One must wonder when you read this from her campaign spokesman:
"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."
What conclusions do you draw? Coming in a close second? Making behind the scene deals? Which many question Richardson's play in this? And this is only speculative.
But the final conclusion is this. Barack Obama, if he wins, Clinton must place a very close second to use the "Come Back Girl" meme, if she plays it.
We all know what happened in New Hampshire in 1992, after the Genifer Flowers story broke, Bill Clinton came in second. Bill Clinton swept the media narrative. Bill Clinton was the "Come Back Kid."
On the evening of January 3, 2008 I'll be watching with anticipation the results of the Iowa Caucus. Like many of you, I'll be pulling my hair out as the results come trickling in wondering why I drank all of the champagne before all the counties closed. Fortunately for me and my candidate, the statistics are on our side so the earlier than expected hangover is well worth it:
A couple weeks ago I had the chance of canvassing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and saw up close the impressive ground operation that Barack Obama has in place. What I experienced was a confident field staff and a well organized canvassing plan. I was really impressed that the staff had a thorough knowledge of the people on the list and the area as a whole. These were not out of state campaign staffers, these were Iowa lifers who have worked on Kerry, Edwards, and Dean campaigns in Iowa.
Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"
There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.
(Thanks to Shaun for inviting me to cross-post this from MyDD. Glad to be here.)
It was May 23, 2007, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, that John Edwards first called the War on Terror a "bumper sticker."
Many Democrats cheered him for finally acknowledging that the Bush Administration's "War on Terror" is not a mission designed to keep us safer, but a slogan designed to quell dissent and to justify not only the disastrous war in Iraq but any number of abuses of our civil liberties as Americans. Don't question our Commander-in-Chief, we've heard over and over, we're at war.
Republicans, ironically enough, confirmed the importance of the "War on Terror" as a political slogan by rallying to its defense, deploying the predictable smear that Edwards must be soft on terrorism because he doesn't agree with Republican framing on the subject. And some Democrats - either because they supported a different candidate or because they were fearful of appearing weak on national security as a party - hastened to enable the Republican talking points and disavow Edwards' statements.
But now we have confirmation that Edwards was, in fact, exactly right - confirmation straight from the chief architect of the Iraq War himself, Donald Rumsfeld:
Polls... I don't really think there's a need to do a lot of poll diaries here on One Million Strong. I also like to use a lot of qualifiers when talking about them. But there are a couple of potentially emerging trends that might be worth looking at: (Graphs courtesy of the excellent Pollster.com)
Thesis #1. John Edwards dropping in Iowa?
There have been a couple recent Iowa polls that have led some to speculate that Edwards may be falling behind in Iowa. As many of you know, good strategies for reading poll numbers include comparing them to an aggregate of all pollsters (as in the chart here) or comparing them to previous poll by the same pollster (and thus with the same methodology).
Today's ARG poll showed Edwards at 15%, down from a finding of 19% the previous month and down from a high in June of 29%. And then there was the University of Iowa poll released last week that showed him in third place at 20% behind Clinton (29%) and Obama (27%). I've been very skeptical of ARG polls in the past, and I'll be looking for some other results.
It is, however, maybe worth pointing out just how much progress Obama has made in these ARG polls. As recently as the end of July, ARG had Obama polliing in the low-to-mid teens. They now show him consistently polling in the twenties.
Thesis #2. Mike Huckabee surging? ---- After the fold...
There have been a couple recent Iowa polls that have led some to speculate that Edwards may be falling behind in Iowa. As many of you know, good strategies for reading poll numbers include comparing them to an aggregate of all pollsters (as in the chart here) or comparing them to previous poll by the same pollster (and thus with the same methodology). 
