Obama Crushes Clinton in Potomac Primaries

He beat her by an average of thirty four percent. I figured that given the racial mixes involved in the races in question that he'd take MD and D.C. but that he'd eke out a tiny victory in VA or lose by five percent or less. Mainly I based that on the fact that he's done better in states that have caucuses, have a high percentage of Blacks, or a very low percentage of blacks. Simply put he does well in areas where racial tension is low or winners are more or less decided by debate. (Not my theory but I can't remember who to credit for that bit of pattern recognition.) In my experience (I'm from VA.) Virginia has just enough racial tension to have made it a hard state for me to predict. But what I had forgotten is my theory that the more Obama wins the more he will continue to win.

I theorized that if Obama won an early primary and SC he'd prove that he was electable. Once that happened voters that were backing Clinton because she was the presumptive front runner would start siding with Obama. Once that happened the more he won the more states he would win. Apparently my theory has reached a sort of critical mass. In tonight's primaries he actually pulled in more Women voters than Clinton according to early exit polls...

In the Democratic primaries in both states, Barack Obama won both men and women. In Virginia, he got 68 percent of men and 60 percent of women, while in Maryland he got 62 percent of men and 55 percent of women. In Virginia, Obama even won among white men, getting 58 percent of their votes while Hillary Rodham Clinton took her base, white women, by an unusually small margin. In Virginia she got 53 percent to Obama's 47 percent among white women. But in Maryland, Clinton won overall among whites, winning by a wide margin among white women but only tying Obama among white men.

Obama's narrow win among whites in Virginia marked one of his best showings yet among white voters and was the first time he has beat Clinton among whites in a Southern state. Obama won the votes of 90 percent of blacks in Virginia and 84 percent in Maryland.

Obama is now officially the front runner having a higher number of delegates and pledged super delegates in his corner. But Clinton has a major shot at playing catch up. She has to win Texas in order to regain momentum. Current polls have her ahead of Obama by ten percent. But I'm sticking to my theory and guessing that she'll be down to a five percent lead by the time the Texas primary rolls around. If she doesn't manage to do that she only has two options to stay in the race; reseat the FL and MI delegates and strong arm and/or sweet talk enough super delegates to come up even. And if she goes that route to get the nomination she'll poison the hearts of enough voters to ensure a McCain victory. So keep your eye on Texas because if I'm right it will make or break Clinton's campaign.

Mitt Mauls McCain in Michigan

Romney pulls in 39% of the vote compared to McCain's 30%

From the NY Times:

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran as a son of Michigan though he left the state nearly 40 years ago, won a commanding victory Tuesday in the Republican primary here with a message aimed at voters deeply anxious about the state’s ailing economy.

Mr. Romney defeated his principal rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, by winning a clear plurality of Republicans and conservatives, who turned out in greater numbers than they had in the 2000 primary, which Mr. McCain won.

...

With 97 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mr. Romney had 39 percent of the vote, compared with 30 percent for Mr. McCain and 16 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Ron Paul, the antiwar congressman from Texas, came in fourth with 6 percent of the vote.

Mr. Romney’s victory here means three different Republican candidates have won each of the first three major contests. The race moves to South Carolina and Nevada this weekend with no clear front-runner and two credible candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee, yet to seriously contest a state.

Katon Dawson, the Republican chairman in South Carolina, declared the race for the party’s nomination wide open.

With Romney winning his first serious victory its looking like there will be no clear GOP front runner going into Super Tuesday. I don't see Romney winning any of the primaries prior to then. I think SC will be a toss up between McCain and Huckabee and Romney is polling fourth in NV. That means that no candidate will have any perceived momentum prior to Super Tuesday. That suggests that those primary wins may well be split along regional (and religious) lines. That scenario ultimately would lead to the thing Captain Ed says the GOp fear most. A brokered convention.

McCain and Romney in 08 anyone?

Bill Richardson Bows Out

Looks like he knows when the getting is good...

From MSNBC:

MERRIMACK, N.H. - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will announce Thursday that he is ending his campaign for the presidency, sources inside the Richardson campaign confirmed to NBC News on Wednesday.

Sources told The Associated Press and NBC News about the withdrawal plan on condition of anonymity in advance of the governor's announcement.

The Richardson campaign would not comment on the governor's decision, reached after a meeting with his top advisers Wednesday in New Mexico.

I think had Obama not entered the race his bid for the nomination might have had more traction. However with his resume I'm sure he'll land on his feet. Perhaps he'll even end up being someone's running mate.

Clinton Clinches New Hampshire

It was an exceedingly close victory though Clinton's 39% to Obama's 37%

From ABC News:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has narrowly won the New Hampshire primary, becoming the first woman -- and the first-ever former first lady -- to win the first-in-the-nation contest.

Clinton beat out Sen. Barack Obama, who, riding a wave of momentum from his Iowa caucus victory, battled for a close second place in the Granite State.

Never thought to be a major factor in New Hampshire, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards came in a distant third in the state and will now focus his limited resources on South Carolina, where he won in 2004.

...

The tight race has also secured Obama as a formidable opponent for Clinton, setting up what may become a bloody political battle between the two Democratic rivals going into the big-state primaries Feb. 5.

Man if this had been a football game Clinton won it by a field goal. Despite the loss Obama has shown that he is capable of effectively competing with Clinton. That'll mean a lot going into South Carolina where I believe concerns about his electability originally kept him polling low. I expect SC to be a close race but I believe Obama has a good chance of pulling it off. On the republican side McCain finally had his day beating Romney by a five percent margin. My question is can McCain win anywhere else?

What been odd is watching the media cover this. Both CNN and Fox news commentators called Clinton's win an upset. First they called her inevitable, then kicked her while she was down for a week after her Iowa loss, and now they are trumpeting her previously predicted win as an upset. Looks like the media only loves you when you're winning Mrs. Clinton.

Obamania Hits South Carolina

Ok, I may have been wrong about Obama needing NH to guarantee a win in SC.

from Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in South Carolina shows that Barack Obama has opened a double digit-lead over Hillary Clinton in the January 26th Primary Election. It’s Obama 42% Clinton 30%. John Edwards attracts 14% of the vote and nobody else tops 3%.
...
In South Carolina, Obama now attracts 58% of the African-American vote, up from 50% in December. Earlier in the year, Obama and Clinton split this important constituency fairly evenly. Now while Obama enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over Clinton among African-American voters, white voters are split fairly evenly between three candidates--it’s Clinton 32%, Edwards 29%, and Obama 27%. For Obama, that reflects a 13-point improvement from the previous survey.

I do think a Clinton win in NH could make SC a tight race between the two. However what's it say about Edwards that he polls better in Iowa and New Hampshire than he does in his home state?

Obama Now Ahead in NH Polls

Looks like his win in Iowa answered that electability question.

From CNN:

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — Two days before New Hampshire's Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday — a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

A USA Today poll confirms this but also shows that Huckabee isn't receiving a similar boost from his win. Both show McCain in almost a dead heat with Romney.

The rundowns:

Democrats.

• Obama: 41%; up from 32% in the last USA TODAY/Gallup New Hampshire poll, taken in mid-December.
• Clinton: 28%; down from 32%.
• John Edwards: 19%; up from 18%.
• Gov. Bill Richardson: 6%; down from 8%.
• No one else above 3%.

Republicans.

• McCain: 34%; up from 27% in mid-December.
• Romney: 30%; down from 34%.
• Mike Huckabee: 13%; up from 9%.
• Rep. Ron Paul: 8%; down from 9%.
• Rudy Giuliani: 8%; down from 11%.
• No one else above 3%.

If I were betting on this race I'd put my money on Obama and McCain due to their broader appeal to independents. However Clinton has invested serious money and manpower in New Hampshire and it may pay off for her. NH is the least predictable of the early primary states after all. One thing I'm certain of is that if Obama wins NH he'll also win South Carolina. If he can win all three he'll have the momentum he needs to go toe to toe with Clinton on Super Tuesday.

h/t to Memeorandum

Torture and the '08 Elections

I've talked a fair bit about torture here and it's greatly influenced my decision making as to who I'm going to vote for. Over at TMV David Schraub concludes that the entire election is about torture. And he's right in that we do need to have a national debate about torture in order to decide what America is. However I think that the point his title makes needs to be explored in a different manner. To me the questions about torture are an excellent barometer of any candidate's morales.

Here's the way I see it. If you ask the question WWJD in regards to torture the answer is readily apparent. However many candidates seem to be at odds with the beliefs they claim they have and their position on torture. If they can't follow the dictates of their own faith how can we expect them to follow "lesser dictates" like international law or the Constitution (or even tell the truth consistently for that matter)? There has to be some minimum bar for morality in a president and sadly enough this election we're debating the value of hitting rock bottom in that area.

If I'm right about what a candidates stance on this issue says about them then I have four choices this election season; John McCain, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and every Dem candidate that isn't Hillary Clinton. Since I don't think that Ron Paul or Huckabee can win (or even want Huckabee to) the GOP nomination who I'll be voting for will most likely be decided by the winnowing process that is called the primaries and the sad thing is that in the end I may end up with a choice of lesser evils. Again.

Clinton's Support Eroding in NH

Oddly enough it seems to be going to second tier candidates...

From Fox News:

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."

Interestingly enough a recent Rasmussen Reports's poll shows the same trend:

In New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation Presidential Primary, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama is now measured in single digits.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone poll of the state’s Likely Primary Voters shows Clinton with 33% of the vote while Obama attracts 26%. John Edwards is the top choice for 15% while Bill Richardson earns 9% of the vote. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich are each preferred by 4%.

So on the off chance that the margin of error goes in Obama's favor that puts him within 1% of Clinton. Given the topsy turvy history of New Hampshire's primaries I'd be sweating if I were Clinton. Because if Obama pulls 1st in either Iowa or New Hampshire he'll dispel fears about his electability in South Carolina making SC a very tight race for Clinton given Edwards home field advantage. So much for Clinton's inevitability. Looks like she'll have to fight to the finish.

h/t to Memeorandum

Ron Paul Tops Thompson in NH GOP Polls

Placing him in fourth place according to a CNN poll. Meanwhile Giuliani and McCain are within the margin of error for second place with Romney solidly in first. Ron Paul's ad blitz is having an effect and Thompson's lack of well anything resembling momentum, excitement, or organization have cost him dearly. I think McCain isn't as much gaining momentum as he is picking up Giuliani defectors as Giuliani has been making it very clear that he'll trade his values for votes. I'm betting after NH we'll see the GOP lineup pared down to the top four. Frankly I'm hoping McCain ends up beating Giuliani and Ron Paul does better than the poll estimates once all the votes are tallied in NH.

Ron Paul’s Fund-Raising Takes Off

From the WSJ

"Rep. Ron Paul is bucking trends in the political money race.

While both Democrats and Republicans in the presidential race are finding it more difficult to pass the hat as their big donors hit federal giving limits, the trajectory for the Texas Republican keeps climbing.

The antiwar libertarian raised more than $3 million in the third quarter, up from $2.4 million in the second quarter and $641,000 in the first three months of the year.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, Paul out-raised old Washington hands including Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who took in $1.5 million, and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who raised just under $2 million.

For the year, Paul has collected around $6 million. He remains stuck in national polls at around 5% or less — about the same level of support as another Republican dark horse, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor."

Last quarter he out fund raised John McCain this quarter he beat Biden (with tiny bit of help from me). Now only three questions remain Who will he out raise next quarter? Will he translate web/fund raising successes into actual votes during the primaries? and Will he run as an independent or third party candidate when the GOP fails to give him the nod? I certainly don't know, but it'll be interesting to find out.

Republicans vs. Birth Control or Why the GOP is Going to Lose in 2008

From The Baltimore Sun:

The quiet campaign against birth control

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.

But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.

One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions."
(snip)

Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.

Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor."
(snip)

The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion, which makes it much easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. Take, for example, President Bush. While he has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right in the last seven years (Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the so-called partial-birth abortion ban), anti-contraception work has taken up more of his energy. He attempted to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees; appointed anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to contraceptive methods; chose another contraception opponent to oversee the nation's contraceptive program for the poor; defunded international family-planning programs, and invested unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception.

For now, the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering mainstream voters' simple questions on the subject, such as, "Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?" Considering that even 80 percent of self-described "pro-life" voters and a majority of Republican voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.
full article

Now any reasonable person realizes how ludicrous the idea of getting rid of birth control is. Period. But the fact that GOP hopefuls are willing to court the extremists of their party by deception shows some of the very real problems the GOP is facing. First there's the honesty factor. Romney implying that he's anti-contraception is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He never came out and said it. He just led them to believe he did. It seems that every candidate has an issue they treat like that when it comes to competing for the base. (Imagine Hillary speaking at PETA meetings implying "meat is murder" and you start to see my point.)

The sad fact is that currently the GOP actually needs that subsection of votes because the war in Iraq and a handful of other issues has caused it to hemorrhage moderates and independents thereby leaving more a more socially conservative Republican party. By being forced to endorse positions that they may not actually believe in they are shooting themselves in the foot by making themselves appear to hold positions not held by the majority and simply put this current batch of front runners aren't good liars (I think Giuliani could lie with the best of them but he's using the "I was there on 9/11" strategy so he doesn't have to.)

I really believe as long as the GOP keeps pandering to its base it is going to be relegated to the minority party until the Dems royally screw up and I'm guessing it'll be eight years of Dem control before that happens.

h/t The Gun Toting Kitten

Romney Wins in Iowa Straw Poll

From The Atlantic Online

Gov Mitt Romney won the 2007 Ames straw poll, receiving 4516 votes, or 31%.

In a surprise, Gov. Mike Huckabee finished second with 2587 votes at 18.1%

11. John Cox with 41 votes.
10. John McCain with 101 votes.
9. Duncan Hunter with 174 votes.
8. Rudy Giuliani with 183 votes.
7. Fred Thomson with 203 votes.
6. Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3%
5. Ron Paul with 1305 votes, and 9.1%
4. Tom Tancredo with 1961 votes, 13.7%.
3. Sen. Sam Brownback with 2192 votes and 15.3%

Iowa state auditor David Vaudt unofficially certified the results.

14,203 ballots were cast.

Now here's the weird thing... If you combine Giuliani and McCain's total votes Ron Paul beat them by over a 4 to 1 margin. Whodathunkit?

h/t Memeorandum

The Obama/Clinton Kerfuffle Continues

You know its a slow news week when this story just keeps getting dragged out like a soap opera.
In Obama's latest attempt to refute Clinton's claims about his inexperience he espoused his plan for the war on terror:

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq's leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country." full speech

Not too shabby. Again as long as the diplomacy starts many moons before the withdraw I could get behind that. I think Clinton made a miscalculation in choosing to point out Obama's " inexperience. All Obama has to do is show that he has a decent plan/vision and would be capable of implementing it for your average voter to give Obama a pass on his lack of time inside the beltway. And ultimately that's all he really needs to keep his foot in the door.

CA Electoral Votes to Be Split?

From The New Yorker:

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.

The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass. full article

The article goes on to point out that due to CA's moving up it primary date there will be this year the big primary and a smaller primary for state (including ballot) issues in June. That means a fraction of the usual turnout in June. All the GOP has to do is turn out its base and get the talking heads ranting. Should this initiative pass then the Dem's have to find a way to swing the pendulum back in their favor or they are so totally screwed. Once they've restored the balance by unlocking another states electoral votes independent presidential candidates will have a much easier time running for election. Thats a winning proposition to many Americans that are tired of voting for lesser evils.

h/t to Donklephant

FOX News Poll: Republicans Losing Ground in ’08 Race

Either the GOP candidates are in trouble or Fox is trying to lull the Dems into a false sense of security.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now holds a slight lead over top Republican Rudy Giuliani for the first time in a hypothetical 2008 presidential matchup. In fact, to varying degrees, Clinton and fellow Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama beat every Republican candidate they are tested against in the latest FOX News Poll.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from July 17 to July 18. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

In seven different head-to-head matchups, the poll shows the Democratic candidate tops the Republican. While this had been the case when Clinton was tested against Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, this is the first time she has the advantage over Giuliani.

By a 5 percentage point margin, voters say they would back Clinton over Giuliani (46 percent to 41 percent) if the election were held today. Clinton also leads McCain by 3 points (45 percent to 42 percent), Romney by 15 points (50 percent to 35 percent) and the yet-to-announce Fred Thompson by 9 points (47 percent to 38 percent).

In addition, voters think Clinton would do a better job than Giuliani handling the situation in Iraq (45 percent to 40 percent).

Although Obama is still well behind Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, he also improves his performance against the Republicans in matchups this month and has a 4-point edge over Giuliani (45 percent to 41 percent). Moreover, Obama does better than Clinton against the other top Republican contenders; he leads McCain by 10 points (47 percent to 37 percent) and Thompson by 16 percent (48 percent to percent).

When voters are asked which one candidate they would pick to sit down and have a conversation with, 26 percent say Clinton, 18 percent Obama, 12 percent Giuliani, 8 percent McCain and 7 percent Thompson.

Among Democrats, 41 percent would pick Clinton and 26 percent Obama; no other candidate receives double-digits. Among Republicans, 25 percent say they would want to have a conversation with Giuliani, 15 percent McCain and 15 percent Thompson — and 12 percent of Republicans pick Clinton and 9 percent Obama.

And when asked which candidate they would definitely vote for under "almost any circumstances," once again Clinton tops the list with 17 percent compared to 10 percent for Obama, 9 percent Giuliani, 4 percent Al Gore, 4 percent McCain and 4 percent Thompson.

Democrats are much more definitive here, with 31 percent saying they would definitely vote for Clinton under almost any circumstances and 18 percent for Obama. For Republicans, 18 percent say they would definitely vote for Giuliani under almost any circumstances, 9 percent Thompson and 8 percent McCain.

The former first lady’s polarizing effect comes through in the poll, as Clinton also wins the flip side of the question with three times as many people saying they would "never vote for" her under any circumstances than say that about any other candidate.

Overall, half of voters think Giuliani has enough experience to be president, and 64 percent of Republicans think so.

For Obama, many voters either think he lacks the right experience or are unsure. Just over a third of voters (35 percent) think he has the right experience, including 47 percent of Democrats. In December, 22 percent of voters thought Obama had the right experience.

More voters think Clinton is basing her candidacy on her own experience (45 percent) than on her husband Bill’s experience (30 percent); 20 percent say both.

"It is clear that the current climate in the country is helping the Democrats," comments Opinion Dynamics CEO John Gorman. "While the Clinton legacy is a polarizing factor, the Bush presidency may be even more polarizing. Compared to Al Gore’s attempt to separate himself from Clinton in 2000, the eventual Republican nominee may face an even harder task." more

I know campaign season is officially five months away but if the GOP doesn't field a strong, seemingly moral, and interesting candidate soon the race may end up really being between Clinton and Obama (and maybe Bloomberg). However if Ron Paul opts to run (which I feel he may if Bloomberg doesn't) as an independent he'll siphon off Republican enough votes to throw the election to the Dems by a clear majority.

Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
(snip)
"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."

Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.

"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts." full article

He's almost has a point there but it skips the fact that we didn't directly cause the problems in Chad and Sudan. However provided he (or anyone) were to start the aforementioned diplomatic process months prior to any withdrawal, that would be a plan I could get behind. Mr. Obama's plan, while sparse on details, at least sounds more like a plan than a talking point.

None of the Above

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
(snip)
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.
(snip)

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.

The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has essentially stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.

None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.

Nine Republicans and one all-but-declared hopeful, Thompson, make up the crowded GOP field. It shrunk in recent days when former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, an underfunded long shot, dropped out. Such discontent with the top-tier could lead Republicans to reconsider lesser-knowns such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee or Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.
(snip)

Andrew E. Smith, a polling expert at the University of New Hampshire, said the number of voters in flux is no surprise, given that the primaries aren't for another six months. "People really don't decide who to vote for until the last couple months or days," he said. full article

I can see why interest in the candidates are low. No one candidate has the record, the credentials , and is perceived as having the right moral fiber. You have some Reagan lites, some Dubya lites, Giuliani, and that Ron Paul guy.

The "money quote" form this story is, "I'm looking for a strong, honest person. Do you know of any?" and to many Republicans the answer seems to be no.

One has to wonder if they are looking at their line up of contenders and asking themselves,"Where's our Obama?"

Ron Paul: Bringing Home the Bacon

Indicators are that Mr.Paul's internet based fund raising machine is working pretty darn well.

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports:

Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.

In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.

"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.

Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.

Paul, who polls show with support in the low single digits, said his surprisingly strong fundraising is the best measure of his support. more

Again the real question will be how much he reports for the quarter and how many donors total. If he can beat Obama's quarter million donors he might actually have a chance.

Ron Paul Nearly Excluded in S.C.

Frome the Spartanburg Herald Journal:
Beltram tells Paul to 'come on down' here

So much for that whole closed door thing.

Two days after saying Ron Paul could stay out of Spartanburg, county GOP Chairman Rick Beltram on Thursday reversed course and invited the Republican presidential candidate to come on down.

And Thursday afternoon, Paul's campaign agreed. The only thing left to be settled is a date.

Beltram on Tuesday called Paul a "lunatic" for defending a theory that American intervention in foreign affairs contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Paul made the comments at the GOP debate in Columbia in May, and he drew an angry response from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

After the debate, Beltram decided he had heard enough from the Texas congressman and said Paul could "stay home." A flood of e-mails and voicemails from across the country apparently changed Beltram's mind.

"I was told by at least 125 e-mails and 25 voice mails that I didn't hear correctly, newspapers didn't report it correctly and live TV didn't reflect it correctly," Beltram said. "If we're all that naive and we all misunderstood, I think they should come on down and tell us how we're wrong, and I think the people of Spartanburg will be anxious to listen." more

Interestingly enough Mr. Paul is proving to be a excellent test of how inflexible GOP leaders can be to those who voice ideas outside of its mandated talking points. Whether or not he wins the primary, he may prove to be an excellent measure of just exactly how big the GOP's tent is.

Ron Paul's Website #1 of All Candidates

in a custom report created for ClickZ News, Hitwise measured traffic market share of the candidate sites. The measurement firm found traffic to Democratic candidate sites was top heavy, favoring Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards's sites. HillaryClinton.com garnered nearly a third of visits among Democratic candidate sites in May. BarackObama.com attracted almost 28 percent, and JohnEdwards.com drew 23 percent of visitors to Dem campaign sites last month.

Visits to Republican candidate sites were spread a bit more evenly among the sites tracked. RonPaul2008.com drew a 27 percent share of visitors to Republican candidate sites in May. MittRomney.com attracted almost 21 percent of visits last month, while JohnMccain.com brought in almost 13 percent.

Hitwise defines market share of visits within a site category as the percentage of traffic to a particular site based on its sample of 10 million U.S. Web users. full article

Now should Mr. Paul's finances show the same gain his site has we'll be seeing candidate's scrambling to imitate his web strategy.

h/t to Donklephant