in which an economic downturn could cause voters to re-evaluate their priorities.

Much has been written about rising oil prices, the housing crisis and now - the questionable success of the holiday shopping season. Former Treasury Secretary Laurence Summers even said this week that a recession is on its way.

A slowdown is inevitable, and a growing number of analysts are beginning to utter the dreaded "R" word. A recession in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign would be a game-changer for both parties.

For Republicans, the bad news is that they inevitably would shoulder much of the blame because they control the White House. The good news for them is that they can start pushing tax cuts as a way to spur a slumping economy. That's a better argument than pushing tax cuts for their own sake, which is pretty much where Republicans have been. The moment may be meeting the message.

For Democrats, the tax-cut question will be the opposite: If the economy is perilously close to recession, do you really want to propose tax increases? And a tax increase is precisely how Republicans portray any move to undo the Bush tax cuts.

The candidates have yet to delve deeply, or routinely, into any uneasiness over the economy, although many have offered up economic plans or proposals for restructuring the tax system.

On the campaign trail these days, they continue to try to woo blocs of voters.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been keeping an eye especially on elderly women, according to The Times's Patrick Healy.

Many young women have been enthusiastic supporters, but Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has shown particular pride in the women in their 70s, 80s and 90s at her events. She spends extra time with them on the rope line and repeats their stories to audiences.

"A couple of weeks ago in New Hampshire, a woman said, 'I'm 98 years old, this will probably be my last election, we need to hurry up,'" Mrs. Clinton recounted recently in Vinton, Iowa. "And I said, 'I don't know, I may need you for my re-election.' And she said, 'Well, my doctor just put in a new pacemaker, and she says it's good for seven years.'"

A Los Angeles Times feature today looks at the organizational skills Mrs. Clinton demonstrated as First Lady - and considers whether that can be considered executive experience.

Clinton's all-access pass into the West Wing gave her an intimate education in presidential decision-making that none of her opponents can claim. She observed at close range how big government works, and she learned painfully from her missteps how easily it bogs down.

Yet Clinton has never exercised ultimate executive authority. Unlike some of her campaign rivals, she has no experience in managing massive state budgets or city bureaucracies, a critique pointedly raised by former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, Barack Obama wasn't buying that argument.

"If she wants to tout her experience of having visited countries, that's fine," Obama said. But, he added, "I don't think that Madeleine Albright would think Hillary Clinton was the face of foreign policy during the Clinton administration. But maybe she'll disagree with that."

And she did. The Chicago Tribune reports Albright released a statement saying, "be ready from the very first day to lead our nation in a dangerous and complicated world, which is why I am supporting her candidacy."

Expect more along the same lines as the two candidates keep dueling, and Mr. Obama was preparing for another foreign policy forum today in New Hampshire.

Yesterday Mrs. Clinton also revealed a plan for battling AIDS in the United States and abroad. Like her rivals, Mrs. Clinton proposed spending at least $50 billion cumulatively on global initiatives to combat H.I.V. and AIDS by 2013; the Bush administration has budgeted $30 billion for that period. She would also double money for H.I.V./AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health to $5.2 billion annually.

The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut takes a look at how Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey stack up as supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, respectively.

Joe Biden says that he and fellow white-haired Democratic candidate Chris Dodd are both "old school" senators and good friends, according to the Des Moines Register.

Both Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, and Biden, a senator from Delaware, each are hoping to emerge and knock out a front-runner. But both facing an increasing amount of questions about whether they are different enough for voters to tell them apart.

"If we were raised in the same neighborhood, we would have hung out
together," Biden said in Des Moines last week, before adding that "Chris is much more - in the good sense of the word - 'Washington,' than I am."

The New York Sun speculates that Mike Huckabee is angling for an invitation to run as Rudolph W. Giuliani's vice president since the pair have refrained from direct attacks on each other.

Mr. Huckabee, who has leapt to second in the Iowa polls, has drawn increasing fire from GOP contenders Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, but not from Mr. Giuliani, who has described him as "wonderful."

The New Yorker doesn't go so far as to call Mr. Huckabee wonderful, but it compliments how far he's come in the polls and compares him to a beloved animated character.

Huckabee, who at fifty-one is the youngest Republican running, spent half of his adult life as a Southern Baptist minister. Most of his support, so far, comes from the Evangelical Christian right. Yet to those who are not in that category his affect is curiously unthreatening. "I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody," he likes to say. His manner and appearance are reassuringly ordinary. When he smiles or laughs, which is often, his dimpled face looks interestingly like that of Wallace, of Wallace & Gromit.

Mr. Giuliani sat down for an hour-long interview with editors at the New Hampshire Union Leader and spoke about Iraq, immigration and his recent sparring with Mitt Romney.

Rudy Giuliani said yesterday he "never had any doubt" that if he were President four years ago, he would have invaded Iraq. He said he is now "even more certain" that it was the correct national security move.

"I actually believe that Democrats are going to agree with me on that by the time we get to the general election," the Republican former New York City mayor said.

Democrat Bill Richardson told an Iowa crowd that he would be a "grassroots" president who'd visit Americans at home and appoint a bipartisan Cabinet, reports the Des Moines Register.

Boston Globe columnist Peter S. Canellos wonders whether Iowan caucus-goers are too concerned with ethanol to adequately vet candidates for the rest of the country.

But for the tradition to survive, both Iowa and New Hampshire must make good on their commitments to vet the candidates without fear or favor; they must be motivated by good citizenship alone, serving as unbiased jurors.

This year, only one of the states is living up to the ideal. New Hampshirites are checking out the candidates freely and fairly, without imposing any special-interest agenda of their own. But there is strong evidence that Iowans are using their early-voting status to make the candidates pass a litmus test on ethanol subsidies.

There's no need to sign up in advance to caucus in Iowa or vote in the New Hampshire primary, according to an Associated Press story that lays out the voter eligibility rules.

By Ariel Alexovich, The New York Times, November 27, 2007

The Thanksgiving holiday safely behind them, America's leading presidential candidates are moving into the personal insult phase of the 2008 campaign.

On Monday, Mitt Romney, who leads the Republican field in Iowa - which holds the first critical caucus vote on January 3 - said his rival Rudy Giuliani was "just like Hillary Clinton". This is as deep an insult as one Republican can give another.

Mr Giuliani responded that his opponent had been a "mediocre one-term governor" of Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who announced on Monday that Oprah Winfrey, the chat-show host, would join him on the campaign trail next month, is sailing perilously close to describing Mrs Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, as dishonest. "The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first," said a spokesman for the Obama campaign.

For her part, Mrs Clinton mocks Mr Obama's claim to have knowledge of the world. Last week, she questioned whether his six-year stint at a school in Indonesia in his childhood "prepares one for the real complex foreign policy challenges" of the next presidency.

Officials working on campaigns in both fields concede that the tone of the exchanges is likely to get worse in the countdown to Iowa. There are two main reasons for this.

First, both races are wide open. Although Mr Giuliani still maintains a lead in the national polls, he is trailing Mr Romney in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which often confound national surveys by producing underdog winners who go on to win their party's nomination. Mr Giuliani's strategy of winning the big states, such as New York and California, when they vote in the "Tsunami Tuesday" races on February 5, could look hollow if he has lost early primaries to Mr Romney.

"Romney would have all the momentum," said one pollster. But that understates just how volatile the Republican race has become. Mr Romney, who has taken to running advertisements that emphasise his wholesome family setting - in contrast to his three main opponents, all of whom have had failed marriages - faces a strong threat in Iowa from Mike Huckabee, the only genuine Christian conservative contender.

In New Hampshire, meanwhile, Ron Paul, the fringe libertarian candidate, has overtaken Fred Thompson, the former senator and television star, who nevertheless remains the leading candidate in South Carolina and other parts of the south. South Carolina's primary comes after New Hampshire but before Tsunami Tuesday. "If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on the Republican race," said one campaign official.

Likewise, Mrs Clinton's national lead is not mirrored in Iowa, where only a quarter of registered Democrats support her, according to the opinion polls, and where up to half of all potential caucus-goers have yet to make up their minds.

The Clinton campaign says that either Hillary or Bill Clinton will campaign in Iowa every day between now and January 3 - with a brief break for Christmas. "The state [Iowa] is going to have a caucus, not a coronation," said an Obama spokesman.

The second factor driving an increasingly personal campaign is that policy differences between the candidates within each field are minuscule, which encourages attacks that focus on the alleged weaknesses of opponents' character, integrity and competence.

For example, all the Republicans oppose abortion and gay marriage. Equally, all are in favour of lower taxes, higher defence spending and a red-meat approach to the "war on terror".

The best way of differentiating each other is to get personal. The National Journal Online, a conservative magazine, recently described Mr Giuliani as having been a "total jerk" when he was mayor of New York. Mr Romney has come close to saying the same thing. "He [Romney] throws stones at people," said Mr Giuliani. "Then on that issue it usually turns out that he has a worse record than the people he's throwing stones at."

Among the Democrats, where there is broad consensus on almost every big policy issue, including healthcare, Iraq and global warming, both Mr Obama and John Edwards regularly refer to Mrs Clinton as a prisoner of corrupt corporate interests. Mrs Clinton is now responding in kind.

On Monday, her campaign called on Mr Obama to come clean about donations he had been making to local candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire - a traditional way of winning local endorsements. "Considering how often Senator Obama talks about his efforts to be transparent, we presume he will answer the . . . questions," it said. There will be many more such moments.

By Edward Luce, Financial Times, November 26, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. -- Barack Obama may be gaining in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton touched down here yesterday to issue an implicit reminder: when the race moves to New Hampshire, she'll have the Machine.

That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment -- state legislators, retired officials and lawyer-lobbyist types who tend on the whole to be as personable as most of their small-state neighbors. But there was no mistaking the show of Establishment force at the historic carriage house here where Clinton came to pick up yet another high-profile Democratic endorsement, from Susan Lynch, the wife of the state's popular governor John Lynch. Clinton was introduced by the speaker of the New Hampshire House, Terie Norelli, and the relatively small audience packed into the room included the president of the state Senate, Sylvia Larson; an influential veteran senator from Manchester, Lou D'Allesandro; and at least a dozen other state legislators from the Concord area.

Larson said the local establishment backing for Clinton is a reflection of legislators' belief that she is better prepared for presidency than her rivals. "She's the experienced, capable candidate who's ready to go to work on the first day," said Larson. "Those of us who've worked in the field all these years recognize that it takes time to make things happen, that you need that background to succeed."

Just how much weight the local poobahs' backing will carry come the Jan. 8 primary remains to be seen. Al Gore had a similar lineup of support in 1999 and 2000 and barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Bill Bradley. In 2004, the establishment was more splintered among the Democratic candidates.

The Clinton campaign is hoping that Susan Lynch's endorsement, for one, could pack some real punch. It will be seen in many quarters as an implicit blessing from her popular husband, who is officially remaining neutral, much as John Kerry benefited from the endorsement of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack's wife in Iowa in 2004, and as Clinton benefits in New Hampshire from the backing of power broker Billy Shaheen, husband of New Hampshire's former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is officially remaining neutral as she prepares to run for Senate. In addition, Susan Lynch, a pediatrician, is well-liked and respected in her own right, and her word may carry some extra weight given that she has generally shied from politics.

"As a first lady, pediatrician and most importantly, a mother, I do not take my endorsement light heartedly," she said today with Clinton at her side. "But I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country."

After the event, former state representative Carol Burney said Clinton may be getting such particularly strong establishment support in New Hampshire because that establishment includes so many women leaders. "We got women running the state here," she said. "It's wonderful so many [establishment Democrats] support her because it says our New Hampshire machine is in the process of getting her elected."

Confirmation of this theory was provided a moment later when Mary Louise Hancock, a former state senator and the unofficial grand dame of New Hampshire Democrats, called Clinton to her wheelchair to give her a Susan B. Anthony coin that Hancock had won as part of a women's leadership award. The coin was a good luck charm, Hancock said, to be returned when Clinton became president. "If you've been a legislator then you understand government," Hancock said, later explaining her strong support for Clinton. "What people don't understand is that politics is about government. Because she understands government, she'll be able to run the country."

After Clinton left with the coin, Hancock was swarmed by television crews asking her to elaborate on the moment. The significance of the blessing of the 87-year-old Mrs. Hancock -- a longtime fixture of the Concord scene -- was lost on some of the Secret Service agents looking on. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them asked a reporter. "Who is she?"

By Alec MacGillis, The Washington Post, November 26, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa - It's Jan. 3 in Iowa and you decide, what the heck, I'm going to a precinct caucus.

Not affiliated with a political party? Not registered? Not even old enough to vote? No problem. Come and help choose the nation's next president.

In yet another quirk of Iowa's caucus system, all citizens can participate as long as they sign a statement attesting to residency in the precinct and show that they'll be 18 in time for the general election.

"It has not been a problem," said state Democratic Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddins.

Some people do have a problem with the ease of registering for New Hampshire's leadoff primary, which follows Iowa's caucuses by five days.

New Hampshire allows same-day registration at the polls, has no minimum residency period and defines a voter's home as the place where he or she sleeps most nights or intends to return after a temporary absence. The state, not the parties, runs the primary, and changes to residency laws have been hotly contested.

This year, New Hampshire Democrats pushed through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bus in people who could cast a ballot and then vote again in their real home states.

"You can vote in New Hampshire without being a resident," said Republican state Sen. Bob Clegg. "You can vote in the primary because you someday may want to live here."

Democratic state Sen. Peter Burling calls such arguments "part of the campaign of fear to restrict people's right to vote."

David Scanlan, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state, acknowledged the law is ambiguous about prohibiting people from voting in more than one state. But he insisted there are no widespread problems.

"Everybody has the right to vote somewhere," he said. "The question is where that place is."

In Iowa, requirements for taking part in the caucuses are becoming a focus for candidates now that the event is just a little more than six weeks away. The voter registration rule - or lack of one - is among a handful of unusual policies that make the caucuses puzzling even to many Iowans.

Campaigns have been trying to explain away the mystery in an effort to attract potential supporters.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has produced a video starring her husband, former President Clinton, to explain the caucuses process, and campaign officials hope up to 50,000 activists eventually see it. Rival Barack Obama has launched a "caucus pros" program, in which seniors and other longtime participants help newcomers know what to expect.

Republican Rudy Giuliani's campaign has held training sessions around the state, led by prominent folks like former pro football quarterback Fran Tarkenton, who played for the Vikings just up the road in Minneapolis.

The caucuses, run by the parties and not state election officials, have long allowed voters to show up and register or switch party registration. If they're found to have lied they can be fined up to $7,500, but problems rarely arise.

Giddins said the only incident in recent memory came in 2000, when an out-of-state reporter tried to register as a precinct resident. He was charged and paid a fine, she said.

If gaining access to your precinct caucus in Iowa is a low-key affair, actually participating can be far more volatile.

Unlike what most Americans are accustomed to, there's no voting booth - and nothing private about the 1,784 precinct caucuses held in church basements, fire stations and libraries.

"Discussions can happen, old wounds can flare again from activists and it can get intense," said veteran Democratic operative Matt Paul. "One mistake that people make is underestimating the value of neighbors looking at their neighbors and wondering what they are going to do. You have to publicly stand, physically stand in support of your candidate."

Although both parties welcome nearly anyone willing to venture out during a cold Midwestern night, they take vastly different approaches.

On the Republican side, activists at each meeting elect a leader, then backers of each candidate deliver speeches on their behalf. Those gathered then publicly vote, often by raising their hands but sometimes by marking a ballot. After the results are phoned in to a central reporting system, activists turn to party business such as beginning to write a party platform, electing precinct officers and picking delegates to county conventions in March.

"Ours is fairly simple compared to the Democrats," said Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa.

When Democrats gather, they elect folks to run the meeting and then turn to the issue of "viability." In essence, a candidates must have the backing of 15 percent of the people who show up at each caucus to be eligible to win any delegates and move to the next step. Once that number is determined, the activists break into preference groups for the candidates they favor.

That's when it gets interesting.

"A couple of things can happen," Giddins said.

Backers of candidates who don't reach the 15 percent threshold, can join with other groups to reach that magic percentage. They can also agree to join forces with a group that is viable. Such decisions come after negotiations over issues such as who will be elected as a delegate, or who will back a proposed platform plank later in the evening.

Caucus-goers then gather in candidate groups, and those numbers are counted and run through a formula that results in the number of delegates reported to a central tabulation area.

Although most Iowans can participate in the caucuses, few do.

There are 600,572 registered Democrats and 574,571 registered Republicans in the state, with an additional 737,054 registered without declaring a party allegiance. Most estimates are that somewhere north of 100,000 will show up in each party. In 2004, 124,000 Democrats took part, and about 90,000 Republicans caucused in 2000 for the last contested GOP event.

By Mike Glover, Associated Press, November 27, 2007

In ways big and small over the weekend, the two campaigns exuded a sense of switched identities - a dynamic driven by poll-driven perceptions that Clinton's sense of inevitability is slipping and Obama is riding a bit of a wave amid the Midwestern seas of grain.

The mood and stump styles of the two campaigns reflect this new reality: An ebullient Obama - coatless, tieless, tireless - conveys a sense that at least he thinks he could be on his way to being the next president. Clinton, mixing her traditional caution with a new toughness, is clearly set on knocking Obama off his game.

Clinton, like all the Democratic contenders, is now devoting the bulk of her time to Iowa. Either she or former President Bill Clinton plans to be in the state nearly every day through the Jan. 3 caucuses, with a break for Christmas.

In another acknowledgment of the tight race, Clinton has abandoned any pretense of remaining above the fray and has engaged Obama nearly every day along the campaign trail.

"There is a big difference with Sen. Obama's health care plan: I have a health care plan that covers every single American," she said on an Iowa campaign swing during the weekend. "He, by his own admission, leaves out at least 15 million Americans. ... So I am going to draw issue distinctions, then when we finally choose a nominee, which I expect to be, we will close ranks, run against the Republicans and win."

Clinton advisers point out that Obama and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina have been attacking her every day for a few weeks now.

On Sunday in Perry, Clinton held her first media availability in two weeks, declaring that she feels "very good" about Iowa but acknowledging that she faces "a much more competitive race here than in other parts of the country."

"I started much further behind at the beginning of this race, but I feel we are making progress," she said.

Obama showed his confidence over the weekend, hopping from town to town with promises of "a sense of impatience." He seems to relish beginning sentences, "As president, I will. ... "

"I will wake up every single morning in that White House, thinking about how I can make the lives of you and your children and your grandchildren a little bit better," he says in the climax to his stump speech. "That will be my job. And if you'll let me do that job, I promise you: We will not just win an election. We will transform a country."

Clinton, seeking to preserve her stature, often keeps her jabs subtle - more pinprick, less knife. A listener who zoned out for a minute could miss Clinton's reference to Obama's health care plan. Campaigning Saturday in rural Iowa, she referred to him as "one of my opponents."

"We don't like people throwing mud," said Peggy McBride, 68, a retiree from Fort Dodge who attended one of this weekend's events. "She was critical, but in a nice way. You can say something critical but in a nice way."

The Clinton campaign, ever cautious, insists that encountering the turbulence of a hard-fought race comes as no surprise. Aides have said from the day Clinton announced that she'd ask for every vote, work for every dollar, answer every charge.

But her lead in national polls was so commanding, and her perceived inevitability was so ingrained in the nation's political conversation, that it was hard to imagine her back against the wall.

The turnaround for Obama's campaign was driven partly by the tremendous psychological lift that came from heavy news coverage of an ABC News-Washington Post poll last week showing him a few points ahead of Clinton in Iowa, albeit in a statistical tie - a three-way tie, in fact, with Edwards.

The previous ABC-Post poll, released Aug. 3, had also showed Clinton and Obama neck and neck. But timing is everything, and the result gave Obama a boost just as voters who had been tuning out the campaign began to tune in to the frantic campaigning ahead of the Jan. 3 caucuses.

A Clinton adviser maintains that "the perception is finally catching up with reality," and says that her campaign always knew Iowa would be iffy despite her lofty national polls. "Bill Clinton had never campaigned here, and Iowa is a state that's all about relationships," the adviser said. "Hillary had to start from scratch in building those relationships, and we started off here behind the curve. It's a three-way dogfight."

The latest Real Clear Politics average for polls of Iowa Democrats shows Obama in second place at 25%, sandwiched between Clinton (27.3%) and Edwards (22%).

But the energy in the state over the weekend was clearly between Obama and Clinton, both of whom made little mention of Edwards, despite the organizational strengths he continues to boast here as a result of his 2004 presidential run.

Both campaigns are now scrambling to build organizations in every precinct and county - even ones that have few Democrats. And any sense that Iowa will be a free-kick, first step toward a unstoppable Clinton nomination seems to be gone. At least for now.

As an Obama official put it, the state is going to have "a caucus, not a coronation."

By Mike Allen and Carrie B. Brown, The Politico, November 26, 2007

DES MOINES - In Iowa, 'tis the season for TV pitches, political and commercial. By the time Iowans ring in the New Year, they may be sick of both.

An earlier date for Iowa's caucuses probably means presidential candidates will run more television ads from mid-November through December, the height of the Christmas shopping season when retailers want to promote sales.

Moving the caucuses up 11 days to Jan. 3 also will force candidates to pay top dollar for TV ads over the holidays and soften their messages to avoid violating the serenity of the season. The same equation applies in New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary will follow the Iowa caucuses five days later.

"This is just like adding a hailstorm to a hurricane," said Evan Tracey, who tracks political advertising as chief operating officer for TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group. "You've got a 16-deep field of candidates, interest groups and everybody else that's all going to want the same time."

The schedule presents a conundrum for the presidential campaigns. Political advertising has a tendency to become more negative closer to an election as candidates seek to contrast themselves with their rivals.

"Attack ads don't necessarily blend well with Santa Claus and holiday cheer," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic media strategist who ran Howard Dean's presidential ad campaign in 2003 and 2004.

What's more, in a field with many candidates, negative advertising can backfire. "If candidate A attacks candidate B, it's often not candidate A who benefits. It's candidate C or D or E," McMahon said.

He should know. In 2003, Dean was the target of negative advertising from liberal and conservative independent groups in Iowa and then engaged in tit-for-tat attack ads with Dick Gephardt. The result was that John Kerry won the Iowa caucuses and John Edwards came in second.

To avoid such a scenario, candidates may count on independent groups to do the dirty work during the holidays. The Federal Election Commission on Tuesday opened the way for corporations and unions to finance political ad campaigns in the closing days of an election, provided they focus on a public policy issue. But those issue ads still can target a candidate, and campaign finance experts are counting on a barrage to hit the Iowa and New Hampshire airwaves next month. The only question facing any independent groups is whether there are enough time slots available for a 30-second or 60-second TV spot.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines, predicted that campaigns would run positive ads promoting candidates until Christmas, then switch to a tougher tone in the week leading to the caucuses.

"There's not much of a window there between Christmas spirit and caucus battle," Goldford said. "There's a certain amount of guesswork because we haven't been in this position before."

Tim Albrecht, a spokesman for Republican Mitt Romney, said all the campaigns will work to design ads that stand out while also remaining appropriate for the holiday season. "With the holiday ads and the added retailers, no doubt it's going to be a bit more cluttered this time than maybe years past," he said.

Campaigns strategists say they worry more about turning voters off in Iowa, where attending caucuses requires effort and commitment.

Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said New Hampshire voters understand that politics will intrude on their holiday. "I expect candidates will work the Communion line at St. Joe's on Christmas Eve," he joked. "New Hampshire voters take the process seriously and they fully expect to be in the thick of politics during the holiday season and that includes contrasting message. It won't harm candidates if they run aggressive campaigns."

All this costs money. Television stations must provide air time to federal election candidates beginning 45 days before an election. If candidates pay top rate, they can grab a specific time slot and bump other advertisers who had the space reserved.

Saying no to local advertisers puts stations in a difficult position, but most business people understand, said Steve Lake, national sales manager at KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids. "Most of them have been through this before and they understand we can only do what we can do," Lake said. "There's quite a bit of displacement that goes on." Lake said bumped advertisers usually are offered a spot elsewhere in the station's schedule with a comparable rating, but with only so many hours in the day, some advertisers will be out of luck. The pressure will build as front-running candidates boost their ad buys and lesser-known candidates go for broke, he said.

Paul Fredericksen, general manager of KCCI-TV in Des Moines, said all the station can do is seek a balance between political buyers and retailers during the expected holiday crunch. "One thing we always keep in mind is that political is temporary and retail is something that is a livelihood day in and day out," Fredericksen said. "But at the same time on the political side, there are certain rules and regulations we have to comply with."

Station managers expect many candidates will pay top rates to ensure sought-after time slots, given a campaign season that already has set TV advertising spending records.

Both Romney and Democrat Barack Obama have spent at least $4 million each for ads in Iowa. Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson also have exceeded the more than $2.5 million that Kerry spent in the state in 2003 and 2004.

Associated Press, November 27, 2007

Who's rich? Who's middle-class? How can you tell the difference? By the "upper class," do we mean the yacht-club set, the ascot-wearing folks with lockjaw diction? Or does the upper class include all those harried, two-income suburban families who somehow burn through 200 grand a year and fret about orthodontist bills?

Class, always an awkward topic in the United States, made a cameo appearance at a recent candidates debate in Las Vegas.

Democratic presidential contenders Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sparred over tax policy and quickly got entangled in the question of whether someone making more than $97,000 a year is middle-class or upper-class.

That's upper-class, Obama said. Not necessarily, Clinton suggested.

Former Sen. John Edwards didn't join in this particular discussion, but since his initial announcement almost a year ago in New Orleans, he has been the bluntest of all the candidates in describing a country divided between the haves and the have-nots.

Government statistics show that most households' income has declined, in inflation-adjusted dollars, since 2000. Many workers' jobs have been outsourced to other countries, even as a new class of tycoons, the managers of hedge funds, has found a way to pay only a 15 percent marginal tax rate.

Still, if there are political opportunities here for Democrats, there are also hazards. Candidates don't want to lose votes by advocating a tax increase on the not-really-that-rich. The basic question: Who, exactly, can afford to pay more? Who is rich?

The tax question

Discussions about taxes usually have a class subtext. For instance, Republicans generally want to preserve or expand President Bush's tax cuts, which lowered marginal rates across the board but gave the largest benefits in real dollars to the richest Americans.

The exchange between Obama and Clinton began when the senator from Illinois said he was open to adjusting the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That's the tax that the government prefers to call a "contribution" to Social Security. Under current law, a worker pays a flat percentage (and employers match it) of wages up to $97,500. Wages beyond that aren't taxed.

Clinton responded by saying that lifting the payroll tax would mean a trillion-dollar tax increase, adding that she did not want to "fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors."

Obama replied: "Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So 6 percent is not the middle-class. It is the upper-class."

Clinton: "It is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors."

Obama doesn't want to lift the payroll cap entirely, according to one of his campaign's senior advisers. Rather, Obama has said he would consider a "doughnut hole" arrangement, in which people would not have to pay any additional payroll tax until they had made at least $250,000 or $300,000. The adviser said of Obama: "He has always said that the people he expects to pay their fair share are households with income above $250,000."

Clinton has cited that same figure, saying households with income above $250,000 can pay the marginal rates set in the 1990s when her husband was president. She would also give married couples with estates worth less than $7 million an exemption from the estate tax.

Tuition or horses?

As for how people see themselves, location is key.

Online calculators allow anyone to make an instant city-to-city cost-of-living comparison. One such Web site calculates that someone making $97,500 in Washington, D.C., could live just as comfortably on $67,846 in Ames, Iowa.

Median household income in America in 2006 was $48,201, which, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1999.

Edward Wolff, a professor of economics at New York University, thinks that the middle class in a major city includes people in households with incomes from $40,000 to $100,000. From there, up to $200,000, people are "upper-middle-class." They all have difficult financial issues to contend with, from health-care costs to college tuition.

"Financial stress: That's the key ingredient," Wolff said.

People making $200,000 to $350,000, he says, could be considered rich, but they still have to slog to work every day. To be really rich, in Wolff's scholarly judgment, you need not only an income upward of $350,000 a year - you also need at least $10 million in accumulated wealth.

"These are people who can basically live off their wealth and don't have to work. You're talking about the top half of 1 percent," Wolff said.

Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, said that no one knows the exact parameters of the middle class, but that in general they are defined by what he calls an "aspirational package."

"The middle-class aspirations include a decent home in a good neighborhood with a good school, and the ability to save for college and to make sure that your children have the opportunities to put themselves on a path to match or exceed yours," Bernstein said. "If you're upper-class, you think about whether you want to move your horse from one barn to another barn."

Robert Frank, who covers the rich as a full-time beat for The Wall Street Journal, said being rich comes with certain requirements:

"You have to have at least two homes," Frank said. "You have to have a household staff of some kind, and/or a personal assistant. You send your kids to private schools. You give to charity and attend charitable events. And you travel. You travel globally. You go to Europe at least once a year, and perhaps Asia."

Or even conquer gravity itself, he said.

"The new status symbol for the rich," Frank said, "is going to space."

The Seattle Times, November 27, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will propose steps today to strengthen the government's strategy to battle H.I.V. and AIDS in the United States and the rest of the world, becoming the latest Democratic presidential candidate to commit to a significant expansion of federal efforts to combat the epidemic.

Mrs. Clinton's two main rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, have already released plans of their own. Taking Mrs. Clinton's into account, the three approaches are similar in terms of spending, goals and differences with President Bush's AIDS policy.

Like her rivals, Mrs. Clinton proposed spending at least $50 billion cumulatively on global initiatives to combat H.I.V. and AIDS by 2013; the Bush administration has budgeted $30 billion for that period. She would also double money for H.I.V./AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health to $5.2 billion annually.

Mr. Edwards, in a plan released in September, promises to "strengthen" financing for such research. Mr. Obama, who put out parts of his plan at different times this year, said he would "expand" such financing.

The three candidates would also not limit prevention strategies to abstinence-only sex education, as Mr. Bush has emphasized.

According to a paper outlining the Clinton plan, which her campaign provided, Mrs. Clinton supports giving young people "age-appropriate information about H.I.V./AIDS and how to protect themselves against it." She also backs federal financing for needle exchange programs, as do Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama.

H.I.V. infections have plateaued at an estimated 40,000 new ones in the United States annually for about a decade. Mrs. Clinton said in the paper that she would work toward "significantly reducing the number of new infections" and would set measurable goals and timelines for increasing prevention efforts and expanding access to treatment.

Mr. Obama's approach to reducing new cases is almost identical to what Mrs. Clinton proposes.

Mr. Edwards has said his strategy would include holding his administration's health and human services secretary "accountable" for issuing an annual H.I.V./AIDS report that shows progress on Mr. Edwards's goals. He also has said he would appoint a "strong" director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy.

All three candidates also pledge to provide and improve medical care for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, chiefly through multibillion-dollar health insurance programs that each has proposed this year.

Mrs. Clinton, who will discuss her plan today while campaigning in South Carolina, thinks that the federal strategy for fighting H.I.V. and AIDS is diffuse and uncoordinated, campaign advisers said.

Strategies to combat AIDS have not been a major point of discussion among the leading Republican presidential candidates. But some of them have talked on the campaign trail about the need to do more.

At a town-hall-style meeting Saturday in Nashua, N.H., former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York said he would add to the money that Mr. Bush has provided to combat AIDS in Africa. He said he would also give aid to fight malaria and try to help Africa by increasing trade and commerce between the United States and its nations.

By Patrick Healy and Lawrence K. Altman, The New York Times, November 27, 2007

Suddenly, women I respect are pulling back on Hillary, and I'm wondering if our gender truly isn't ready for the world's most powerful job.

"She is so strident," says one woman.

"Her voice annoys me," says another.

"She is so rawly ambitious that it's unbecoming," says a third, "even though everybody I know, including me, is ambitious."

Someone else says: "There's a warmth factor. And a Bill factor. And a trust factor. She seems so politically correct. Could she be a fearless leader?"

And a fourth says, "I just can't stop thinking about Vince Foster."

Vince Foster?!?

Vince Foster, folks, was the White House aide who, in 1993, killed himself in the woods. Clinton-haters started rumors that he was murdered, that he and Hillary were involved, blah blah blah.

Oh my.

Getting foggy

Are we succumbing, again, to what one friend calls the fog machine?

"I recall Ken Kesey's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' " she wrote to me, "where Nurse Ratched, the despicable controller of the ward at the mental institution, would switch on" the figurative "fog machine and all the inmates would be baffled, confused, looking to Nurse for directions.

"The fog machine, emanating from Fox News, and the Republican band of dirty tricksters, seems to accomplish the same with any front-running Democratic candidate. Al Gore was soooo wooden. Bright man, socially correct, but could you stand him as president when he seems so dull? Same guy, few years later, is a Nobel Prize winner, Academy Award winner, and a mighty engaging speaker. Kerry flip-flopped, just couldn't trust the guy to do much right except sailboarding.

"Look to the media fog with Hillary. It isn't personal. It isn't gender or color. It is simply what makes us doubt what a moment ago seemed mighty clear."

Clearing up

What remains clear to me is that Hillary has worked most of her life -- apart from a few days off to bake cookies -- to effect positive change in this world. She has recast her failed health care plan from a few years ago; it is not perfect, but it is better than what she proposed before, and much better than what we have now.

She has been a quiet and moderate bridge-builder in the U.S. Senate. She has earned respect across the aisle. And she has an insider's understanding of the workings of the presidency, and 24/7 connections to people who know more than she does.

But perhaps we're still afraid: afraid of success. That she will win but fail. That she will win but embarrass us.

We might also be deeply, subconsciously afraid that a female president, by shattering the highest glass ceiling, would demand more of us. We would have to lay down the comforting cape of oppression, the one that allows us now to roll our eyes and sigh, "Men rule this country."

No, we are not ready for a female president. But, as a wise friend suggests, "In life, we're never ready for anything until we get it."

By Susan Ager, Detroit Free Press, November 27, 2007

Talk Show Host, Former President Back Democratic Rivals

Both are legendary communicators, perhaps the two greatest in their generation. Both helped build an ethic of empathy, turning the public confession into a rite of passage. Both are world-renowned -- one for being a former president, the other for a TV show usually identified just by her first name.

And now, Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey are set to square off, in Iowa, campaigning for their favorite candidates.

The looming showdown between Clinton (who arrives here on Tuesday to campaign for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton) and Winfrey (who appears in two weeks to campaign for Sen. Barack Obama), besides marking a rare collision of talent and fame on the campaign trail, is a sign of just how competitive the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses have become, especially when it comes to attracting female voters.

"They are perfect closers for this campaign that is becoming a nail-biter," said Donna Brazile, a consultant to Democratic candidate Al Gore in 2000 who is neutral in this race.

Winfrey's appearance, announced by the Obama campaign on Monday, is significant on several fronts. The talk show host had never endorsed a presidential candidate. More important, Winfrey -- ranked by Forbes magazine as one of the most powerful voices in public life, the host of the top-ranked television talk show for more than two decades with a track record of moving millions of books on her suggestion alone -- is arguably the only person capable of countering Hillary Clinton's most empathetic surrogate.

The Clinton campaign, which has been engaged in an increasingly nasty war of words with Obama, seemed almost respectful when asked about Winfrey's appearance. "We're fans, and we think it's great that she is participating in the process," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. "Everyone has wonderful supporters. We are proud of ours, but at the end of the day voters will determine which candidate has the strength and experience to make change happen on Day One."

Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former senator John Edwards, who is in a three-way tie with Clinton and Obama in the caucuses here, said: "John Edwards's 80-page 'Plan to Build One America' may not show up on Oprah's Book Club anytime soon, but we think voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will value the specifics in that book just as much as a visit from any big celebrities."

But the Edwards campaign is not above sending its own celebrities in search of female voters. The campaign recently dispatched a group of women -- ranging from his daughter Cate and abortion rights activist Kate Michelman to singer Bonnie Raitt -- onto the trail, where his campaign frequently boasts of 1,500 named female supporters in Iowa alone.

Clinton has put gender at the center of her candidacy and almost always surrounds herself with women, both prominent and not, on the campaign trail; traveling here on Sunday, she put Christie Vilsack, the well-known wife of the former governor, in view of the cameras as she talked to reporters. On Monday, the campaign announced that Susan Lynch, the wife of New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, will be among her supporters.

She also has the support of the advocacy group Emily's List, which announced a statewide drive to turn out female voters for Clinton. The announcement asserted that, in 2004, "more than 80 percent of active Democratic women did not attend" the caucuses, and that so far this year, that same pocket of women -- the ones less likely to attend on caucus night -- "give the greatest margin of support" to Clinton.

That is in keeping with the Clinton campaign's view that it will perform well if it can turn out people, particularly women, who did not participate last time or who have never participated. Still, Obama is running about even in Iowa with Clinton among women, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. At the national level, Clinton has greater support from women.

Michele Obama, the candidate's wife, is also planning swings through Iowa on Wednesday and Thursday, further proof that he is ceding no ground to Clinton when it comes to female voters.

The appearance of the former president comes on the heels of an increasingly heated debate over how much credit Clinton can claim for having served as first lady. In an interview with ABC that was slated to air Monday night, Obama made his most dismissive comments to date about Clinton's efforts to count those years as "experience."

"I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said. "There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle if there were issues," Obama said. "On the other had, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

By Anne E. Kornblut, The Washington Post, November 27, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was asked at nearly all her Iowa campaign stops over the weekend how she would deal with illegal aliens, and she responded with a call for "comprehensive immigration reform."

It's a question all the presidential candidates face in Iowa and elsewhere. The Republicans incorporate immigration reform into their stump speeches, while the Democrats rarely mention it unless they are asked. But they are almost always asked.

At an event in Sioux City, fifth-grade teacher Dave Lillie asked Mrs. Clinton to pledge health care coverage for illegal aliens, noting that he sees the problems resulting from a broken system every day at work.

"I have not included people who are undocumented in my health care plan," she responded, adding that she supports a safety net to prevent the spread of disease.

After the event, Mr. Lillie said he felt Mrs. Clinton had dodged his question. "She did not answer me," he told The Washington Times. "I think she said what people wanted to hear. Every candidate says what they need to so they can get elected."

Others asked the former first lady about her position on "securing our borders" and her "approach to Mexico" and the immigration system.

The senator said she wants reform that allows illegals to earn citizenship and "cracks down" on employers who hire illegals, "Practically the only thing we can do is to get people to come out of the shadows," she said. "I want to know who is here."

Mrs. Clinton usually adds that she would support a mandate that illegals seeking citizenship pay a fine, pay back taxes and "learn English," a line that gets loud applause each time.

She also invoked the September 11 hijackers as examples of aliens who overstayed their legal visas, calling border security an issue she takes "extremely personally."

Mrs. Clinton criticized "demagogues" who call for deportation of the nation's illegals. She said such an idea would be costly and unrealistic, and would amount to "basically knocking on every door" and creating "essentially a police state."

"I don't see that ever working in this country," she said, predicting it would be "a matter of hours before Americans were outraged. ... The smart and best thing to do is to ask people to come out of the shadows to register them."

Iowa polls show that immigration is a top issue. Republican candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is running an ad in Iowa saying open borders make the nation vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

"There are consequences to open borders beyond the 20 million aliens who've come to take our jobs," the ad states, as a man in a hooded sweat shirt leaves a bomb in a crowded area. After the narrator laments "spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill," an explosion sounds.

Some Iowans say the rhetoric has become too heated. The Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition is collecting signatures for a petition urging presidential candidates "to stand with our immigrant neighbors who have come to the United States from throughout the world."

The Grace United Methodist Church in Des Moines, where Mrs. Clinton attended services Sunday, is gathering signatures. The coalition will present about 3,000 petition signatures to each candidate next week.

"We want to change the conversation," said Connie Ryan Terrell, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. "Regardless of what we think about immigration reform and policy, we should always start with the idea that people should be treated with dignity."

By Christina Bellantoni, The Washington Times, November 27, 2007

Susan Lynch, the wife of Democratic Gov. John Lynch, waded into the presidential primary race yesterday with an endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The announcement - which took place in a room crowded with Clinton's prominent state supporters - came as John Lynch reaffirmed his intention to stay on the sidelines.

The governor will "continue to focus on being a good host to the primary," said Colin Manning, the governor's spokesman. "He intends to remain neutral."

But with John Lynch steering clear of the presidential endorsement game, yesterday's announcement was the closest a candidate has come to being aligned with the governor. Susan Lynch will serve as a co-chairwoman of Clinton's national campaign.

"It allows the governor flexibility - he doesn't have to officially come out and endorse anyone - but the understanding of support is there," said Wayne Lesperance, an associate professor of political science at New England College. "If he does endorse somebody that doesn't win and some other candidate feels particularly burned by it, that could affect the state negatively in the future."

For a historical model, several political analysts pointed to the 2004 Iowa caucuses. Christie Vilsack, whose husband, Tom Vilsack, was at the time Iowa's governor, publicly endorsed John Kerry, then running for the Democratic nomination. Her husband remained, at least officially, neutral.

Speaking in the carriage house of the Kimball-Jenkins Estate in Concord yesterday afternoon, Susan Lynch framed her support largely in terms of health care. A pediatrician at Concord Hospital's cholesterol treatment center, Susan Lynch has frequently used her position as first lady to raise awareness of childhood obesity and promote exercise and healthy eating habits.

Saying that she and Clinton "share a lifelong commitment" to providing health care for children and families, Susan Lynch described Clinton as "the candidate who can finally succeed in this area." She commended Clinton's plan to extend health insurance to all Americans and enhance disease prevention as "uniquely American: It focuses on quality, on prevention and on choice."

Although Susan Lynch has held public events since her husband was elected governor, she tends to avoid the political spotlight. Announcing her endorsement of Clinton, Susan Lynch alluded to her affinity for staying out of political contests.

"As first lady, pediatrician and most importantly a mother, I do not take my endorsement lightheartedly. And in fact, short of my husband's own campaign, I have never chosen to publicly participate in a political campaign," she said. In 2004, Lynch supported Howard Dean, albeit in a far less public role: She joined nearly 300 other "Doctors for Dean" in New Hampshire, according to the Clinton campaign.

After Susan Lynch spoke, Clinton returned the favor, calling her "a friend" who "embodies that problem-solving commitment that I admire so much." In September, Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on a public outing with the Lynches to the Hopkinton State Fair. Last year, Bill Clinton joined Susan Lynch at a Manchester forum to raise awareness about childhood obesity.

Reeling off a list of health-related bills passed during John Lynch's tenure, Hillary Clinton described the Lynch administration as having "a bipartisan approach to nonpartisan problems. It's a real breath of fresh air, and while some in Washington believe that's not possible, Dr. Lynch and Gov. Lynch have proved them wrong."

"I'm so honored to have by my side in this campaign, and a telephone call away when I'm president to provide advice and guidance and a real world perspective, Dr. Susan Lynch," Clinton said.

The endorsement provided an opportunity for Clinton to summarize her health care proposal, which is aimed at providing coverage to all Americans. "I think we are up to the challenge of lowering costs for everyone, improving quality for everyone and covering everyone. And we should not settle for half measures," Clinton said.

Clinton's comments came amid an ongoing disagreement between Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over whether to mandate health insurance. Clinton would make coverage mandatory, and she argues that Obama's plan - which doesn't include a mandate - wouldn't cover all Americans. "The difference is my health plan covers every American and Sen. Obama's plan will not," she told the Associated Press.

Obama, meanwhile, argues that before mandating insurance, coverage must be affordable. "This is yet another issue where she's not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance," Obama told the Associated Press.

It's unclear how much clout Susan Lynch's endorsement carries.

"It's more symbolic than anything else," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. "The governor's endorsement, I think, is the only one that really matters in and of itself," Scala said, citing John Lynch's high approval ratings and the fact that he's up for re-election every two years, forcing him to campaign and keeping him in the minds of New Hampshire voters.

But if Susan Lynch won't necessarily win Clinton votes, she "is representative of a block of voters who I think are key, and that's well-educated, professional, upper middle class women," Scala said.

Susan Lynch's endorsement, several local Clinton supporters said yesterday, doesn't necessarily reflect on her husband's political leanings.

"I think the governor has his own work to do, and I think in this day and age we recognize that women have their own opinions and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're following their husbands' lead," said Senate President Sylvia Larsen, a Concord Democrat and early supporter of Clinton's.

Mary Louise Hancock, a longtime Clinton supporter and prominent Concord Democrat, called Susan Lynch "a very strong-minded, intelligent, informed woman."

But John Lynch was right to stay neutral, said Hancock, who waited at the event to hand Clinton a Susan B. Anthony dollar, which she won as an award years ago. "This will give her luck," Hancock said.

"He's the state's peacemaker," Hancock said. "So why make people unhappy over these choices?"

By Sarah Liebowitz, The Concord Monitor, November 27, 2007

DENVER - Colorado Democratic Congresswoman Diana DeGette has endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential bid and will be a campaign adviser on stem-cell research policy.

Clinton's campaign said Monday that DeGette will co-chair Clinton's Health Care Policy Task Force.

DeGette has been leading proponent of federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research in hopes of curing such diseases as cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's.

DeGette's endorsement makes her the first Democrat in Colorado's Democratic delegation to formally endorse a presidential candidate.

Among Colorado Republicans, Congressman Tom Tancredo is running for president and Senator Wayne Allard is backing Mitt Romney.




FOX News, November 26, 2007

With the Iowa caucus just over a month away, CBS News anchor Katie Couric sat down for an exclusive interview with Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She's the woman on everyone's mind right now. But polls in Iowa are showing the race could shape up to be very close. Couric asked Clinton if she's lowering her expectations as the primary approaches.

"I never raised them, you know when I got into race at the beginning of the year. I wasn't even in double-digits. I was so far behind in Iowa it was embarrassing," Clinton said.

Her campaign instead is "encouraged" she said, because "we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race."

"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," she said.

Couric asked Clinton: "Many of Barack Obama's supporters were urging him to be more aggressive and to fight back a little more when it came to your candidacy. It seems as if in recent days you've returned the favor; you've taken off the gloves a bit. And some people are interpreting that as your campaign being pretty nervous..."

"That's not the case at all. Campaigns have rhythm. And we're now down to end. We're going to have a mad dash to Iowa caucuses, turn around and have a mad dash to New Hampshire and then keep going," she said.

Has the Clinton campaign gotten more aggressive?

"It's time. I have absorbed a lot of attacks for several months now - my opponents have basically had a free reign," she said. "After you've been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you can't just absorb it, you have to respond. "But a lot of the attacks have been quite persistent, shall we say," she said. "Hardly a day goes by when I'm not attacked."

Clinton said she wants voters to know how her plans - particularly health care - stack up against those of other candidates.

"I figure it's about time now for me to draw contrasts, which I think are pretty important to voters," she said. "And that's what I'm going to do."

She distinguished Obama's plan from those of her Democratic opponents.

"All of us except Sen. Obama have universal health care ..." Clinton said. "I want people to know that."

It was announced Monday that Oprah Winfrey would be campaigning with Obama in three key states. "How do you feel about that?" Couric asked. "I think it's great ... I'm proud to have a lot of very distinguished Americans [supporting me]," Clinton said.

Is she concerned Obama will get a major boost from Winfrey's enthusiastic fan base? "No," Clinton said. "At the end of the day it's among us as candidates. People will make their judgments. I'm proud to have my husband support me. It's wonderful to have someone with his knowledge and experience and incredible ability vouch for me campaign for me."

"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.

"Well, it will be me," she said.

But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. "We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate."

Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?

"No, I haven't," Clinton said.




CBS News, November 26, 2007

To win the Democratic nomination for President, Barack Obama still needs the same thing he has needed all along - for voters to see him as ready to be commander in chief by January 2009. So now the question is: Will appearing at weekend campaign rallies with Oprah Winfrey help him achieve that goal?

Mark me down as more than a bit skeptical.

Winfrey's endorsement - and her announcement that she will appear with Obama at campaign events in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire on December 8 and 9 - helps bring the following four things to Obama: campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.

The four things that Obama has on his own in great abundance - without Winfrey's help - are campaign cash, celebrity, excitement and big crowds.

It might seem that the support and upcoming appearances of Winfrey are surely a net plus for Obama. His campaign manager David Plouffe tells TIME that she is a "transcendent figure," who has avoided sullying herself in politics before and, thus, will provide "a newness and freshness" in appealing to the female and older voters whom Obama is trying to reach.

Without question, Winfrey's foray onto the campaign trail will get Obama more publicity and a chance to convert her fans into Obama supporters.

But a more important event for his chances of winning might actually be taking place on Tuesday of this week, when he appears in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with some of his top foreign policy advisers for a forum with local residents. Joining Obama will be Bill Clinton's former national security adviser Tony Lake, along with Richard Danzig, Susan Rice, Samantha Power (a TIME contributor), and Sarah Sewall, as well as some prominent New Hampshire retired military officials. It was just this kind of event that Bill Clinton used effectively in his 1992 campaign to convince voters that he was ready to be commander in chief.

None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey - or particularly famous at all. But their validation - that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security - could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do.

In polls and focus groups, voters continue to express doubts about Obama's readiness for the presidency, particularly when compared with Clinton. Some analysts have taken to saying that "experience" is a threshold question — that Obama does not need to be seen as more ready than Clinton, just ready enough to do the job. That might be true (or it might not), but the evidence suggests that many voters still have reservations about the Illinois Senator. And the Clinton campaign plainly intends to do what it can to undermine her rival on this very point between now and January.

So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters.

In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be - dare it be said - counterproductive.

By Karen Tumulty, Time, November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Political observers say Oprah Winfrey's decision to campaign with Sen. Barack Obama could help him made inroads into what many consider Sen. Hillary Clinton's natural constituency: women.

In a move that may lead voters, particularly women, to take a second look at Obama, the talk show host will join the Democratic presidential candidate on the campaign trail December 8 and 9, Obama's campaign announced. Winfrey will join Obama during campaign stops in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the campaign said. The appearances come just weeks before the crucial Iowa caucus on January 3.

"Oprah takes the idea of a celebrity endorsement to a whole new level. She's not just a superstar. She's a nova," Democratic strategist Jenny Backus told CNN. "She's not just a Hollywood celebrity. In fact, she's really not Hollywood. She's like the voice of America. I mean, she is someone that more American women and men tune into every day."

Speaking reporters in Littleton, New Hampshire, Monday, Obama called Winfrey "a great friend," adding "obviously she is beloved across the country."

"Campaigns are not just about issues and policy but about bringing people together and this creates excitement and an event and hopefully we can attract some people who might not otherwise be interested in politics," Obama said.

Obama, an Illinois Democrat, currently trails Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination by nearly 20 points in a national CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted November 2-4.

Obama could close that gap with Clinton if he gets more women, who make up between 52 and 54 percent of Democratic voters, to back his candidacy. "Hillary Clinton simply seems to be the women's candidate regardless of race," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "I think that's what Obama may really be trying to reach is women -- not white women or black women or any particular race, just women in general. "Married women, women with children -- those are the ones who tend to turn out and vote," Holland said. "Those are the ones that sort of have more at stake so they're more willing and eager to go out and vote in primaries and the general election. That tends to be the Oprah audience."

In Iowa Obama is in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, a New York Democrat, and former Sen. John Edwards from North Carolina in Iowa, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted November 14-18, 2007.

While Winfrey's campaign stops will generate interest in Iowa, Political Science Professor Stephen Schmidt of Iowa State University doubted it will dynamically change the race, saying "Iowans never follow the lead of people who come and tell them how to vote."

But, Schmidt said, Winfrey may influence Iowans to talk to their friends who are supporting Obama and take a look at him. "It will keep attention on Obama and people will ask why someone as busy as Oprah Winfrey is campaigning for Obama," he said.

Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report agrees Winfrey is unlikely to change the overall dynamics of the Democratic race.

"I think certainly Oprah can get Sen. Obama some extra media attention, including on shows that don't normally cover politics. She can help him raise some money," Rothenberg said. "But ultimately the Democratic race comes down to Iowa and New Hampshire and voters in those two states, and they probably aren't going to pay a lot of attention to her endorsement."

"It's a good endorsement, it's a plus," Rothenberg said, "but it's a plus only in the margins."

CNN, November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new poll Monday showed Democrat Hillary Clinton losing a general election to all top Republican White House hopefuls, in a new sign that biting political attacks may be harming her 2008 campaign.

The Zogby International hypothetical 2008 matchup, reversing months of Clinton dominance over the Republican field, came as her camp battled in an ugly new spat with her top Democratic rival Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator meanwhile said chat show queen Oprah Winfrey would sprinkle showbiz stardust on his campaign in a three-state swing in December, as the race heated up just 38 days before Iowa's leadoff caucus nominating contests.

He also issued a sarcastic appraisal of Clinton's claims of top level political experience, during her eight years at husband Bill Clinton's side as first lady between 1993 and 2001. "Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast later Monday.

He compared conversations between the former president and his wife with his own talks with his own spouse. "I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

The Clinton campaign hit back hard, driving home her argument that Obama would need "on the job training" in the White House.

"Considering that Senator Obama was a state senator just three years ago, he is the last person to be questioning anyone's experience," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

"If he is elected, he would have less experience than any American president of the 20th century."

The Zogby poll reopened a simmering debate in the Democratic presidential field over which candidate has the best chance to beat a Republican in the general election showdown in November 2008.

In hypothetical 2008 matchups, it showed Clinton trailed Senator John McCain 42 percent to 38 percent, ex mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani by 43 percent to 40 percent and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 43 to 40 percent.

She also lagged behind former Arkansas Republican governor Mike Huckabee by 44 to 39 percent, and former Senator Fred Thompson by 44 to 40 percent.

Clinton's top Democratic challengers Obama and John Edwards however would still beat their hypothetical Republican rivals in potential 2008 contests, the poll showed.

In July, Clinton held a five point lead in the same poll over Giuliani, edged out McCain by two points and had a clear lead over other contenders.

A Rasmussen poll last week had Clinton also falling behind Giuliani in a November 2008 matchup and narrowly beaten by McCain.

An average of all previous similar polls however gives Clinton a narrow lead over possible Republican candidates, and the former first lady still leads most state and national polls.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week in Iowa however gave Obama the slimmest of leads over her and former vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

Clinton has repeatedly portrayed herself as the most electable Democrat after years standing up to what she calls the "Republican attack machine."

The temperature of the Democratic race hit boiling point eight days ago with an innocuous item by a conservative columnist suggesting Clinton had "scandalous" information on Obama. Obama immediately called on Clinton to dish the dirt, or disown it, escalating a row which ended with her camp accusing him of falling for Republican tricks.

Clinton then mocked his suggestion that his boyhood years living in Indonesia had given him a more nuanced worldview.

The Zogby poll was conducted online among 9,150 likely voters across the United States between November 21 and 26, and carried a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point.

By Stephen Collinson, AFP, November 26, 2007

My Thanksgiving was bookended by Iowa: Monday-Wednesday there with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; Thursday-Friday at my parents' home in Boston; Saturday-Sunday there with post-holiday Hillary. This meant keeping pace with an atypical load of logistics.

The Clinton campaign has a responsive crew of aides that make reporters' traveling lives easier. One of them, Jamie Smith, is somehow managing to plan a New Year's Eve wedding while also wrangling the press corps from Event A to B to C.

At times you feel infantilized by a campaign operation - they feed you (on your own dime), they tell you when to go to the press bus, they shuttle you around and transport you to a heavenly bed (or not-so-heavenly) at the end of the day. But the Clinton camp, at least, does it with a minimum of fuss and bossiness.

The Monday before Thanksgiving, we found ourselves at the Drake Diner in Des Moines, for one of those photo opportunities where the fakery quotient is high.

First Mrs. Clinton walked in and shook hands with people eating breakfast. Fine. Then she and her companions - General Wesley Clark and Christie Vilsack, the former Iowa first lady, - sat down at the lunch counter and ate their own breakfast. They did this as television cameramen, photographers and reporters stood about six feet away and watched. And watched, and watched. Mrs. Clinton and her friends chit-chatted as if it were just another day, conveying an image of normalcy in the most pre-staged of settings.

My colleague Jason Horowitz, of the New York Observer, wrote a very funny blog item about the inanity of their conversation, as they swapped questions and answers about carbon dioxide and biofuels.

This is no knock on Mrs. Clinton; all campaigns and candidates do photo ops like this. And reporters would rather see her than not. But it would've been nice if it had been a less guarded moment, if there had some recognition that the whole thing was a little over-produced, if there had been more chatty asides. Mrs. Clinton is very funny, including about the absurdities of politics. Not that she needs a better relationship with the media, necessarily, but she is good company when that side of her comes out.

A Small but Merry Band The Iowa caucuses are barely six weeks away, and I'm surprised to see so few national print reporters here; it's just me and the Observer reporter. (Of course, there are plenty of trips that I've foregone and other national reporters have covered.) Maybe it's the holiday; maybe it's the high expense of covering this long, long campaign season; maybe it's a lull in the news.

Whatever the reason, our small band of reporters (which includes a few from television) decide to travel together in a van, which the campaign arranges. A few campaign aides come along.

There are pluses and minuses to this.

Pluses: You can get information and quotes from the campaign very quickly; you can keep up with the Clinton motorcade more easily; you can work, chill out, or sleep rather than drive; and you have companions and more laughs.

Minuses: There's no privacy, so it's difficult to make phone calls to rival campaigns or sources without everyone being able to hear you. It's hard enough for the person on the other end of the phone to hear you inside a van; whispering rarely works, and cupping your hand over your mouth and phone as you try to type is far from ideal.

We tooled from small town to town that Monday. Little memorable happens in long hours of driving. At one stop light we passed a person who held a sign, asking for help; as we idled, our campaign wrangler, Jamie Smith, rolled down the window and gave the person some money. One member of our traveling band asked Jamie if she had handed off Hillary Clinton literature. We drove on.

Homeward Bound Like millions of other Americans traveling last week, there were dozens of political reporters trying to get off the campaign trail and home for Thanksgiving. And no one was immune from snags. On Tuesday, hours after Senator Clinton's campaign plane hit a fog bank in Shenandoah, Iowa, and failed twice to land, United Airlines scrubbed my nighttime flight from Des Moines-Chicago-Boston. I sat in the rental car lot typing a story with two hands while cradling a cell phone on my shoulder to book a new flight.

An hour later, the desk clerk at the Des Moines Marriott was surprised to see my face again. "Weather," I said, though I was keenly aware that the night sky over Iowa was starry and still at that point.

Family Politics I eventually made it home, only to find - no surprise - that everyone wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton. I just wanted 24 hours away. But I had missed my family and wasn't about to tell them that I didn't want to talk about what she was really like behind the scenes, whether she was funny, how she exercised (my brother is a personal trainer), and if she could actually win the general election.

One relative also asked the table to write down their predictions for the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets next fall and the ultimate winners. (I, as reporter-boy, did not partake.) The results were totally unscientific and provocative in a huh-what-are-you-thinking way. Some highlights:

Hillary Clinton-Mark Warner vs. Mitt Romney-Mike Huckabee, with Mrs. Clinton winning;

Al Gore-Mrs. Clinton (!!) vs. Mr. Romney-Mike Bloomberg, with Mr. Gore winning;

Mrs. Clinton-Evan Bayh vs. Romney-Huckabee, with the Republicans winning;

Clinton-Bloomberg vs. Romney-Huckabee, with Mrs. Clinton winning (though the problem here is that two residents of the same state cannot be on the same ticket);

Barack Obama-Gore vs. John McCain-Romney, with Mr. Obama winning;

(There were a few Democrats at the table, and it was in Massachusetts, where the Romney factor is an especially familiar commodity.)

Post-Holiday Fare Back to Iowa on a 6 a.m. flight from Boston to Sioux City, via Minneapolis. There are more reporters this time around - enough for two vans! - and longer stretches of road between events. Time in the van is an opportunity to blog for The Caucus; to do phone interviews when cellular reception permits; to chat up other reporters; and to watch DVDs. One reporter has the Borat movie; I have Season Two of HBO's "Deadwood," which I'm watching to prepare for a profile of the actor Ian McShane for the paper's Culture section.

And six Clinton events over 36 hours in western and northern Iowa, with a drop-off at the Des Moines Marriott at 9 p.m. before another 6 a.m. flight - back to New York.

By Patrick Healy, The New York Times, November 26, 2007

Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is guilty of triangulating, poll-testing and telling the American people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

Maybe so. But then it's fair to ask: Is Obama telling the American people anything they don't want to hear? More specifically, as he campaigns for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, is he saying anything except what polls suggest Democrats there might want to hear?

His campaign points to Obama's traveling to Detroit to endorse higher fuel standards for automobiles, his preaching parental responsibility in black churches and his refusing to promise Iowa activists that he will cut the defense budget. He backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, not a crowd-pleaser this electoral season.

But to the extent that Obama's positions have shifted over the past several months, they've shifted uncannily to where middle-class Democratic voters happen to be.

Obama still presents himself as the candidate who can rise above the tired old debates and tell everyone "what they need to hear," as he said in an address on schools last week. But what he said about schools was what Democrats and the teachers unions want to hear: Schools need more money. Merit pay for teachers has morphed, in his plan, into a "professional compensation system designed with the help and agreement of teachers' organizations." And making sure schools teach all children, especially poor and minority children, to read and do math is derided as preparing children "to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."

In keeping with the pacifism of much of the Iowa caucus electorate, Obama now attacks Clinton for a position on Iran that is nearly identical to one he espoused a few months ago. On Iraq, he used to agree with her that some troops would stay to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists, train Iraqi forces, and guard embassies. Now he says the anti-terrorist mission might be accomplished from outside Iraq, and recently on "Meet the Press" he dropped the training idea altogether.

In September, he proposed $80 billion in tax goodies for middle-class earners, including a tax credit that wouldn't be phased out until earnings reached more than $200,000.

It's true that he favors the tiny Peru trade agreement. But with polls showing increasing anxiety in Iowa about globalization, Obama has turned up the anti-trade rhetoric, opposing the more meaningful agreement proposed with South Korea and ignoring NAFTA's record of raising living standards here and in Mexico.

It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.

You could argue that there's nothing terrible or surprising in this. People who run for office, unless they're totally quixotic, respond to voters' views; that's the point of democracy. It's commonly accepted that Democrats "run left" in the primaries and then shift toward the center in the general election, while Republicans perform the mirror-image dance. A little cynical, maybe, but nothing new; by this reading, Clinton, as the front-runner, has just had the luxury of shifting a bit early.

But campaigning does pose a test of character: Are there any principles that a candidate holds strongly enough to take an electoral hit -- or to try to lead and bring the electorate along -- rather than follow the polls? This year and over the years, we've seen, for example, that John McCain has some such principles: on Iraq, on immigration, on curbing the influence of money in politics. With the rest of the field, in both parties, it's not so clear.

The question is particularly acute for Obama, because of his line of attack on Clinton and because he built his candidacy on two foundations: that he can heal the nation's partisan divisions and that he will lead "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction," as he said in Iowa this month. Without those distinctions, he's just a former state legislator from Illinois with a half-term, and few accomplishments, in the U.S. Senate.

But when the first selling point left him stuck in second in national polls, he shifted, apparently without much difficulty, to attacking Clinton from the left. And at some point it's no longer enough to describe yourself as courageous. Obama followed his not-calculation-but-conviction statement, in a speech generally credited as one of his strongest of the fall, by pledging to stand up to corporate lobbyists, end the war in Iraq and take tax breaks away from companies that send jobs overseas -- not exactly bitter medicine for his Democratic audience.

In the last Democratic debate, Obama again laced into Clinton for not providing "straight answers to tough questions," but it seemed a bit half-hearted. Maybe that's a good sign; maybe he's not happy with how his campaign has diverged from what he promised it would be.

By Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post, November 26, 2007

DES MOINES - Hillary Clinton began the week with Sunday-morning worship at Grace United Methodist Church, with a hymnbook open before her, bobbing her head along as the choir sang, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." In the more earthly pursuits that occupy Clinton's attention in Iowa these days, such fervor is easy to come by. Certainty is not.

Last week began with the release of an Iowa poll - of negligible statistical relevance but much symbolic weight - showing Clinton for the first time behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. The final month before the Jan. 3 caucuses will be syncopated by the regular release of new public polls expected to influence voter behavior even as specialists disagree about their accuracy.

The ABC News/Washington Post survey, perhaps the most discussed of the campaign, had Obama at 30 percent, Clinton at 26, and John Edwards, former North Carolina senator, at 22. The gaps between leaders were within the poll's 4.5 percent margin of error, suggesting - as polls have shown for a while - that there is a tight three-way race in the state.

But as the two candidates moved among Iowa's small towns this weekend, the race's psychological dynamics appear to have been disrupted by the new snapshot of Obama atop the field, especially as Clinton reaffirms that strength and electability are central to her appeal.

"Caucusgoers are looking for someone who can win. With Obama's numbers, it gives more credibility that he can actually win the state," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "One of the things helping Clinton nationwide is the idea she can actually win the election."

When asked by a voter yesterday in Perry, Iowa, how she would beat a Republican nominee, Clinton readily cited polls showing her well-positioned around the country. Yet when reporters questioned her later about the new Iowa numbers, she said she does "not pay attention to any of them."

"I pay attention to national polls and in states that have primaries," said Christie Vilsack, a cochairwoman of Clinton's Iowa campaign, "but you can't poll the Iowa caucuses unless you poll only the 120,000 people you know are going to come out."

Despite the growing number of candidate signs along country roads here, caucus participation remains a niche activity among Iowa voters. As a share of registered voters, caucus turnout is historically less than one-third of that in New Hampshire's primary.

"Predicting turnout with polls is a really hard thing," said Tom Lindenfeld, a Democratic strategist who has worked for Obama.

In making projections, campaigns rely above all on their "hard count," a tally of voters who have pledged to support them, and a list of previous caucusgoers made available for sale by the state party.

But no media organization is believed to have purchased such a list, so instead of knowing who has participated in past caucuses - considered the best indicator of turnout - pollsters are random-dialing households and asking voters whether they have voted before and how interested they are in the current race.

"People don't want to say no to that," said Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party now supporting Obama. "They may not want to acknowledge they didn't caucus."

The biggest challenge is in vetting those who say that January's caucus would be their first. The ABC survey showed Obama and Clinton relying on first-time caucusgoers for nearly half their support, while new voters represent one-quarter of Edwards's.

Yet such inexperienced caucusgoers are often those making decisions with the least information, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Charles Franklin. That inclines them in polls to ratify the standing of existing front-runners. "They're more likely to name the first candidate that comes to mind," Franklin said.

The profile of each candidate's first-time caucus participants - given Obama's reliance on the very young and Clinton's on working women - suggests a range of conflicts that could influence turnout of new voters.

For different voters, the weather, college-football programming, back-to-school schedules, and alienation from increasingly negative campaigning could have differing effects on caucus-night attendance.

Polls show Edwards's support coming more from middle-aged voters who are seen as the most reliable participants on caucus night. "The thing that's going to help Edwards is that in the past the typical Iowa caucusgoer has been in that baby-boomer range," Bystrom said.

In 2004, polls indicated that more than one-third of Iowa Democrats made up their minds in the last weeks before the caucus, many appearing to shift to candidates John Kerry and Edwards because they were seen as the most viable general-election candidates.

"As you get closer to the election, the people who are soft supporters and undecided, the dominant concern they will all have is who can win in the fall," Lindenfeld said.

Even those who make up their mind do not always get to cast that vote on caucus night. Democratic caucus rules require a candidate to pass a threshold of 15 percent backing in a given precinct; supporters who come up short typically pick another candidate.

In the ABC poll, Obama expanded his lead when voters were asked for their second choices, heartening his supporters who see an anti-Clinton bloc forming among backers of her opponents.

Yet at a caucus, where voters must stand publicly on behalf of their candidate, the sorting-out often takes place under great social pressure and tactical alliances that override the second-choice scenarios posed by pollsters.

"There's a big gap between saying that on the phone and what you actually do at your neighborhood caucus," Franklin said.

By Sasha Issenberg, The Boston Globe, November 26, 2007

"Americans' Economic Pessimism Reaches Record High." That's the headline on a recent Gallup report, which shows a nation deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. Right now, "27% of Americans rate current economic conditions as either 'excellent' or 'good,' while 44% say they are 'only fair' and 28% say they are poor." Moreover, "an extraordinary 78% of Americans now say the economy is getting worse, while a scant 13% say it is getting better."

What's really remarkable about this dismal outlook is that the economy isn't (yet?) in recession, and consumers haven't yet felt the full effects of $98 oil (wait until they see this winter's heating bills) or the plunging dollar, which will raise the prices of imported goods.

The response of those who support the Bush administration's economic policies is to complain about the unfairness of it all. They rattle off statistics that supposedly show how wonderful the economy really is. Many of these statistics are misleading or irrelevant, but it's true that the official unemployment rate is fairly low by historical standards. So why are people so unhappy?

The answer from Bush supporters - who are, on this and other matters, a strikingly whiny bunch - is to blame the "liberal media" for failing to report the good news. But the real explanation for the public's pessimism is that whatever good economic news there is hasn't translated into gains for most working Americans.

One way to drive this point home is to compare the situation for workers today with that in the late 1990s, when the country's economic optimism was almost as remarkable as its pessimism today. For example, in the fall of 1998 almost two-thirds of Americans thought the economy was excellent or good.

The unemployment rate in 1998 was only slightly lower than the unemployment rate today. But for working Americans, everything else was different. Wages were rising, yet inflation was low, so the purchasing power of workers' take-home pay was steadily improving. So, too, were job benefits, including the availability of health insurance. And homeownership was rising steadily.

It was, in other words, a time when Americans felt they were sharing in the country's prosperity.

Today, by contrast, wage gains for most workers are being swallowed by inflation. In fact, the reality for lower- and middle-income workers may be worse than the official statistics say, because the prices of necessities like food, transportation and medical care are rising considerably faster than the Consumer Price Index as a whole. One striking statistic: the cost of a traditional Thanksgiving turkey dinner was 11 percent higher this year than last year.

Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans receiving health insurance from their employers, which began to decline in 2001, is continuing its downward trend. And homeownership, after rising for several years on a tide of subprime mortgages - well, you know how that's going.

In short, working Americans have very good reason to feel unhappy about the state of the economy. But what will it take to make their situation better?

The leading Republican candidates for president don't even seem to realize that there's a problem. A few months ago Rudy Giuliani, denouncing Hillary Clinton's economic proposals, declared that "she wants to go back to the 1990s" - as if that would be a bad thing.

In fact, memories of how much better the economy was under Bill Clinton will be a potent political advantage for the Democrats next year.

But simply putting another Clinton, or any Democrat, in the White House won't ensure that the good times will roll again. President Clinton was a good economic manager, but much of the good news during the 1990s reflected events that won't be repeated, including low oil prices and the great medical cost pause - the temporary leveling off of health care spending as a percentage of G.D.P. that took place in the 1990s despite his failure to pass health care reform.

And there are good reasons to think that the negative effects of globalization on the wages of some Americans are larger than they were in the '90s. That's a hugely contentious issue within the progressive movement, with no easy resolution. I'll write more about it in the months ahead.

Despite these caveats, Democrats have every right to make a political issue out of the failure of the Bush economy to deliver gains to working Americans - especially because conservatives continue to insist that tax cuts for the affluent are the answer to all problems.

But Democrats shouldn't kid themselves into believing that this will be easy. The next president won't be able to deliver another era of good times unless he or she manages to tackle the longer-term trends that underlie today's economic disappointment: a collapsing health care system and inexorably rising inequality.

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times, November 26, 2007

When New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner announced last week that his state would hold its traditional first in the nation primary on January 8, virtually audible sighs of relief came from campaigns that, until then, had been shockingly unsure of the calendar under which they would have to compete for their party's presidential nominations. And while Gardner's move was expected, simply seeing an official order of states must have been a relief.

But the group with the biggest reason to celebrate was far away from Gardner's offices in Concord, happily situated just a few miles from the glittering lights of America's best-known playground for adults. Long ignored by the national media and their party's presidential candidates in spite of their special status, Nevada Democrats finally found a reason to be happy: Their caucuses are now perfectly situated to have a dramatic impact on the nominating contest.

Because of the compressed nature of the primary calendar, candidates of both parties will have just five days to react and adjust between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. After the primary, any Republican challengers left standing will have an additional week to square off before Michigan voters head to the polls. Four days later, Republicans in the Silver State and in South Carolina will make their preference known.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, though, the situation is much different. Following the lead of Senator Barack Obama, most of the party's candidates pulled out of Michigan's contest, in order, they said, to honor a pledge to the four DNC-sanctioned early states. Just Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel remain on the ballot there, making the primary certain to be overshadowed by the state's GOP contest.

Instead, for eleven days after New Hampshire polls close, surviving Democratic candidates will focus their attentions on Nevada, which will, for the first time, hold caucuses before the party's nominee is evident. The next contest, South Carolina's Democratic primary, will be held ten days after Nevadans caucus.

Nevada's position of prominence has been in doubt ever since the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee gave the state permission to hold the caucuses before February 5, when any state may hold its contest on any day. The move was designed to involve the state's large and politically influential Hispanic population. Coupled with an early South Carolina primary, where a disproportionately large number of Democratic primary voters are African American, the committee's goal was to involve a more diverse crowd of Democrats, instead of relying on Iowa and New Hampshire, both states where whites make up more than 95% of the population.

Originally, the state was slated to caucus just after Iowa. But thanks to shenanigans in Michigan, which moved its primary to January 15, and a state law in New Hampshire preventing the primary from going after any other like contests, both states jumped ahead of Nevada's January 19 date.

And despite its prominent position, Democratic candidates have all but ignored Nevada. A CNN-sponsored debate at UNLV two weeks ago was one of just a few such events focused there, and candidates have made far fewer trips than to other states; Governor Bill Richardson had taken 11 trips to Nevada before the debate, more than any other candidate. Still, that number is less than half the number of trips he's taken to both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Clinton had been to Nevada just five times, fewer than John Edwards' eight trips and Obama's nine. By contrast, she had taken 25 trips to Iowa to Edwards' 42 visits and Obama's 35 excursions, according to statistics compiled by The Hotline.

Still, should a frontrunner like Clinton, Obama or Edwards stumble in Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada will be the next - and perhaps last - chance to right their ships. A miscue such as Howard Dean's infamous scream speech might not be fixed in the five days between the first two contests. But because all three Democratic front-runners - especially Clinton and Obama - are awash in cash, eleven days of paid media provides more than enough time to solve any outstanding issues.

The state's large Hispanic population may also present an opportunity to Richardson, the lone Hispanic in the race, and a problem for top-tier candidates who hope for a good performance. Running fourth in most early states and having raised impressive amounts of money, Richardson could survive to outperform a top-tier candidate, breathing at least some life into his bid. Falling behind the governor, though, could be fatal to whichever campaign finds themselves in that position.

But Richardson is the only second-tier candidate who could benefit from the state’s unique political culture. Democrats got a bargain when they selected the state – not only did they involve more Hispanic voters, but they picked a place where Unions still play a crucial role. And because most major unions have lined up behind Clinton, Edwards and Obama, other candidates may find themselves left without a vehicle for their message. The state’s crown jewel, the massive Culinary Workers union that represents employees on the Vegas Strip, has yet to announce its backing.

On the GOP side, Nevada remains unimportant and painfully ignored. Coming four days after Michigan, where every candidate will compete, hurts. But South Carolina will take any and all attention away from Nevada, operatives say. The Palmetto GOP will hold their contest on the same day, the first Southern state to hold a contest, and the national media's attention will focus heavily there.

But for Democrats, the eleven days between New Hampshire and Nevada will provide a critical window for campaigns to make adjustments necessary to carry on their campaigns. If one candidate sweeps the first two contests and proves unbeatable in Nevada, it may be the last adjustments the others are able to make.

By Reid Wilson, RealClearPolitics, November 26, 2007

With Race Close, Obama Stresses His Electability

PERRY, Iowa, Nov. 25 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), her status as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in jeopardy, stepped up attacks on her closest rival with fewer than six weeks until the first nominating contest.

Just weeks ago, Clinton chastised her opponents for "mudslinging." But she unapologetically pursued her main challenger, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), over the weekend, standing by her decision to mock Obama's foreign policy experience and attacking his health-care plan -- part of what her advisers described as a new phase of her campaign that will present voters with a "real choice."

"I think that there are differences among us on issues and on qualifications and on experience -- and voters are going to begin drawing those judgments," Clinton said in response to a question Sunday about whether Democrats should attack one other.

Clinton proceeded to hammer Obama over his health-care proposal, saying that only her approach would ensure coverage for all Americans, and mocking him for what she called a "kind of confusing" approach to health care.

Obama and Clinton are locked in a tight race in Iowa with former senator John Edwards (N.C.), and each is putting renewed focus on electability -- a factor that helped turn the state for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in the 2004 Democratic contest. Although most Democrats at the national level view Clinton as the most viable nominee, Iowans are more receptive to viewing Obama and Edwards that way. All of the campaigns concede electability is a top concern among caucusgoers. Health plans and war policy aside, they want to back a winner.

Strategists for Obama said over the weekend that they see an opening for their candidate on the question of electability, and campaign manager David Plouffe also predicted a "relentlessly negative" barrage from the Clinton campaign in the days ahead.

Central to the new Clinton push will be the argument that only she can beat the eventual Republican nominee, a claim Obama is also seeking to make to voters here.

Advisers said her message will be: "You can't have change if you don't win." Her rivals, meanwhile, are moving aggressively to capitalize on Clinton's weaknesses in Iowa -- and, they hope, block her path to the nomination.

Obama's campaign continues to voice increasing optimism about its chances in Iowa, seeing growth opportunities for him even among what was expected to be Clinton's core constituency. On Sunday morning in Des Moines, Obama held a health-care forum in which five of the six panelists were women, the heart of the Clinton voter base.

Senior strategist Steve Hildebrand, who is organizing Iowa for Obama, said Clinton appeared to be boxed in with caucusgoers, still dominant with retirement-age and lower-income Democrats, but with few areas to advance. Most glaring, Hildebrand said, was Clinton's 26 percent standing in last week's Washington Post-ABC News poll, particularly because she is so well-known. "She is barely getting one-fourth of the Democratic vote, and that number says more about her candidacy than any other number," Hildebrand said.

Clinton advisers acknowledge that, in a state that has never elected a woman to statewide office or sent a woman to Congress, she has challenges, and promised that she will not leave them unaddressed.

Former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to return to the state to boost the effort on Tuesday, and will keep arguing that she is both the most electable and experienced, advisers said.

Clinton operatives are also targeting Democrats who list her as a second choice after Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) or Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), who have gained little traction in the polls but share what her advisers see as Clinton's chief asset: experience. Under the Iowa caucus rules, candidates must meet a threshold of 15 percent of delegate strength at each site; supporters of non-viable candidates often switch at the last minute to back a winner.

Obama is banking on that quirk of the Iowa system. He is now focusing on caucusgoers who are backing another Democrat but who list Obama as their second choice.

To expand its Iowa support, the Obama campaign is also targeting the 10 to 15 percent of Iowa Democrats who remain undecided. Hildebrand said he believes Obama is already beginning to make inroads with two core Clinton groups, non-college-educated voters and older voters.

Although Clinton makes the case that she has more experience than her rivals, especially Obama -- who was elected to the Senate three years ago -- Plouffe said Democrats in Iowa as well as New Hampshire are increasingly coming to view Obama as the candidate most likely to win next November.

"We're picking up a lot more on the ground on electability," Plouffe said. "What voters are looking at is: Who's got the best chance to win the election ... and second, who can govern."

The electability question continued to trouble even some committed Clinton supporters. Among them here on Sunday was Colleen Clopton, the Clinton chairwoman for Greene County, who said she worries about what Republicans will do to Clinton if she is the nominee.

As a result, Clopton said she is still debating whether to vote for Biden, who as a white male without the Clinton baggage might be a safer choice, she said. "I'm so afraid of the Republicans against her," Clopton said.

Clopton later asked the same question of the candidate herself during an open question-and-answer session. Clinton replied that her record in New York demonstrates she can win over Republican strongholds.

Clinton also appeared to have other persistent problems, particularly with her image as a Washington insider rather than as a fresh face.

At a Clinton event in Sioux City on Saturday, one undecided Democrat, Brenda Oehlerking, 54, a computer technician, said she is leaning toward Obama, because he "is about change."

"I think Obama is a little more exciting," Oehlerking said. She left halfway through the Clinton event.

Advisers to rival campaigns said they have seen signs of panic from the Clinton campaign in the wake of a disappointing debate performance at the end of October. Joe Trippi, Edwards's campaign manager, said it was revealing that Clinton made fun of Obama for citing his childhood in Indonesia as part of his experience around the world.

"If she was up by 20 points, I doubt those words ever would have crossed her lips," said Trippi, who managed Howard Dean's losing campaign in 2004. He said he detected a "sense of foreboding" from the Clinton campaign after having failed to gain ground in recent weeks.

The campaigns of all three front-runners predict that as caucus day draws closer, the second-tier candidates will begin to lose support to the top three. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has consistently polled in fourth place, packed in eight campaign stops on Saturday, four on Sunday and another three scheduled for Monday.

"I feel that Iowans are taking a second look at other candidates like myself because they're getting tired of the Washington media and the pollsters saying the race is over and Senator Clinton is the victor," Richardson said in an interview Sunday. "There's a real undercurrent here of shopping around."

By Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray, The Washington Post, November 26, 2007

Perry, Ia. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told potential caucusgoers in one of the state's most diverse communities here Sunday that immigration reform begins with border security, broaching the topic only after she was questioned about it by an audience member.

"I believe in comprehensive immigration reform, but it starts with homeland security," Clinton said. "You cannot move to comprehensive immigration reform until we have tougher, more secure borders."

The New York senator reminded the crowd of about 400 gathered in the Perry High School cafeteria that she voted for and supports stronger technological and physical borders.

Clinton was questioned on immigration at all three of her stops Sunday - Perry, Nevada and Iowa Falls - although she never brought up the topic on her own.

She added in Perry that it would be impossible to deport the estimated 12 million people who are in the country illegally.

She suggested instead that "everybody come out of the shadows," adding that undocumented immigrants found to have committed crimes would be immediately deported.

Those who haven't, she said, should register and pay back taxes and fines, and learn English before joining the line to legalization.

Julia Edwards of Redfield posed the immigration question to Clinton in Perry and said she was surprised it wasn't brought up in Clinton's 35-minute speech that ran the gamut from global warming to health care. "That kind of made me wonder," said Edwards, 61, who believes the country's borders need to be secured. "I think it should be talked about more, and a lot of people agree. It's a key issue, just like the war in Iraq." Edwards said she was initially a strong Clinton backer, but withdrew her support when Clinton was accused of waffling at a debate last month on whether driver's licenses should be issued to illegal immigrants. Edwards, who wore a Clinton sticker, said she's edging back toward supporting the candidate.

The crowd that was gathered at Gates Memorial Hall in Nevada waited an hour for Clinton to show up. The candidate promptly apologized after taking the stage, saying she lost track of time in Perry.

The stop in Nevada hit an additional hitch when Clinton lost her voice mid-speech. She recovered quickly, reminding her audience that she's equipped for anything the Republican Party can throw at her after being in the public eye for 15 years.

"I think my political experience of having been on the receiving end of so much incoming fire equips me for understanding you don't take this personally. You can't take it personally," she said.

Talk centered around health care at Clinton's stop at an Iowa Falls fire station. A single mother in the audience asked the candidate about the "missing class," those who are barely above the poverty level and don't qualify for government programs.

Clinton responded that affordable health care is a start in easing the burden for all involved.

It sounds good on the stump, said Cindy Van Langen, 50, an Iowa Falls farm worker who is uninsured, but she's skeptical about how it would work.

"I know I'm not the only person in my age category that doesn't have insurance, and I just pray every day that I don't fall down the stairs or have a car accident because I can't afford it," Van Langen said. "They never really describe how this is going to work. They say everyone is going to be covered, but how?"

By Abby Simons, Des Moines Register, November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - One of the trickiest tightropes being walked by the 2008 US presidential candidates, all of them descended from immigrants, is how to tackle illegal immigration as they bid for the White House.

Democrats are forced into a delicate dance around the thorny issue, scrambling to court the booming Hispanic-American population without irking party moderates, analysts said.

"Democrats are badly divided on the immigration issue. They want to appeal to Latinos (Hispanics seen as favorable to liberal US immigration policy) but don't want to alienate more moderate and conservative factions of the party," Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, told AFP.

Both leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had some trouble clarifying their positions in the latest debates, just over a month before the first nominating contests in Iowa.

In last week's debate in Las Vegas, Clinton came out against the idea of giving state drivers' licenses, which are used as official identification, to illegal immigrants with a flat "no," after being slammed for waffling on the issue in an earlier debate in Philadelphia.

And although he knew the controversial issue would be back on the table, Obama was also sideswiped by the issue in Las Vegas. After skirting a direct answer, he finally told a CNN moderator he favored illegal immigrants having access to official drivers' licenses.

But on the Republican side, other than John McCain, who represents the Hispanic-heavy border state of Arizona, the candidates all argue for a hard line to be drawn at the US border.

Even words are political, with Democrats preferring the softer "undocumented workers" while Republicans use "illegal aliens" and have embraced the new edge to the issue carved by the September 11, 2001 attacks on US targets.

Tom Tancredo, a Republican hopeful, explicitly ties the two in ads highlighting the "20 million aliens who have come to take our jobs" and "Islamic terrorists [who] now freely roam US soil."

But by slamming illegals, Republicans risk losing support among immigrant-friendly Hispanic voters.

Immigration "is an issue that is a hot potato issue," said Peter Romero, a former top US diplomat for Latin America. "The campaign at least so far, has evolved around 'run no risks, make no gaffes and make no mistakes'. Using the wrong word, using the wrong terms, can get you in lot of trouble," added Romero, noting that neither Democrats nor Republicans had been clear and forthcoming on the issue to date.

Democrats did well in 2006 legislative elections after Republicans focused, unsuccessfully, on fighting illegal immigrants.

But Democrats are still uncomfortable with the issue. They were unable to advance a comprehensive immigration reform agenda that would have given the 12 million illegals living in the United States a way to earn citizenship.

Now, lacking a big lead on the issue, the Democrats are simply battling to hold onto their support from Hispanics, said Lindsay Daniel of the National Council on La Raza, the country's biggest Hispanic organization.

US Hispanics, the United States' largest and fastest-growing minority with almost 45 million people, could play a critical role in deciding who moves into the White House.

Their votes could decide races in key swing states such as Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona, all of which Bush won in 2004 with support from more than 40 percent of Hispanics. But only 30 of them backed Republicans in 2006.

"The Republicans are losing one of the great swing votes in American politics," said Larry Sabato, political analyst at the University of Virginia.





AFP, November 26, 2007

PERRY, Iowa - It is a favorite question of voters: Hillary Rodham Clinton, a liberal or a moderate?

And that was the question that Don Harmelink, a voter here, asked a Clinton campaign official before the senator's event in Perry this afternoon. The campaign official was moving through the crowd, asking people if they were Hillary supporters already; Mr. Harmelink, who was sitting right behind me, said he was here to listen and then asked about Mrs. Clinton's partisan inclinations.

The campaign worker gave a long answer that basically straddled the political divide - i.e., to some listeners Mrs. Clinton sounds liberal, and to some she sounds conservative.

So, Mr. Harmelink sat and listened, as Mrs. Clinton delivered her 25-minute stump speech and then took questions from the audience about her own electability and divisiveness, family farms, immigration, global warming, and other issues.

Afterward, I asked Mr. Harmelink - who was raised Republican and votes for candidates from both parties these days - if he had an answer to his own question.

"Well, she doesn't sound like a flaming liberal," he said.

"It was interesting, she wasn't just on a rampage against Republicans," Mr. Harmelink added. "I'm so tired of the extremes on both the right and the left. I'm looking at any candidate who is off the fringes, who wants to work things through in a rational way."

He said there was no particular issue on which he strongly agreed or disagreed with Mrs. Clinton's remarks here, but said that she sounded more sensible than ideological.

By Patrick Healy, The New York Times, November 25, 2007

Finally, we've got a real presidential campaign on our hands. Wake up, those of you in the back row, because it looks as if the long-running seminar is finally over. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going at each other tooth and claw, with an occasional elbow thrown in for good measure; last weekend, they clashed bitterly over purported mudslinging, even in the absence of any discernible mud. Last Sunday, John Edwards said his mounting attacks on Clinton were "milquetoast compared to what we're going to see next fall," as if his repeated blows were just a little tough love. Oh, and he also accused her of wanting to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq.

Meanwhile, somebody has been calling voters in New Hampshire and Iowa, bad-mouthing Mitt Romney's Mormon faith; the other Republican candidates are shocked that anyone would take such a cheap shot at the guy who happens to be leading in New Hampshire and Iowa. Fred Thompson had fighting words for Mike Huckabee, saying he was "pro-life but he's liberal on everything else." And John McCain accused Romney and Rudy Giuliani of being dependent on "briefing books and PowerPoints," when the more important qualifications for the presidency are character and judgment.

Ain't it grand?

We in the media are accused of preferring to focus on the horse race - who's surging ahead, who's falling behind - and the food fight - who threw what at whom - rather than what the public wants and needs us to focus on, namely The Issues. OK, guilty as charged. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that political reporters and commentators don't look forward to coronations, which are boring. Would we rather see a good old-fashioned donnybrook? Sure, wouldn't you?

But rough, tough, even "negative" campaigning isn't a pox on the republic. For one thing, it's traditional; the politics of today are positively genteel compared to, say, a century ago. For another, the swordplay of attack and counterattack has a way of getting candidates off their standard, focus group-tested campaign rhetoric and flushing out their unvarnished views - and also a way of letting us glimpse their character and judgment.

Clinton's stumble a few weeks ago on the debate question about driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants showed a lack of preparation and a desire to have it both ways. Subsequently, she took every possible position on the issue before settling last week on her final answer: "No." That showed resilience and an understanding - albeit belated - that sometimes you have to cut your losses.

Obama's stumble last week on the same question showed, yes, a lack of preparation and a desire to have it both ways. Now we'll see if he can refine and edit his position the way Clinton did. Despite that slip, though, Obama has recently shown the willingness to punch back that critics said he appeared to lack.

Last weekend, he even punched first. Columnist Robert Novak wrote that Clinton operatives were whispering that they possessed "scandalous" information about Obama but had decided to take the high road and not use it against him. Obama immediately blasted the whole thing as "Swift-boat politics" and demanded that the Clinton campaign put up or shut up. Clinton spokesmen said they had no idea what Novak was talking about and accused Obama of naively falling for Republican tricks.

Reporters on the campaign trail have noticed that Obama has begun throwing a line into his speeches about how he isn't running "to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me." A reference, perhaps, to the claim in a recent Clinton biography that she and her husband Bill long ago mapped out a scenario in which he would take a turn as president and she would later follow?

You could say that all of the above is unseemly and irrelevant, but I disagree. About Clinton, we learned that she can have a bad outing and quickly return to form. About Obama, we learned that he can be less professorial and more pugilistic when the occasion demands. And both candidates learned that illegal immigration could become a genuine third-rail issue in the general election campaign. All that knowledge, it seems to me, is valuable to the process and ultimately valuable to the nation - and well worth a few bruised feelings.

Next, I'm waiting for somebody to truth-squad Giuliani's sudden realization that he is an avid, dedicated NASCAR fan. Last Sunday, the quintessential New Yorker attended his third NASCAR race this year and called auto racing "the quintessential American sport." In the next Republican debate, somebody should ask him if he knows who Dale Earnhardt was.

By Eugene Robinson, San Francisco Chronicle, November 26, 2007

PERRY, Iowa (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton maintained Sunday that she's the best candidate to win against Republicans, saying she has more experience battling the GOP than any other candidate in the Democratic field.

"I believe that I have a very good argument that I know more about beating Republicans than anybody else running. They've been after me for 15 years, and much to their dismay, I'm still standing," she said in answer to a woman's question about her electability. "I'm leading in all the polls, I'm beating them in state after state after state."

Clinton has been widely criticized by her Democratic rivals who claim she's too polarizing, and can't bring the party together to win the White House.

But she says she has support from around the country, including "more Democratic support from the so-called red states than anybody else running." She told the crowd of hundreds gathered at Perry High School that she has more U.S. senators supporting her than her rivals, as well as other lawmakers from states that "Democrats have a hard time winning."

"I think they have looked at the field and figured out who can best beat the Republicans," Clinton said.

She added that when she ran for the Senate in 2000, a lot of people argued that she couldn't win.

"And I just got up every day, and I reached out to Republicans and Democrats and independents," she said, adding that her opponents outspent her 2-to-1 and said "all kinds of unpleasant things." She said voters didn't believe them, and she ended up with 55 percent of the vote. At the end of her first term, she said, her support at the polls climbed to 67 percent, and "a lot of people who voted for George Bush in 2004 voted for me."

The woman who asked the question told Clinton that Republicans "never quit talking about you," and that it's almost as though the New York senator is another candidate on the stage at Republican debates because of how much they target her.

Clinton elicited laughter from the audience when she admitted that "the Republicans have a core group that, I think is fair to say, are not my fans."

She was asked by reporters about her recent criticism of other Democrats, when earlier this year she called for her party to focus their attacks on Republicans.

"I respect and admire all of my opponents, and I think that there are differences among us on issues and on qualifications and on experience," she said. "When we finally choose a nominee, which I expect to be me, we are going to close ranks, and we are going to run against the Republicans and win."

Barack Obama's campaign weighed in, claiming he is the strongest candidate in the field. "Throughout his career, Senator Obama has succeeded in bringing Democrats, Republicans and independents together to solve important problems like providing health care to families," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama had 30 percent support among likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers and Clinton had 26 percent. She leads in many other national polls.

When asked about Obama's lead in Iowa, Clinton answered that she doesn't pay much attention to polls, and acknowledged that it's a competitive race.

"There have been a lot of polls, and frankly, I don't pay much attention to any of them," she said. Later, she acknowledged, "It is a much more competitive race (in Iowa) than it is in other parts of the country."

Clinton, who wants a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, was asked whether she thought the surge there is working. She told reporters she doesn't believe there is a military solution for Iraq.

"I don't believe if we stay another day, stay five days, stay five years or 10 years that we are going to make a difference militarily," she said. "Yes, we can have some tactical successes, but ultimately this is up to the Iraqis. I believe we should start bringing our troops home now."

By Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press, November 26, 2007

PERRY, IOWA -- Rivals for the Democratic nomination Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama stepped up their sparring over differences in healthcare proposals Sunday during campaign stops in Iowa.

"There are big differences between me and Sen. Obama on healthcare," Clinton said. "I have a healthcare plan that covers every single American. He does not. I have a healthcare plan that will leave no American out. He, by his own admission, leaves at least 15 million people out."

The remarks, delivered during a question-and-answer session wit