Is Hillary running scared in Iowa?

[ClarkUSA]

The latest poll from the Washington Post and ABC News shows Barack Obama ahead in the Hawkeye State, slightly in the lead with
30 percent to Hillary Clinton's 26 percent. Although this is statistically a tie -- it has been a horse race among Obama, Clinton and John
Edwards for the last few months -- it is the first poll in months actually showing Obama in the lead.

And Hillary Clinton must be worried.

Over the last few weeks, the New York senator has beefed up her Iowa field staff and opened new offices. She now has 34 offices, compared
with Obama's 35.

The difference is Obama started his campaign in Iowa right off the bat, renting dozens of locales for offices and making sure his field workers
developed strong relations with the residents in towns and cities across the state. That's the key in this first caucus state, cultivating caucus-
goers, making a personal pitch and getting them to sign a support card... The truth is, Obama is a strong second choice for many Iowa
Democrats.

And according to the Washington Post-ABC News poll, more voters are looking for "new direction and new ideas" than are those who believe
"strength and experience" are the most important qualities in a Democratic presidential candidate.

"Our definition of success doesn't necessarily mean coming in first," explains Clinton spokesman Mark Daley. "As long as we have a strong
showing on caucus night."

And he said Obama has certain advantages. "We're running against a guy from a neighboring state who shares media markets with the state."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/662863,CST-NWS-hunter22a.article

Oh yeah, Hillary is running scared -- so scared, she already sounds like she's conceding Iowa while simultaneously downplaying success on
Obama's part to minimize media fallout and create a meme that will become "conventional wisdom": Obama only won because he's from
neighboring Illinois.

Right, that's why President Dick Gephardt won Iowa in 2000.

:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Dick Gephardt Didn't Have A Strategy Of "Resistance Is Futile - Accept My Coronation"

Clinton does.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Good point, MG.

I'm with ya all the way and always liked your views. :thumbsup:

[cali]

2. Who knows? She doesn't need to win Iowa, or even come in 2nd

but she sure can't afford to lose NH. And if she's not even close in Iowa, I think that becomes a distinct possibility. Obama doesn't need to win Iowa either. He too can handle on 2nd or close 3rd. Edwards needs to win.

[Perry Logan]

3. So...Clinton is "scared," even though there's no reason for her to be scared. Fascinating.

[cali]

5. try reading my post,

I didn't say she was scared; I said who knows. It was the OP who said she was scared.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Obama needs to win Iowa

There, I said it.

If Hillary wins, we're all toast. If Edwards wins, it means voters took a close look at Obama and concluded that someone else represents a better hope for change. In either scenario, Obama will be painted by the MSM as the Big Loser, with only five days to regroup before NH.

Of course, the good news is Obama will win Iowa.

[Debi]

8. Obama only needs to 'do well' from January 3rd to Feb. 5th

His home state (and I'm sure a few others) will deliver on Super Duper Tuesday. If nobody has run away with the nomination by then Obama has a good chance of secruing enough delegates to make the National Convention an actual National NOMINATING Convention. JMO

[Stop Cornyn]

65. Obama needs to beat Hillary in Iowa. He survives` Iowa if 1st - Edwards, Obama - 2nd, Hillary - 3rd

Hillary doesn't need to win Iowa, but she cannot finish 4th, either.

[Debi]

7. Why does she have to win any of the first four states?

She'll just out-buy ad time in New York and California and shove her nomination down American Democrats throats on Feb. 5th.

[NMDemDist2]

20. right, I think she's just going for a decent showing in IA

Super Tuesday will take care of everything

[BenDavid]

6. Excuse me but the beefing up her campaign in Iowa

was done long before the ABC/Washinton Post poll came out....What is amazing is during this period of time this poll was conducted there were 11 other polls taken. Out of the total of 12 polls 11 had HRC in the lead from 2, 4 6 to 10 points lead. Did these other polls get the air time as that one poll? Why no! Why, because the MSM had to have a story and no better way then to say," the race for the democratic nomination is closing". uh huh Now if one cares to look at the other state polls then HRC retains her lead over them all and in many has increased her lead. But this 1 poll got all the attention. I digress, and I go back to the MSM needing a story. When was the last time you saw on CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox show a poll from another network? Hardly ever and that is the silliness of this 1 poll. If I were the pollster hired by NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, CNN I would be upset because on all those networks their polling shows HRC in the lead and I would be more then upset, I would be pissed because as the way the story unfolded it was like, "A new poll in Iowa shows Obama in the lead by 4% points", and a day or two before this those networks showed their up to date polling...

See how the MSM can manipulate their reporting....I still say HRC will win Iowa, and all the early voting states and sometime between February 5 and the 15th she will have gained a majority of the delegates to become the nominee....

I do thank you
Ben David

[ClarkUSA]

12. Hiring 150 more staffers happened in early November, hardly "a long time"

I remember seeing all the want ads in Washington, DC. And she waited until far after the time Obama did, giving some credence to the idea that
internal polls showed her losing to Obama before ABC/WaPo poll went public a few weeks later.

The ABC/Washington Post poll is important for many reasons, not the least of which it is a STATE poll of Iowa likely caucus goers that came out
only this past MONDAY and is an in-depth look at their macro- and micro- preferences. Comparing them to national polls is like comparing
apples to oranges.

[cuke]

27. Petty. So what?

So what if it wasnt a "long time before"? It was before so obviously, it wasn't a reaction to the polls, 11 of which have her in the lead.

[ClarkUSA]

34. No, that's a fact that I was using to correct a fiction.

Read the entire sub thread next time before throwing petty accusations.

As for polls, comparing an in-depth state poll of Iowa caucus goers that minutely examines macro- and micro- preferences
to gross national polling is like comparing apples to oranges.

[cuke]

37. Again, petty. So what?

The only "evidence" you have that Clinton is "scared" is that she is doing what EVERY candidate is doing - beefing up their presence in Iowa.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Only in Hillaryworld is correcting fiction with facts considered "petty".

Typical learning curve there....

See my reply to a similar in-post accusation you make downthread.

[cuke]

59. Too bad you don't have any facts

Hillary began beefing up her staff in October, as another posters link proves

[ClarkUSA]

62. So far I've given you plenty of time to provide links to your "facts"?

Such a typical Hillbot you are. Polly wanna cracker?

[Andromeda]

67. If you would grow up and stop using

words like Hillbot and Hillaryworld, maybe you would be taken more seriously.

You may think you're clever, but believe me, you're not.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Ah, etiquette lessons from a Hillaryworld acolyte/apologist? Oh the Hypocrisy!

:rofl:




P.S. Speaking of not being too clever, do you even know the origin of one of the terms which you criticize?
Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't do it. lol

[Andromeda]

72. I'm not trying to be clever...

that's my point. You don't have to resort to name-calling to get your point across. Insulting people never works and you don't seem to get that.

[ClarkUSA]

73. No, you're just trying to do a bit of ritual shaming. Funny how only Hillaryworlders do that.

Like most Clintonian hypocrites here, you seem upset by the very things you overlook in your own. When y'all stop
the selective outrage and police yourselves, the rest of us will settle down. Until that happens, all Kumbaya bets are
off.

"Lobbyists are people, too" ~ Hillary Clinton, Yearly Kos 2007

[BenDavid]

49. facts are wrong: CUKE you ar RIGHT: CLINTON TO ADD 100

Iowa Staffers:


Posted: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:07 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton


From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Chuck Todd
Sources tell First Read the Clinton campaign is making a push to significantly step up their efforts in Iowa. They are aiming to add more 100 paid staff in the Hawkeye State by Nov. 1.



Hillary Clinton Iowa Hiring flyer Click here to see a larger view of the flyer (.pdf format)

The campaign has also created a flier advertising an Oct. 28 and 29th Clinton “job fair” in Arlington, Va., where to send resumes and how to set up phone interviews.

According to an analysis by the Des Moines Register, Obama has 145 paid staffers in Iowa, Edwards has 130 and Clinton has 117.

I do thank you
Ben David

[ClarkUSA]

53. Actually, it was "more than 100 staff" - some estimates say as much as 150

But who's counting? There's nothing wrong with scrambling to make up for lost ground already covered
by Obama months ago when began running a textbook grassroots caucus plan.

[cuke]

56. Actually, it happened in October, not November as you claimed earlier

Why dont you admit you were wrong when you said it was November?

[BenDavid]

80. Hard to find someone that posts something wrong and

will not defend his/her post. Thank you cuke for your imput.....This is basically what is happening in iowa as it happens in here. Obama and his staffers are saying anything in hopes it sticks. Whether it be wrong or not. I am waiting for the time that HRC cuts the legs out from under this man.

What makes me so mad is the way the press whether tv or print, deserted their own polls(11 of 12 shows HRC in lead) and have now for almost a week ran with that one poll where Obama is in the lead. Does anyone believe if the next poll from abc shows hrc back in the lead that story will run for a week? NO! and an emphatic HELL NO!

Cuke thanks again for you keeping this going and if the obama folks will not come and defend their posts then we will post the truth and let others see for themselves....I do thank you. Shalom,

Ben David

[BenDavid]

47. The hiring of more workers was not in relation to the poll. The

hiring was sought in mid to late October and the final number was decided on in early November (1st through the 5th)..The poll ran through if I am not mistaken the 18th of November.( November 14th thru the 18th)
The hiring was to get more folks to commit to attending the caucus. That is the hard thing to do in Iowa and that is to get folks to come out on that day and attend. Maybe they will have great weather in the 60's and folks will make their decision...

I tell no lies and give no alibies and here is the newsletter to dispute your claim.

CLINTON TO ADD 100 IOWA STAFFERS
Posted: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:07 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton


From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Chuck Todd
Sources tell First Read the Clinton campaign is making a push to significantly step up their efforts in Iowa. They are aiming to add more 100 paid staff in the Hawkeye State by Nov. 1.

[ClarkUSA]

51. What do you think "beefed up her Iowa field staff" means?

Hmmm?

[cuke]

58. It means it happened in October, not November as you claimed earlier

but you have yet to acknowledge.

[ClarkUSA]

60. What you're saying contradicts the story Ben David posted up thread.

It also contradicts what I saw in DC: "PLEASE HELP ME!" ads from Hillary popping up all over the place in early November,
after her offers at a Virginia job fair on Oct. 28/29 didn't get many bites.

Repeated NEBULOUS CLAIMS without EVIDENCE to back up is symbolic of Hillaryworld at DU. Congratulations on finding
a candidate that reflects you so well.

[cuke]

61. It began in October

What you saw in November is irrelevant

[ClarkUSA]

63. You keep parroting the same phrase with no evidence. Polly wanna cracker?

Still waiting for a link and quotes. But you won't because you have none and Ben David's link to Chuck Todd's article upthread
proves you wrong. You're full of shit.

[Laelth]

71. I certainly hope you're wrong.

I have no basis, however, to disagree with your analysis.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. Is she the only one focusing energy on Iowa? More negative spin

This is more negative propaganda. Every one of the candidates are focusing on Iowa with time and money. If they are not sending in more people / buying more ads / canvassing in Iowa, they need a new campaign adviser. And yet when Clinton does the appropriate thing--it is twisted to a negative.

The headlines:
Obama: "smart campaigning as Iowa's caucuses get closer"
Clinton: "running scared in Iowa"

[Debi]

10. You are correct

Dodd/Edwards/Richardson have all pulled staff from NV and moved them to Iowa. I'm sure this 'beefing up' of Clinton's was in the long-term caucus plan of the campaign. If they (her campaign) shifted their focus any it was to concentrate more on the rural areas. Beyond that, I see her campaign as textbook.

[Skip Intro]

11. It couldn't be more transparent, could it. I don't know who the spinners think they're fooling.

They sure aren't doing their guy any favors.

If the only way candidate O can look good is if he and some of his supporters trash candidate H, then candidate O isn't looking good at all.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Clinton spokesman Daley is the one who's spinning a Clinton loss in Iowa.

The reporter is just asking the question. It's not as if her campaign quashed the notion when the reporter interviewed
Daley. In fact, what he said only reinforced the notion.

[ClarkUSA]

15. No, she isn't but she is the only one more than doubling her staff & tripling her offices so late

Why'd she wait so long? Because internal polls started showing what the ABC/WaPo poll showed -- that Obama, with his superior
number of staffers and offices, was winning Iowa.

Better late than never, I guess.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. you are jumping to false conclusions based on faulty assumptions

No where in the article does it suggest that she "waited so long." No where in the article does it suggest that she is the only one bringing in more people. Perhaps that was her plan all along--as it is with the other candidates who are now also beefing up their showing as it gets closer to the caucus.

No where does it suggest in the article that she is "late." She had a different strategy based on her belief that a strong showing in Iowa is fine, that they don't have to be #1, and that focusing on other areas of the country prior to this point, may be time better spent.

The negative spin is reserved for Clinton and Clinton alone. No negative spin on Biden / Richardson / Dodd who are also beefing up their Iowa showing as it gets closer to the event.

This is just a continuation of the crap Clinton had to put up with since she arrived on the scene in the 90's. What is troubling is how many "progressives" do not see past the crap. What is amazing is that with all the negative crap, she is still in the running.

[ClarkUSA]

24. And you're assuming that my conclusion is false when it's logical deduction.

Don't get your knickers in a twist... there's nothing wrong with doing things at the last minute because you're losing to
a candidate who started running a textbook grassroots caucus campaign months ago. It shouldn't surprise you since
according to Vilsack, Clinton couldn't even figure out - after all her much self-advertised political "experience" - that
she had to actually "build relationships" with Iowans to get them to caucus for her. Duh!

"With new anxieties about Iowa and a sense of heightened importance in the vote’s outcome, the Clinton campaign sent
several senior strategists here, including Karen Hicks, who is known as one of the party’s top get-out-the-vote specialists.
To compete with the strong organizations of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama, the Clinton campaign held a job fair in
Washington to recruit many of the 100 new workers, but it remains an open question whether the late influx of young
aides will be able to build the relationships with Iowa voters that other campaigns have been working on for months.

<snip>

“At the beginning, she didn’t understand the whole notion of relationship building,” said Mr. Vilsack, the former Iowa
governor, who often travels the state with Mrs. Clinton and introduces her to voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18dems.html

Just showing up at big townhalls armed with a binder full of planted questions wasn't enough, I guess. :shrug:

[cuke]

28. No, she pointeed out that ALL the candidates are beefing up their IA staffs

a point you have yet to address

[ClarkUSA]

31. Who's "she"? Clinton? The reporter?

Or did you not read this reply subject line wherein I agreed with a third possible "she":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3751966&mesg_id=3752574

Reading all posts in a sub thread is fundamental.

[cuke]

35. Nice try

but you still havent addressed the issue.

Every candidate is bringing in staff to IA and beefing up their presence. "How late" it is is irrelevant as EVERY candidate is bringing in staff to IA and beefing up their presence. It is just as late for Biden, Obama, etc as it is for Clinton.

You got owned and now you cant admit that all did you was prove IOKWSNHDI - It's OK When Somebody Not Hillary Does It

[ClarkUSA]

36. Reading comprehension is important in blogging. I'll explain AGAIN. Patiently.

My clear point was not only she was late to the game, but the sheer number of the hoards of paid DC staffers she brought in along
with the popcorn-offices that suddenly appeared, dotting rural hamlets where Obama had the foresight to establish a strong
presence months ago indicates Penn panic brought on by the bad internal polling findings that always precedes public polling -
in this case, the results of Monday's ABC/WaPo poll that put Obama as a first among equals In Iowa.

Own that.

[cuke]

38. Repeating it doesnt make it less false

Every candidate is beefing up their presence in Iowa. EVERY. CANDIDATE.

You seem to think the large # of staffers she has is a bad thing and a sign of panic. It's the candidates who can't bring lots of staffers to Iowa who are in trouble. As you yourself have pointed out, Hillary did not concentrate her staff in Iowa as some of the other candidates have, (Note: Obama is not the only one to have the "wisdom" to put all their eggs in one basket) so it's only natural and logical that she would have more staff to move to Iowa as the date of the cacauses approaches.

[ClarkUSA]

42. Where is your evidence that my logical conclusion (and that of others) is "false"?

I won't repeat myself again since you are not listening to the other points I've made up thread but suffice it to say that
more than one political reporter and analyst have surmised the same thing.

[cuke]

48. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. IE the OP

That would be you

And all you've got is that Clinton is doing what every candidate is doing and bunch of media whores who agree with you.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Oh, I didn't know defense attorneys didn't have to prove their case.

If you're going to use legal analogies, follow them through to their logical conclusion, otherwise you sound foolish.

All you've got is Clinton scrambling like mad to cover up lost ground Obama has secured and lots of political analysts
in and out of Iowa making informed observations that mirror mine.

Next time you recommend a "media whore" who writes a flattering story about Hillaryworld, I'll remember your circular
thinking and use it to denigrate YOUR thinking and their opinions. Just to have fun poking at Clintonian hypocrisy.

lol

[cuke]

52. Not "legal". It's "logical"

You made an assertion that Hillary is "scared" based on the nebulous "evidence" that she's doing what every other candidate is doing and the opinions of some media whores who agree with you

Glad to see we're all having fun

[ClarkUSA]

54. Is it? Perhaps in Hillaryworld it is.

You made the nebulous assertion that Hillaryworld is not "scared" based on your non-speciifc claim that she's only doing what others are doing,
while continuing to ignore my and others' conclusion that the massive scale of her late-to-the-game "beefing up" - what others are NOT doing -
indicates that the Clinton party machine knows they're in big trouble in Iowa and is trying to shore up second place.

[cuke]

57. Now you're just making stuff up

I said nothing of the sort, and I did explain why Clinton AND EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is beefing up their staff and I explained why she has so many staffers in Iowa.

You've got nothing but some media whores agreeing with you.

[ClarkUSA]

64. What am I making up, pray tell?

You are nothing but a broken record of Hillaryworld delusion. Comfort yourself with your fairytales that all is well in Iowa.
By the way, Obama is NOT beefing up his staff in Iowa. Do you know why? Because he had a textbook perfect grassroots
caucus plan for many months while Clinton is scrambling to cover lost ground that Obama has staked out comfortably.

Now sing yourself to sleep with love songs to Your Queen of Parsing. Here, I'll start the first refrain for you:

"Lobbyists are people, too" ~ Hillary Clinton, Yearly Kos 2007

[ClarkUSA]

77. *crickets*

:eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. don't bother

logic is not a fundament of some arguments.

[ClarkUSA]

33. You shouldn't talk about yourself that way...

Ma'am.

[cuke]

39. Wow! The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense

Havent seen that one in a while

[ClarkUSA]

44. I've never heard of 'the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense' before.

But I'm glad I've provided you with a moment of nostalgia. What era in U.S. history does that saying come from?

[William769]

13. Is this one of those threads like the one's that said Hillary wasn't going to

campaign in Iowa because she knew she couldn't win?

We saw what happened there, didn't we.

[ClarkUSA]

17. No, it's one of those threads where the reporter asks a question and interviewed a Clinton spokesman

Who promptly reinforced the notion that Hillary is running scared.

"Our definition of success doesn't necessarily mean coming in first," explains Clinton spokesman Mark Daley.

[William769]

19. She doesn't have to come in first to win.

Second or even third, she still kicks ass. The only way Iowa can actually hurt her is to come in dead last, and that ain't going to happen.

[ClarkUSA]

21. You know what I mean.

I know what you mean, too, but coming in second will shake the foundations of her "inevitability" meme while coming in third will destroy it and cause
undecideds to flock toward the "winner" in NH, SC, NV, and elsewhere, probably sending the presumptive winner Obama (according to Clinton spokesman
Daley) onto greater victory. That's something no campaign wants.

[creeksneakers2]

26. A couple of losses won't change the race

Look at the national map graphical representations. Edwards and Obama have many miles of ground to make up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[suston96]

14. Running scared? Yes......

She is on a suicide watch..........

[ClarkUSA]

18. ROFL

Welcome to DU, my friend.

[cali]

22. now that's what i call wishful thinking

what's wrong with actually assessing a political situation realistically?

[suston96]

25. ...what's wrong with actually assessing a political situation realistically?

Now THAT'S wishful thinking.

"Actually? Assessing? Realistically?" You really believe that is possible given the grey matter calibre of the electorate, and the daily onslought of an aggressive media, intent on tightening these nomination races so they last for as long as possible?

Sorry, no, or very little real assessment is possible. But it's OK to think we have successfully assessed.

[cuke]

30. pomo navel-gazing

"Gee, how could we possibly be realistic when everyone else is so dumb?"

[HughMoran]

43. Fun post = missed

You're a real bummer sometimes!

[creeksneakers2]

29. Edwards is afraid of New Hampshire

Even if Edwards wins Iowa he has to move on to New Hampshire in five days. Edwards polls as low as 9% in New Hampshire. Edwards is putting aside his do or die in Iowa to tag up in New Hampshire next week. Edwards has a less than even chance in Iowa and he looks bad in New Hampshire. Its highly unlikely that Edwards could win both.

[Catherine Vincent]

40. Only in your diluted mind. nt

[ClarkUSA]

45. Thanks for that erudite reply.

I'll always cherish this moment.

[hayu_lol]

46. I really don't think that the lady...

scares so easily.

Particularly not in a state contest that isn't even an election.

Wonder how long the no-host bars stay open in a caucus?

[illinoisprogressive]

66. That would explain Brownbacks success! Kansas! lol. Or Mondale's in 84!

[ClarkUSA]

69. Clinton's Iowa spokesman is just pitiful.

It won't stop Hillaryworlders from parroting him, of course.

[suston96]

70. In the beginning was the word......

.....in the beginning this was what the people thought.

www.graphwise.com/portal/index.php?/archives/49-US-Election-Pre-Poll-Report.html



How much will they change?

[ClarkUSA]

74. On Jan. 3, Iowans will either choose CHANGE or status quo DLC/Clintonian politics as usual.

I have hope that they will make the right decision.

[Tellurian]

75. Yes, they are loving those two words...Madam President!

[Imagevision]

76. Oprah; "you don't have to vote for the first woman president, you have to

vote for what you need".

[AtomicKitten]

78. Obviously, and for good reason.

Gobama.

[Tejanocrat]

79. I can't say until I know whether Mark Penn has told Hillary to be scared yet.

[Cameron27]

81. No, she's not running scared in Iowa.

Edwards probably is the one who's got the most to worry about.