A Rake’s Progress

A CNN/WMUR poll released today shows that Hillary has dropped a third of her lead over Barack Obama. Once ahead by 23%, her lead over Obama is now 14%.

According to CNN –

When asked who they would support if the primary were held today, 36 percent of likely Democratic primary voters backed Clinton, 22 percent supported Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and 13 percent favored former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

In September, when CNN last polled in New Hampshire, Clinton was at 43 percent, with Obama at 20 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.

Bill Richardson had an impressive increase in the survey to 12%.

The survey suggests that the main reason for Hillary’s poor showing is the increasing number of voters who are starting to doubt her integrity and character.

Click here for the CNN story.

While talking with some high school students in Manchester, NH, Barack Obama admitted he made some “bad decisions” as a student and used drugs and alcohol.

Obama referred to his earlier writings on the subject, in which he called himself a “junkie” and “pothead.” In the book, Dreams from My Father, Obama says he mostly smoked pot, but also used cocaine when he could afford it.

Curiously absent from Obama’s conversation was any hint from him that there was a lesson students should take from his past behavior. Apparently, there was also no advice from this presidential candidate that students should avoid drinking or using drugs,  or perhaps seek help if they are.

I am the last to preach — and I don’t. But if a presidential candidate, within the context of a conversation with students about drugs and alcohol, cannot suggest that students either stay clean or get help, I begin to wonder about Obama’s moral leadership.

From what we know of him, he appears to be a marvelous example of a young black man who escaped from the worst effects of our drug culture. Is it enough that he simply let himself be a silent role model? I honestly don’t think so.

Kids twist information into the meaning they want it to have. With drugs and booze so prevalent in our schools, I have no doubt that whether spoken or left unsaid, the message many got is that it is “cool” to use: “Look, Obama used drugs and now he’s running for president. No biggie! Where’s my bong, dude?”

Read about Obama’s visit to Manchester Central High School.

With Barack Obama braying about his growing strength in Iowa and the pundits at ABC News quickly labeling Hillary Clinton a political “has been,” I thought I would do some research to dispel the notion that the Iowa caucuses had any real relevance — at least to the Democrats.

In other words, even if Obama won in Iowa, would it really have an impact on who became the Democratic nominee?

The short answer is: it could matter a lot — enough to end Hillary’s chances.

What I discovered is that in six out of the last nine Iowa caucuses, the candidate Iowans selected became the eventual Democratic nominee. That’s a 66% success rate. Take out the two incumbent races — Carter in 1980 and Clinton in 1996 — that’s still four out of seven, or a 57% batting average. That’s an impressive percentage — and certainly worrisome if you are Hillary Clinton.

The main statistical outliers were Gephardt in 1988 and Harkin in 1992. In an excellent summary of caucus history, David Yepsen, a political columnist for the Des Moines Register, offers an explanation for the Gephart-Harken choices, as well as some other important patterns in caucus voting:

One pattern that appears to be developing in the Iowa caucuses is a preference for Midwestern, or at least rural-oriented candidates. George McGovern of South Dakota, Walter Mondale of Minnesota, Richard Gephardt of Missouri have all done well in Iowa Democratic caucuses.

Harken, of course, is from Iowa and won big there with 77% percent of the vote. Ultimately, he placed fourth in New Hampshire and his candidacy ended.

So, here’s who won, starting with the 1972 caucus:

1972 - Ed Muskie
1976 - Jimmy Carter
1980 - Jimmy Carter (incumbent)
1984 - Walter Mondale
1988 - Dick Gephardt
1992 - Tom Harkin
1996 - Bill Clinton (incumbent)
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry

(For complete statistics on previous Iowa caucuses, click here.)

Fifty days from the actual voting, Hillary has some hard work to do in Iowa if she wants to end up on the winner’s list for 2008. Keeping in mind Yepsen’s observation that Iowans tend to vote for Midwesterners, Obama is from Illinois. There are also two important precedents of the eventual winner in Iowa taking down the front-runner: Underdog Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kerry in 2004, when he pricked front-runner Howard Dean into a yelp heard ’round the world.

How do things stand right now? According to ABC News:

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll has Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., up on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa — really in a statistical tie in the state where they could be playing for all the marbles. It’s Obama 30, Clinton 26, and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., 22 — setting up a three-way scramble for the top spot in a state that’s notoriously difficult to call in advance.

My concern about Hillary’s campaign — certainly here in New Hampshire where I can feel the campaign’s lethargy — and now in Iowa, is that a sense of entitlement among her staff and political “endorsers,” can lose this for her.

The one true thing we can say about running for and winning the Presidency: you really gotta want it. Does Hillary?

According to a report in the Laconia Citizen, New Hampshire state reps Beth Arsenault and Gail Morrison, and County Attorney Jim Carroll have tossed their support to Barack Obama.

I don’t think there was ever a possibility that these local politicians would support Hillary: they are friends with and surrounded by an ABC (Anybody But Clinton) contingent, starting with Beth Arsenault who came out against Hillary even before Hillary set foot in New Hampshire as a candidate, and Gail Morrison, close friend of anti-war activist and Belknap County Democratic Chair, Lynn Chong, who is supporting Edwards.

Most disappointing is Gail Morrison’s decision. She is a friend of a friend and I am told she is very well respected, bright, humane, a very nice woman.  I guess even good people make bad choices.

Could Hillary have used her help? Sure. Does it make any difference that she is not getting it. Nope.

If Hillary runs into problems over the next few months it won’t be because Chong, Arsenault, and Morrison, are working for someone else.

The real sharks in the waters are people like Bob Novak and the Arkansas Loonie Tunes, who have the unrelenting passion and money needed to wound Hillary. Novak, as you know is spreading stories about Hillary’s “Dirty Tricks,” a la Richard Nixon.

They say an elephant never forgets. The elephant, of course, is the symbol for the Republicans. Hillary worked as an attorney on the Nixon impeachment, and many conservatives still do not know what all that fuss was about, and believe Nixon was treated unfairly. Even though it has been some 35 years, that angry white Republican elephant (aka Bob Novak) has neither forgotten nor forgiven. Novak must be enjoying the potential historical symmetry if he can catch Hillary at the same dirty tricks that destroyed Richard Nixon.

Sorry, Bob, you are going fishing and pulling up nothing but weeds. The Clintons are too smart for you. They have proved that over and over and over. To make any progress against them, you will have to lie, make something up. Is revenge worth  a perjury conviction, Bob?

Hillary shows why she is a true leader and why she will be the nominee. My favorite shot is in the first video when Edwards does his famous eyelid flicker in response to Hillary’s comment about his last-minute health care plan.

When Hillary is at her best, why does it seem that both Obama and Edwards are both minor league players?

Not everyone liked the debate, however. One writer called it the Worst Debate in History, citing the intrusive behavior of the moderator and an audience that treated the event like a taping of the Price is Right. Was it the worst debate in history? For me, given Hillary’s stellar performance, I’m not ready to call it that. From a purely functional, political standpoint, it was a great debate for Clinton.