Here they are:
“You don’t want to overuse him and wear out his star appeal. But bringing
him in now to Iowa, the only place where she has shown any weakness, makes
enormous good sense,” said Doug Schoen, a White House pollster during
Clinton’s 1993-2001 presidency who is not affiliated with this campaign. –
Reuters
Iowa was always going to be tough for Clinton to win. That’s why she’s worked so hard in that state to change
the dynamic, which started with both Edwards and Obama well ahead of her. MSNBC
from June 2007.
Late last month, an internal Clinton campaign memo urged the Democratic front-runner
to bypass momentum-generating Iowa because of Clinton’s lackluster showing
despite drawing large crowds — a memo she immediately disavowed.‘Weakest state’
In the memo, deputy campaign manager Mike Henry wrote that for Clinton,
Iowa is “our consistently weakest state.”The campaign memo argued that winning Iowa would require a huge investment
— as much as $15 million that could cripple the campaign later as it
moved ahead to later states.“I believe we need a new approach to winning the Democratic nomination,”
Henry wrote in the memo, which revealed a split over Iowa strategy within
the campaign. … ..
Clinton is now leading in a state that she had been trailing and showed weakness
from the beginning; dare I say, a state she was never supposed to win. As the above MSNBC story illustrates, the focus of the campaign
was on winning the nomination, not focusing on winning Iowa, which was
going to be a tough sell depending to whom you spoke, with the media covering
this very reality. Today
she leads, though it’s a very tight race in that state, with Obama closing behind Clinton, with Edwards in third, though he’s trending
downwards right now, which is not good. But if you’d have asked Clinton’s campaign team
back in May or June, off the record, whether Clinton would win Iowa I doubt
they would have bet on it.
It’s too bad Obamamania has blinded some into swallowing gauzy, rambling articles on generational gobbledygook. But even people who disagree can agree on some things and I agree with Obama on this:
“I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” – Barack Obama
However in the spirit of Obamamania that I know is sincere, Obama’s
terrific! He’s a natural! I’ve seen him in person several times so I know,
though up close in debates is not his strong suit, which he freely admits. But
there’s no doubt that Barack Obama is not only a contender, but also has the
organization and money to run a tough campaign to the end. The odds are still
with Clinton, an analysis that doesn’t take a partisan Clinton fan to make.
So I’m going to keep delivering the facts whether they upset people or not,
including some of you. As for this
label for me today, you can call me whatever you want, whether it’s true
or not. I’ve been called a lot worse.
Comments are closed.