Obama in third

It's hard not to read into this that the Obama people believe they are in third and at risk of losing to both Edwards and Hillary. Frankly I had higher hopes for Obama when he announced and I think I'm not alone in feeling he's really disappointed.

Predictions

If you're going to advocate for one particular candidate over all the others, than the least you can do is put your credibility on the line and make a few predictions and let people judge whether your outlook is based more on wishful thinking or actual insight.

So here it goes:

Iowa: Hillary 36%, Edwards 31%, Obama 29% followed by Biden and Richardson in that order
New Hampshire: Hillary 45%, Obama 22%, Edwards 18%
South Carolina: Hillary 36%, Obama 34%, Edwards 22%

Out after SC: Edwards, out after Feb 5: Obama
Hillary wins the nomination

As for the Republicans:

Iowa: Huckabee 37%, Romney 31%, McCain 22%
New Hampshire: McCain 38%, Romney 27%, Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 15%

Out after NH: Romney
Out after Feb. 5: Giuliani and Huckabee
McCain wins the nomination

Concord Monitor Endorses Hillary

In the print edition tomorrow. Excerpt here.

Media Hardest on Hillary

So claims a new study by CMPA. No surprise, really.

Washington Times for Obama

Obama can add the editorial board of the Washington Times to his long list of conservative endorsers. Apparently oblivious to recent polling trends in Iowa, they claim Obama is ahead and argue against a Hillary candidacy.

Hillary continues Iowa surge

LA Times Bloomberg has her up by 6, that's one point better than their last poll in September. Despite whatever protestations Obama and his supporters offer defending his foreign policy judgement as superior to Hillary's, the Bhutto assassination can only help Clinton and that point will be made again and again today in the coverage. The fact is, Bush has put us in a dangerously close alliance with a despot in Pakistan and we need a president with the stature to deal with a complex world.

ARG: Clinton 14 points ahead in Iowa

Imagine if, 10 days before the Iowa caucuses, there had been a highly reputable poll showing Obama ahead by 14 points in Iowa and imagine if the same poll had shown him growing his lead from only 4 points the week before. Think we would have heard about it?

Ignoring 100% of the recent polling...

...one could write an article describing Obama's continued climb in Iowa. Of course it would have little basis in fact. But when has that ever stopped the Washington Post?

More Iowa Surge

Strategic Vision, which 10 days ago had Obama with an 8 point lead over Hillary in Iowa, now puts his lead at only 3.

But Mike Allen says it looks like the race will "freeze" for the holidays and that that's good for Obama and "nerve-wracking" for Hillary. With only the Strategic Vision poll showing an Obama lead over the last few days in Iowa I'm not so sure it shouldn't be the other way around. But if political reporters want to play dumb, fine.

CW

If even Hillary supporters want to righteously proclaim that she may be down but not out, fine. But any idiot with a brain and a pair of eyes armed with the slew of recent polls out of Iowa and New Hampshire would only see one thing: a marked, dramatic and strong shift in favor of the former front-runner in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Not that this is all bad. For one thing, if the mainstream press continue to think Obama is ahead in Iowa and then he loses that only helps Hillary gain momentum ahead of New Hampshire. But I just find it annoying that in the face of overwhelming evidence not a single commentator or major political reporter would think to examine exactly how it was that Hillary's "troubled" campaign has managed to turn things around. It's reminiscent of the almost complete lack of attention reporters paid to Kerry's improving numbers preceding the last Iowa caucus - they then acted shocked SHOCKED that he'd won while the reality was his numbers had been moving up strongly in the state for weeks before caucus night.

When you have Lugar, Ahhhnold and Hagel

Who needs the Democratic Party at all?

...and oh yea, Tom Coburn.

Hillary continues surge in Iowa

I haven't seen a single story about Hillary's dramatic turnaround in the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. But, as if we needed more proof, two more polls out today show a Hillary lead in Iowa. An ARG poll shows a net 6 point swing in favor of Hillary - she goes from having been behind Obama by 2 points three weeks ago to being ahead by 4. (According to ARG Hillary now registers her highest level of support in the state in a year and the "surging" John Edwards has dropped precipitously). Almost a month ago the entire political press gasped when an ABC/WaPo poll with know previous track record in the state showed Obama leading Hillary by 4 points. Now in the space of just a few days, several pollsters who've been active in the state for weeks show a sharp Hillary turnaround.

Is this not newsworthy? If not, why not?

D-Punjab

In fact Messrs. Politics of Hope and Son of a Millworker have run campaigns full of politics as usual.

America's Mayor

I just hope we get an accounting at some point from the press as to how it was Mr. 9/11- America's Mayor, national GOP front-runner for most of the year, etc. failed to win a single primary. At the very least, perhaps the Giuliani mirage will teach the national press once and for all that nationwide primary polls are meaningless and simply reflect name ID.

More Politics of Present

From the NY Times. Can we at least agree that Obama is not the liberal savior some of his more devout supporters think he is?