BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Baghdad on Saturday, a day after suicide bombings killed dozens in the Iraqi capital.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to meet the U.S.'s top commander in Iraq during her Baghdad visit.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to meet the U.S.'s top commander in Iraq during her Baghdad visit.

The one-day visit to Baghdad was not previously announced because of security concerns.

Clinton, who spoke with reporters after she landed in Kuwait on Friday evening, said she planned to meet with the United State's top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, to get his assessment on the recent bombings in Iraq.

"I want his evaluation of what these kinds of rejectionist efforts mean," Clinton said. "And what can be done to prevent them by both the Iraqi government and the U.S. forces."

Clinton added that she did not see signs of rekindled sectarian violence.

"I think that the suicide bombings, that are lethal and terrible in the loss of life and the injuries they inflict, are in an unfortunately tragic way the signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction."

So how does Barack Obama respond to the clear challenge he has with white working class voters? He insults them and essentially writes them off. He tells them the Appalachian Trail is not his path to the White House. He tells his elite, wealthy financial supporters in San Francisco that such voters "cling" to guns and religion out of bitterness over their lack of economic prosperity. With statements reminiscent of Marx's "opiate of the masses," Mr. Obama suggests guns and religion are the emotional crutches blue-collar workers need to cope with reality.

Consequently, Mr. Obama failed to connect with West Virginia voters. He drove many of them straight into Mrs. Clinton's waiting arms, and he seems to be executing the same strategy in the Bluegrass State of Kentucky. For him to lose these states by wide margins does not bode well for carrying them in the general election.

By Tony Blankley

For a few, it is straight-out bigotry. ("I'll never vote for a black, an Irishman, an English dog, a pretty boy like Romney, a Jew, a woman, etc.") Those votes are lost to rational debate.

But for a larger number of voters, there exists some extra resistance to voting for someone who, on the surface, seems different. This is race (or other demographic) consciousness, but not straight-out bigotry. For these voters, they need more evidence to convince them that this seemingly "different" kind of person is, under the surface, pretty much the same as the voter.

McCain advisers have paid close attention to how Hillary Clinton has exploited Mr Obama's weakness among blue-collar, culturally conservative white voters and intend to use a similar strategy against him in the general election. Aides say that if Mr McCain can win about 20 per cent of moderate Democrats nationally – an achievable target, based on recent polls – he will win the White House.

INDIANAPOLIS — Many black voters are making it very clear: They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November.

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama's aura of inevitability in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has diminished after his loss in the Pennsylvania primary and amid the furor over his former pastor, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

According to some excellent reporting by Politico.com, a rather frightening meeting took place here in New York City two nights ago. Billionaire far-left zealot George Soros had a dinner in his Manhattan home that included Clinton confidante Paul Begala and the vicious character assassin David Brock, who runs Media Matters. Apparently, these three are starting an organization called Progressive Media USA.

Now as we reported last week, a number of organizations are set up to attack John McCain, including this new Progressive Media deal. As much as $350 million could be spent vilifying McCain. I believe this is evil.

The revulsion at the Clintons' lack of scruples remained latent as long as the focus was on her relatively unknown opponent, a blank slate being filled in with Tony Rezko's shady dealings and Jeremiah Wright's racist rants. Tuzla not only provided a distraction from Obama's problem with the raving reverend, it created the perfect setting for the press to pronounce the Wright affair closed.

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton. They said it couldn't be done that the free pass Obama had received thus far from the mainstream media this primary season could never end. They were wrong. They said the walk on water Barack Obama could never be proven just a mere mortal. They were wrong. Turns out Obama's not just a mere mortal he's a mere politician. Yes, it took Hillary several long months but somehow just days before Super Tuesday II all the gods aligned and the infamous Clinton Machine finally inflicted a slow air leak to the Obamapalooza bubble. And it was this slow air leak that allowed Hillary to do what they said could not be done. She won both in Texas and Ohio and stands a very good chance of winning again in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

Yes, sure, Hillary's new TV ad launched just days before last Tuesday's vote the one with that phone ringing at in the White House at 3AM proved effective. It made voters stop and think maybe for the first time "Is Obama really ready?" But it was not this ad alone that pushed Hillary to her big win last Tuesday. All of sudden there were questions. They may not be all new questions but they were for the first time rising to the surface threatening to prick the Obamapalooza bubble and prick it they did. You know the questions. But they bear repeating. These are among the questions that made it impossible for Barack Obama to seal the deal. These are among the questions American voters now want Obama the man himself not one of his surrogates to address:

1. Please explain to us why your campaign has described your relationship with Weather Underground's Bill Ayers as "friendly?" Do you think establishing a "friendly" relationship with a known terrorist will sit well with the American electorate?

2. Please explain to us why your campaign at first denied the conversation between your chief economic adviser and Canadian officials re: NAFTA ever took place. If indeed there was no "wink wink" why deny?

3. Why have you not rejected and denounced the minister of your church who has bestowed honors on Louis Farrakhan?

4. Please explain to us what role Tony Rezko played in the purchase of your family home and tell us if Hillary's depiction of Rezko as a corrupt slumlord was unfair in your assessment? Why or why not?

These are the questions that prove to all of us that in fact no Barack Obama is not the new messiah. He may indeed be leading a movement ---a movement that many have described as spiritual ----but Obama it seems thanks to that slow air leak has finally floated back down to earth. And there are six long more weeks for more air to escape from the Obamapalooza bubble before the next big state primary in PA. Now that we've proven that Obama is just another man like any other man (albeit with a gift for oratory) doesn't that make Hillary Clinton as the first woman to run for this highest office the new novelty of the day? Is it advantage Hillary going into Pennsylvania?

The polls indicate it would be easier for republicans to win in the fall with a McCain-Clinton match up vs. a McCain-Obama race. I'm not so sure. While it's true a Clinton nominee would help rally conservatives to McCain I for one had been preparing myself to see the GOP take on the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. While Hillary did effectively hit Obama on NAFTA she was not so effective on the Rezko or Louis Farrakhan bits. I believe the GOP stands a good chance to not only hit Obama harder and more effectively than Hillary did on these issues which speak to character but on the more substantive matters of policy as well. Yes, Obama wants to change America. He wants to trend this country toward higher taxes, socialized medicine, and surrender to the enemy. Yes, Obama wants to change the United States of America the country which I have always loved and the country of which I have always been proud. And so I must warn not just Obama's minions but any undecideds thinking they might support Obama in the fall: not all change is good.

And now I turn once again to you my fellow newsviners and ask you to vote in my Obamapolooza poll. We've seen that Obama's bubble has suffered a slow air leak. But can it be burst once and for all? Please be sure to vote in my survey and share with me your opinions regarding the health of Obamapolooza and as always I thank you once again for your participation.

It is widely known that Ross Perot cost George H. Bush a second term in the White House. The small man with the big ears and even bigger pocketbook siphoned votes from Bush 41 at a dizzying pace. While Perot took votes from Clinton without a doubt, he pirated the most votes from Bush. Perot took one out of every five voters in that 1992 election, allowing Bill Clinton to win with 43% of the vote. It could even be said that Ross Perot started the partisan wars of the 1990's because the primary issue that Republicans latched on to as a legitimate reason to attack Bill Clinton is because he did not have a presidential mandate: he hadn't won a majority of the voters in the election so he was an illegitimate president.

Perot won the Democrats one election. It is common public dogma from the Republican Party that Bill Clinton stole the 1992 election with the help of Ross Perot. It is, however, an inside joke that the Republicans stole the 2000 election with the assistance of Ralph Nader and would have stolen the 2004 election with Nader had it been close enough to need theft.

Ralph Nader maintains a triumvirate of untruthitudes, as fictitious lawyer Jackie Chiles from "Seinfeld" would call them, about his political candidacy for the office of president.

The first is that he is the only "real" candidate in any presidential election that he is involved in. While this is a matter of personal opinion, I think you will find popular opinion saying that both major party candidates (or at least one of them) was representative of the American people... perhaps even moreso than Nader. Since that is at issue is whether the opinion of the people is being represented, the likelihood that a majorly of the populace would say that Nader is not representative of their views would clearly make his claim false.

The second untruthitude is not only silly, it is indicative of who Ralph Nader is, what he is about and what his purpose in an election is. Big-time Republican financial donors have all coincidentally signed on to Ralph's credo of anti-corporatism and pro-ecology... which clearly makes sense given the Bush administration's strong stance against corporate personhood, corporate fraud and corporate destruction of the environment. Not only that, but the Bush Environmental Protection Agency is the strongest it has been in years. Yes, these donors are giving out of the goodness of their hearts and the alignment of their policy. I quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, who outlines the support of Nader by Bush Pushers far better than I could hope to:

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

But the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.

All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show.

Totals:
Nader's Republican supporters

$275,249

Total contributions of $1,000 or more to Nader as of May 31

$23,000

Contributions from those who have also given to Republican causes, including the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Among Ralph Nader's top Republican donors:

-- Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president's re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.

-- Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.

-- David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

-- Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader's campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Source: Federal Elections Commission

The "Totals:" in emphasis was added by me to indicate to the reader what they were looking at. There is more on the money issue showing that Nader is lying to himself and everyone else and that is the reaction of his 2004 Vice Presidential candidate Peter Camejo, for whom I feel sorry:

"If there has been a wave of these (donations), then that's something Ralph and I will have to talk about -- and about returning their money,'' he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.

"But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don't want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,'' Camejo said. "We're not interested in that.''

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Nader had alsocome out strongly against bundled donations in the past... at least until he got significant numbers of them from Republican donors. Suddenly it was very convenient for him to go silent. Has anyone actually asked the question "What good is a consumer advocate if he remains silent on the most pernicious issues of his day and takes money from the people he is supposed to be criticizing?" If not, consider me the first. And yes, Mr. Nader, we would like an answer.

The third untruthitude, and the most disgusting and devastating, is that Nader maintains he is not at fault for the presidency of George W. Bush. He maintains that Al Gore is at fault for not running a successful enough campaign against a "bumbling Texas governor." He blames the Supreme Court for ceasing the ballot recount in Florida. He blames the 250,000 Democrats (by his count) that he says voted for George W. Bush in Florida. However, in his book Crashing The Party, Nader lays out the math that convicts him of putting into office a president that a number of people consider the worst and most inept in history. Nader says that exit polling clearly showed that of the 97,421 votes that he garnered in Florida in 2000, 38% would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush and the other 37% would not have voted at all. Gore lost by 537 votes to George W. Bush in Florida. 38% of 97,421 equals 37,019. 25% of 97,421 equals 24,355. 37,019 - 24,355 = 12,664. 12,664 > 537. For all of Ralph Nader's lofty talk, he was the first link in the chain of events that put George W. Bush in the White House. He is the man that diverted more than 37K votes from Gore. He is the man that gave George W. Bush a net gain of 12,664 votes in Florida. Despite his words, he is the first and most culpable person responsible for the Florida fiasco in 2000

Now Ralph Nader is running again. The public is left to wonder why. In researching my article, I found what I believe to be the answer. During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in 2004, Congressman Watts reportedly said "You're just another arrogant white man - telling us what we can do - it's all about your ego - another f***ing arrogant white man." Congressman Watts is right. Ralph Nader is someone that thrives on his ego and all of his presidential runs have had his ego and his inflated sense of self-worth as well as his Christ complex at the forefront. The most destructive point where this was on display was in the 2000 race where, rather than help a politician that he agreed with far more than that candidate's opponent, he stayed in the race in states that were crucial to the race and continued to vye for votes that by-and-large came out of the candidate with whom he agreed's pocket. Because of his selfishness, a man entered the White House and embarked on an eight year legislative spree that has proceeded to harm or completely undo everything that Ralph Nader has spent his entire life working toward and, apparently, giving lip service to. When it came time for him to step up and pass the torch to someone he knew to be a progressive, he declined and remained to split the vote and eventually put into office someone that stood for everything that Nader claimed he stood against. I have to hand it to Ralph Nader: it takes a very small man to choose the slim whiff of glory over the stench of your entire life's work being eviscerated. In 2000, he proved to be microscopic.

One final issue that isn't an untruthitude but is indicative of Nader's intentions. The man could have run for Congress, possibly the Senate, in California or the Northwest and won a seat. He could then have gone on to build a small but influential Green Party caucus and, using his power as the chair of this caucus, negotiated into government many of the things that he claims to stand for. He has done NONE of this. What explains this besides his ego to run for president? It certainly doesn't fit with his "man of the people" image.

So here we are in 2008. Ralph is running again. He will no doubt trot out the Bush record to try to win himself votes. The Greens have to get above 5% to get federal funding. I urge you to not vote for Green Party until they cut all ties with Ralph Nader and I urge you to not vote for Ralph Nader ever again. This is the man that gave us George W. Bush for eight years and not only refuses to apologize for it, but refuses to even acknowledge his hand in the whole affair. Such a man is no more honest than George W. Bush and deserves the same treatment at the ballot box: a vote against him and lasting scorn the type of which the electorate has reserved for the likes of Herbert Hoover and our current President. The lesson that should be taken away from the story of Ralph Nader is that not only is Satan on the hook for his actions: the doorman that let him in the building is equally culpable.

The critical eye has been on Barack Obama for nigh two weeks now. I think it is time to turn the critical eye back to Bill and Hillary Clinton for a moment.

We have seen Bill Clinton's behavior during this primary season. He has been pushy, loud, brazen and ill-mannered. In fact, he has swept his wife off the stage and dominated it with his criticisms of Barack Obama and his rationales about why his wife would be right for the White House while her opponent would not. I think the question that is valid and needs to be asked is this: who does Bill really think is right for this job?

Bill Clinton is a powerful man. When he speaks, everyone listens. That is why he has been such an effective campaign surrogate for his presidential candidate wife, Hillary. However, he has become more than a surrogate as of late. He has taken the reins when it comes to fighting for primary votes and he has become the face of the Clinton campaign more than his wife, even though it is her name on all the paperwork. Given his behavior when things have gotten tough, we have to ask ourselves what, exactly, Bill would do as the "First Spouse" in the White House.

Barack Obama got the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada. Two days after, groups associated with Clinton's campaign sprang into action, filing a lawsuit trying to invalidate rules that had been set in place for ten months prior. That is, set in place when the Clinton campaign thought it would win the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union. When questioned about the sudden need to change the rules, Hillary stepped forward to issue her campaign's rationale about why the change was needed. Wait, I'm sorry, that was the Silver Fox that took center stage to talk about the court suit. Bill got all blustery and railed about how the media's position was that culinary workers' votes should count five times as much as everyone else's and that they were being bushwhacked by an Obama conspiracy from a media that is in love with the first black candidate to stand a chance in a presidential race. Bill also got his share of headlines by calling Barack Obama a "fairy tale" but, for the record, he summoned up righteous indignation and said he was talking about Obama's anti-war stance. It was clear he was calling something about Obama a fairy tale but, as of press time, no one is quite sure of what except Bill himself.

What will Bill do when he gets back into his old environs? What will happen when he is allowed to roam the West Wing freely with his trusted advisers and something terrible happens? Will he be Hillary's press secretary? Will he be her national security adviser? Will he be her co-president? Will he be her first, her last, her everything? *intones Barry White*

Honestly here folks, I'm curious what Bill Clinton's role will be in the White House. It takes tremendous ambition to become President of the United States. It is also a job which former presidents wish they could resume, just read Theodore Roosevelt's memoirs. What will Bill feel? What will Bill think? What will Bill say and do when he is mere inches from the person holding the power he wielded for eight years? More to the point, what will he do when he is in that position and disaster strikes? After seeing how he forcefully jumped into the fray when his wife's bid for the presidency was moderately threatened by Barack Obama, I think that is a question well worth considering before we pull the lever to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary and one that is worth great scrutiny before we give her our vote in the general election, should the possibility arise.

All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Romney, are broke. What money they have left they are deploying in South Carolina and Florida and hoping that the results there will enable them to raise more money to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests.

Mike Huckabee will be the GOP candidate. Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Ron Paul will not run as a Constitutionalist or Libertarian. These are just some of the radical predictions I have in store for you.

Republican Nomination

Huckabee - Most probable nominee

Mike Huckabee will be the 2008 GOP nominee. He's got the momentum. He's got Iowa, and a strong showing in New Hampshire for what he did there. He'll easily win South Carolina unless Thompson turns on the steam. And his folksy, down-to-earth style will destroy any opposition. Even if he doesn't win, he has a good chance at getting the VP nod from Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (they need an aw shucks guy to help win the rural vote).

Giuliani - Sick, dying, dead

Giuliani meanwhile has adopted the wrong strategy. He thinks that winning everything on Super Duper Tuesday will be enough. But it won't. Because he'll have to win it first. And since he's been ranking next to Ron Paul in the early debates, he has zero momentum. Maybe even negative. Add that to the fact that he's starting to get boring (while Huckabee is all fresh) and all the scandals are coming out, and he's almost dead. So because everyone thinks he'll lose, the city will vote Romney or McCain and the country will vote Huckabee. Giuliani's only hope is in a strong Florida victory, after which he'll have a small chance to win Super Duper Tuesday.

Thompson - Done for

Fred Thompson did better when he wasn't running than he is now. Simple fact. All the conservative bloggers and journalists in the world can't help him. He's out and out boring. Look, I think he's the best candidate on the issues. But he's got no chance convincing anyone that he's the right man, unless he picks up real steam. And I know he did a "good" job last night, but that's not what I'm talking about. He needs real charisma (and maybe some anti-monotone lessons).

Romney - Longshot

Romney is almost completely done for. His flip flopping (whether true or not), health care, and immigration got him into trouble. See, he thinks money can buy everything. But it can't buy him first place in Iowa (especially when Mike Huckabee, penniless a few months ago, won) or New Hampshire (anyone remember the Newsvine story about John McCain's near-bankruptcy?). He won "silver" both times. But for the amount of work he put in, he should have gotten first. Except that the voters didn't like him. And he can't campaign like that on Super Duper Tuesday. Simply put, Romney is next to dead.

McCain - Longshot getting shorter

John McCain. He was almost bankrupt six months ago. Yet when he won New Hampshire a few days ago, he suddenly looked like he could come out of the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy "scandals" that hurt him so badly early on. Now McCain needs to immediately capitalize on his New Hampshire win with a couple more. If he can, we may see him in the White House after all.

Paul - Dead on arrival

Look, we all know Ron Paul has a huge internet following. But you can't turn that into a huge electoral following. Especially if you're a libertarian running for a conservative (moving left) party. So Ron Paul will lose.

Democratic Nomination

Hillary - Most probably nominee

Yes, we all know Obama is coming on strong. But as the Economist pointed out, Obama needed everything to go right. That includes New Hampshire. And everything didn't go right. So while Obama is still in the race, I'll put my money that the gender card will trump the race card in 2008.

Obama - Chance, but lost NH

Obama won Iowa and everyone thought he'd take off from there. He was expected to win New Hampshire easily, and with those two in the bag, sweep on to take the rest of the primaries. But Hillary started sobbing, and Obama lost New Hampshire. This will set him back quite a lot.

Edwards - Super longshot

Look Mr. I-hate-all-corporations-in-the-world. We know you want to become president. But even your wife admitted that "We can't make [him] black, we can't make him a woman". And that's why you won't be accepting the Democrat nomination.

Third-party nominations

OK, no one really cares about the Constitutionalist, Libertarian, or Green Parties. There are only three candidates anyone cares about. Ron Paul will decide very carefully about running. In the end, I think he'll decide that a moderate conservative is better than letting a socialist get into office. It will also depend on who it is. If it's Huckabee, he might consider it. If it's Giuliani or Romney, I think he'll definitely not run.

Mike Bloomberg is different. He's an Independent, which means he doesn't really love the Republican Party that much. But since he's been pretty mum about it, there's not a huge chance he'll run.

Lastly, Ralph Nader will run. He called Hillary "a panderer and a flatterer." He never said no. He'll be in the Green Party Presidential Debates. And the Green Party is trying to draft him.

Presidential Run-off

Huckabee and Hillary will square off with a bang. Hillary will take the urban vote, Huckabee the rural vote. But Huckabee's honesty (whether real or feigned) will triumph over Hillary's political maneuvering. If it was Giuliani who ran against Hillary, it would be a whole different story. Both would fight to see whether Giuliani was corrupt or if Hillary was a maneuvering politician. If Obama won, he'd probably win the presidency against Giuliani. Against Huckabee... I couldn't make a prediction. Ralph Nader will receive less than 1% of the vote. Ron Paul will also receive a few write-ins if he doesn't run, and a small percentage of the vote if he does.

Oh, and look for Newt Gingrich as a vice-presidential candidate. Especially if Mike Huckabee is elected.

(CNN) – On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, former President Bill Clinton criticized the media for not pressing Barack Obama more fully on Iraq, and accused the Illinois senator of shifting his position to reflect changing attitudes on the war.

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war," Clinton said at a campaign stop in Hanover, New Hampshire.

"And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

He added, "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

From Barack Obama's win in Iowa just five days ago up to this minute, the landscape of the presidential nomination race for both parties has changed dramatically and, in great measure, it has changed because of him.

Most polls put Barack Obama in the high 30 percent range and one or two in the low 40 percent range in New Hampshire. His decisive win in Iowa has shattered Clinton's facade of invincibility and rendered outmoded her strategy she has pursued from the beginning that she was the inevitable nominee. Without the widespread belief that she was going to be the nominee holding her coalition together, it is losing steam and she is losing undecideds as they move off the fence to Barack Obama in significant numbers. A good deal did not really tune into things until after Iowa and it just so happened that if you tuned in after Iowa, Barack Obama looked like the odds-on favorite to win the nomination and not Hillary Clinton. Obama has the wind at his back and a solid foundation that is more resonant with the tone of this election (which I will explain further down in my piece) than Hillary Clinton and that will carry him to victory in New Hampshire. I predict that Obama will win by 13% or what I am calling the Barack Baker's Dozen. Clinton will finish second and Edwards will finish third. I had a difficult time deciding that Clinton will finish second rather than third but I simply don't think that her organization is damaged enough to be unable to overcome Edwards in a state that he neglected to focus on his gem: Iowa. So, I don't rule out that Hillary could finish third, I simply doubt it will happen that way.

Onto the Republicans. John McCain was considered politically done when his campaign was broke and things were not going well for him anywhere but, to his great credit, he stuck to his guns and continued to campaign even through the tough times. Despite having to ride to events in supporters' personal cars and occasionally stay in their homes rather than in a hotel, he has fought his way back to be in contention for New Hampshire. Romney has dumped buckets of money into New Hampshire (what a surprise, it's just like Romney's strategy in every other state: inundate it with American currency) which makes him McCain's only realistic competition in the state. Huckabee has been working hard in New Hampshire because he knows that if he doesn't finish 3rd that it could be catastrophic to his campaign down the road. My picks for the New Hampshire Republican primary are as follows: Mitt Romney will win by 3%, followed by John McCain and Huckabee will finish in the mid-teens. I know I just got done talking McCain up but I'm about to explain what the driving force for both sides in New Hampshire is.

New Hampshire is a state where independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primary. Therefore, independents are fought over because they can help a candidate surge past an opponent that has more in-party support for the win. John McCain's strength in New Hampshire, indeed one of the primary reasons he beat Bush there in 2000, was because independent voters flocked to his candidacy in large numbers. Barack Obama will take enough of those independent voters away from McCain to allow Romney to edge McCain out. I have believed, and it was said tonight on Hardball with Chris Mathews, that Barack Obama represents to many people the united, progressive politics that made people proud to be Americans that died with Bobby Kennedy in 1968. I think this is true and I think this helps to explain Barack Obama's immense popularity across the spectrum of Democratic, independent and Republican voters. Obama has built his entire message, indeed his entire campaign, on the notion that change must occur in this country and it must be brought about by both Republicans and Democrats together. He has been bringing a message to the American people that they have been longing to hear after the intense partisan battles over Bill Clinton's impeachment and the Iraq War, just to name two extremely polarizing issues. This is why Obama will capture New Hampshire and, likely, the Democratic nomination. It is why he has a fair shot to be the first African-American president in this nation's history. Obama may actually change the face of the Republican race as I believe his surge in popularity could prevent John McCain from winning New Hampshire and, thus, give Mitt Romney a reprieve from what would be an extremely difficult loss to come back from in a state bordering his home state and, also, a state that has much to do in influencing the voters in the voting of the states to come.

On a final point, I want to use an analogy. It's not that I don't like Hillary Clinton and don't think she would make a fine president. I just believe that Barack Obama's whole life has led to this election and that he is the one candidate that can best steer America through what it is facing. To use an analogy, Hillary Clinton is Sham and Barack Obama is Secretariat. Any other year, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination. However, it just so happened that she picked this year instead of 2004 to run and was forced to run against Barack Obama. Sham was an excellent horse and his run at the Kentucky Derby would have been a record setter had Secretariat not run the race and taken the record from Sham before it was his to lose. Sham would have won the Triple Crown in 1973 with no doubt in my mind. It just so happened that he came up against a thoroughbred so impeccable that Secretariat turned Sham's greatness into a footnote in Secretariat's legend. This is how fate sometimes intervenes in history and I believe we are watching one of the historic twists of fate play out in real time.

Ultimately, when we make up our minds we should think about the qualities the candidate would bring to the Oval Office--and not just whether or not they would make a good candidate.

12) Mike Huckabee attacks Romney's religion: In an interview with the New York Times magazine, Mike Huckabee asked, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Why Huckabee chose to give Romney's supporters a chance to bash him for being "anti-Mormon" just for asking the question is unknown, but the comment, which Huckabee later apologized for, helped enable his detractors to paint him as a man exploiting his faith to help win an election.

The Associated Press -- once the gold standard of fast and accurate reporting -- changed during the Bush presidency. What was liberal bias has reshaped the wire service into one of the most politically activist media outlets. This is a cautionary tale for every Republican candidate. What AP tried to do to Fred Thompson is going to be repeated against any conservative candidate who exudes a whiff of conservatism in the primaries and whichever Republican gains the presidential nomination.

AP's defense of Kerry -- his words could be nothing other than a direct insult to our allies -- was an unpaid campaign contribution to the liberal Dem. And AP has only gotten worse since Bush defeated Kerry. Its coverage of Iraq got so bad that editors from newspapers all over the nation were critical of what AP was writing. Even the New York Times -- the Frankenstein laboratory for Bush Derangement Syndrome -- was forced to cover the AP's coverage.

At that second hearing, Hillary's strident verbal assault on Rumsfeld was a big yawn. But not to AP. "Reporting" on the hearing, AP's Clintonistas wrote, "The showdown between Clinton, a potential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date...The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack..."

As I wrote at the time, AP's characterization of Hillary's histrionics and Rumsfeld's calm rebuttal was fable, not fact. I called AP Washington Bureau chief Sandra Johnson and night editor Robert Glass for interviews for both print and radio. Johnson never returned my calls and Glass shuffled me off on another editor, Alan Fram, who also didn't return my calls. Caught Hillary-handed, AP hid in the tall grass.

DES MOINES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton may have shot herself in the foot trying to get Iowa voters to pledge support to her -- she is encouraging them to caucus on January 14, 11 days too late.

An interesting exclusive article from ABC News about the politics of destruction by you know who.

New Newsweek Poll of Iowa Voters

The new Newsweek poll of Iowa voters showed Barack Obama has quietly negotiated his way into a slim lead there while Mike Huckabee had taken former frontrunner Mitt Romney behind the woodshed, given him a good whipping and taken the mantle of frontrunner from him while racking up a 22 percentage point advantage.

I have been touting Mike Huckabee for months as at the beginning of this race I saw him as the only good campaigner that had bona fides as a conservative. His two rivals that have a money and fame advantage on him, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, have both been far too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters to swallow. Huckabee's star started to rise at a county fair in the middle of this year where the campaigns were allowed to pay people and bus them in from all over Iowa to vote in the fair's straw poll. Romney won, but not as convincingly as he should have given how much of his personal funds as well as campaign funds he put into the contest. Huckabee, however, spend nearly no money and finished a surprising second. However, Huckabee's biggest break to date, in my opinion, was the CNN/YouTube debate. He had no major slip-ups or mistakes and came out of it with several memorable quotes. I believe this gave Huckabee the kind of nationwide media exposure he needed to be compared with his major rivals, Romney & Giuliani, and he compared very favorably. The debate was very much Romney's to lose while Huckabee was gambling with house money. Romney then proceeded to stumble and bumble his way through multiple discussions about conservative social values, only giving a credible answer on the question of abortion. Christian conservatives were also listening loud and clear when Romney labeled the Bible as the Word of God rather than 100% literally true. Huckabee has been beset by two strikes at his image this week in the wake of momentum shifting in his direction. He is likely to experience more attacks now that he is the confirmed frontrunner in Iowa with a 22 percentage point lead over Romney. The one charge that could hurt him is his involvement in the parole of a man that viciously raped a cousin of Bill Clinton. Republicans in Arkansas believed the rapist got rough treatment at the hands of then-Governor Clinton so, when Huckabee ascended to the Governor's Mansion, he engineered the man's parole according to a member of the parole board. This charge, if Huckabee cannot talk his way out of it and it dominates the news, could seriously cut into his new-found lead. However, the notion that his position in favor of quarantining AIDS patients is going to hurt him is laughable at best, ignorant and ridiculous at worst. Most conservative Christians consider AIDS a gay disease and gays themselves as persona non-grata. Most conservatives that are dedicated enough to caucus believe that people with AIDS are a threat to them and could not be anyone that they know or love so why would a potential roundup and quarantine of people with AIDS disturb them? Huckabee likely has a week ahead of him that will be filled with questions about the paroling of the rapist that went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri but my political instincts tell me that now that he has a commanding lead his political skills will allow him to navigate this and only lose a few points on his lead. I'll do another analysis when the next compelling poll(s) come out and the fallout from the rapist & AIDS stories has played out and is more clearly visible.

Barack Obama has finally forged a lead that is outside the margin of error, albeit by one percentage point. However, it is a lead and that is a far cry from what this race was a few months ago. Clinton's strategy then was to portray herself as the inevitable candidate, the savior of the party after 8 years of Bush, and the wife (and crucial partner) of the man that made the Democratic party relevant again after 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. Obama was just this younger guy that was inexperienced and made an ill-advised jump into a contest where he was clearly over-matched. This strategy led Clinton to make the proclamation at the Jackson-Jefferson Dinner in Iowa on November 10th that she would not attack fellow Democrats and that she would be directing her criticism towards those that deserved it: the Republicans. Now, however, things have changed. Obama is starting to pull ahead of her and Hillary has reverted to fighting form, forsaking the high road. She claims that this amounts to defense of herself but she made no caveat that she would attack to defend herself. She simply said that she would discuss the issues and avoid candidates. However, it's pretty clear that after KinderGate, in which her camp dug up an essay written by Obama in his early elementary years about his interest in becoming President and used it to prove he has had his designs on the Oval Office long before Hillary, her campaign is not missing any opportunity to poke holes in Obama's balloon as it rises above Clinton's.

I have backed Obama since before he was running for President and I did that because he reminds me of a young, block Bill Clinton. He is highly intelligent, a brilliant orator and has a knack for raising money and inspiring undying loyalty in his followers. Hillary has changed gears but I predict unless Obama makes a major mistake between now and Jan. 3 that he will be the winner of the Iowa caucus. The man has the money, he has the political skills and now he has what he needed to neutralize Hillary's gender advantage. While Clinton has touted herself as the first woman to be a contender in the race for president, women have come to her side in large numbers. Oprah Winfrey, however, has helped Obama counter this and actually carve out a slight lead in Iowan women that are registered to vote. I don't think Oprah is translating into votes for him so much as she is prying at the woman-woman connection Clinton has forged with these voters. Oprah can get them to take a second look and since women are typically against war, I think that Obama's stance against the Iraq war from Day 1 has carried particular weight among female Democrats that are caucusing and Oprah brings female caucusgoers into the picture that haven't caucused previously. He has finally taken the lead among females in Iowa. I think the campaign made a sly move to have Oprah straightly say that she was not telling caucus members what to think, but simply asking them to listen to Obama and give him a chance to convince them he was the better option than their current choice. This also may help Obama take some support from his spoiler, Senator John Edwards. Since Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Clinton vote it has allowed her to appear stronger than she she really is. When one of the two drop out (my money is on Edwards) then I think you will see the other rise by several percentage points as their only realistic option left besides Hillary will be Obama or Edwards.

With regards to all of the candidates the primary season tends to be the time that you want to be peaking. It appears to me that Huckabee and Obama have been able to manage themselves right into the right time of peaking whereas it unfolded thusly for the other contenders:

John Edwards: Edwards peaked early on after he spent every waking moment in Iowa from the time that he lost the Vice Presidential election and has stayed steady or dropped slightly ever since.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary started out very strong once she declared and looked to have a stranglehold on the nomination. She raced up good numbers in polls in the early states as well as good numbers nationwide because of her name recognition as well as the offshoot of her husband's invincibility when it came to beating Republicans. A vote for Hillary was a vote for Bill and the campaign was very hesitant to dissuade that notion.

Mitt Romney: Romney has been beset by problems since the very beginning by garnering the most strong supporters through his money and organization but stalling there essentially. I have seen no real strong movement one way or the other from about the 17 percent range for Romney so unless things change dramatically I don't see him moving past his base support bloc.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani is the true wildcard here. He has the type of national image that could vault him in front of Huckabee but he also has a less than stellar record on conservative values including guns, abortion and, the faultline issue, immigration. He is likely the only Republican at this point that could pose Huckabee a serious threat because he has the money, he hasn't equivocated nearly as much as Romney on the issues and he has 9/11 under his belt.

Fred Thompson: With Thompson's sallow cheeks, his new attack dog style attitude that he exhibited at the CNN/YouTube debate, his thinning hair and his oratorical style that could move Rip Van Winkle from sleeping for years into an indefinite coma, a surge by Thompson is pretty unlikely at this point. Conventional wisdom was that he was far more popular before he got into the race because Republicans, dissatisfied with their choices, could project the qualities they wanted their presidential candidate to have onto him. Now that he is actually in the game he has had to outline where he stands on the issues and can no longer be all things to all Republicans. The jig, as they say, is up.

More to come... I'm sure there are plenty of fireworks left. ;-)

The top White House contenders are a lot richer than the rest of us. Here's where they got it...and where it goes.

A CNN host acknowledged the participation of a retired Army colonel linked to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a televised Republican debate Wednesday.

Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., who revealed himself as gay, challenged the eight candidates via video message and on stage at the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida on the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military.

The broadcast, however, failed to mention that Kerr, who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, is a member of a gay and lesbian steering committee for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The re-emergence of illegal immigration in the last two Democratic presidential debates could hurt the party in the general election.

At a Democratic presidential debate last month, Hillary Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. After a public outcry, Spitzer withdrew his plan and Clinton reversed herself.

At a second Democratic debate on Thursday, Barack Obama was the one who stumbled on the question, eventually saying he supported licenses for illegals. That position will likely be used against him by Republicans if Obama advances to the general election.

Seeking to capitalize on these strong feelings in the GOP base, Thompson released a TV ad this week in which he says that "granting amnesty is not the answer."

"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed." --- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 10/30/07 Democratic Debate

In my article, "In the Final Moments of the 10/30/07 Debate: Hillary Fumbles….Lisaed Scores!" I presented my case that I was quite possibly the author of (or at least inspiration behind) Tim Russert's now infamous "gotcha" question to Hillary regarding Governor Spitzer's plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. During the post debate media frenzy that erupted following the Senator's "Clintonian" doublespeak response, my "Hillary Fumbles" article was featured prominently on the cover of Newsvine for two consecutive days. To the many viners who made this front page placement possible with their votes and comments I thank you most sincerely.

Many popular viners from both sides of the aisle stopped by my article to congratulate me on this apparent "coup" including viki babbles gonia, jfxgillis, and Pamela Drew to name just a few. I also learned some viners made follow up inquiries to newsvine staff to determine just where that pivotal driver's license question may have came from. Was lisaed somehow responsible? Or as some other viners have said was this nothing more than sheer coincidence?

I learned also that others including jazzman646 had contacted various cable and radio program hosts including Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin (as did I) with the tip: "Viner Pens Russert's Driver's License Debate Question to Hillary"– but with no real response. Do I blame the media for no response? How can I? With no confirmation whatever from newsvine that I may have somehow been responsible for the question--to them lisaed (albeit always charming) is nothing more than some kook blogger trying to get unwarranted media attention.

So I too emailed newsvine staff asking only whether it was in the range of possibility that the question I posted on Calvin's Tang's 10/23 article: "Democratic Debate-10/30" was indeed the key driver behind Russert's question. Thus far and now 14 days after Hillary showed us that chink in her war machine I still have no response from newsvine. I know Calvin is very busy having just this past weekend attended Vinemeet East and who knows maybe for "political" reasons with MSNBC he'd really rather not be involved in this discussion at all. Only Calvin knows the reason for his silence.

What I do know is with the near 24/7 post debate coverage of Hillary's poor debate performance we have seen a measurable loss of points for her in the opinion polls. And with talk of new life in the Obama campaign, Hillary's inevitability seems maybe now just a little bit less inevitable. For these reasons ---whether I had anything to do with it or not--- Russert's question about Governor Spitzer's plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was as some other viner has said "news changing."

What I want to say for the record is that I believe there was a missed opportunity for newsvine to gain media attention for this story – not just for lisaed the charming conservative – but for the citizen's journalism movement in general. Since confirmation apparently is forthcoming from nowhere else I turn to you my fellow viners. I ask you to please vote in my opinion poll. And whether you agree or disagree I once again thank you for your votes!

Relevant Links:

http://lisaed.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/31/1062481-in-the-final-moments-of-the-103007-debate-hillary-fumbleslisaed-scores

http://tang.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/23/1045066-democratic-debate-october-30th

A small issue really but one that goes to the heart of what political campaigns are all about. Basically the Clinton campaign is calling these women that worked together for 25 years liars. A stupid thing and a stupid issue, but it shows how the spin machine operating at light speed can be its own worst enemy.

"Two others that had worked with me that day turned around and said, 'We didn't know about any $100 tip,' because they both turned around and said 'We didn't get a part of it.' And they didn't. So, it's like 'OK, where did it go?' That's the mystery question: Where did it go?"

Esterday said it would surprise her if money that was intended to be split among the staff was never shared.

"The ladies that were working that day have been working there for years — some of them for 30 years, some of them for 25 years," Esterday said. "And I've known a lot of these ladies most of my life living here, too. And I can't imagine them pocketing it."

This shocking video details more tawdry campaign finance behaviors - perhaps even rising to the level of criminal activities. Anyone who is concerned about fraud and corruption in our election process should view this video. It's not just about misdeeds by the Hillary Clinton campaign, but about a system that is broken.

You know, I would not necessarily call this a female vs male phenomenon for our democratic hopeful Ms. Clinton. More times than I can count, when pressed, our friends on the left here on the vine exhibit the same characteristics that Ms. Clinton did, sans the personal invective. It is always this way with people who are so sure of their intellectual and moral superiority, that when it is pointed out that their halo is crooked, have this reaction.

"When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her political elevation into the 'boys club,' " Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in a posting on a blog of the liberal group Open Left.

"But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules," Michelman said. "It's trying to have it both ways."

This could be said of many of our leftward leaning fronds on the vine.

After the excitement of watching one of our own Killfile do us proud on his MSNBC interview with Chris Jansing, I tuned into the 10/30/07 democratic debate this time with a bit more interest than for previous debates. I wondered whether any of the debate questions we newsviners provided to Calvin Tang might actually make it to the candidates. After the debate ended, several newsviners criticized the moderators and the questions they asked. Many took exception with Russert asking Kucinich about his UFO sighting. I disagreed with this specific criticism. If the UFO question hurt Kucinich's credibility then so be it. However, I did generally agree with many other newsviners who said that they didn't learn anything new--but with one exception. In the final moments of the debate, just when Hillary had be feeling she had performed quite well thank you against new more vigorous attacks from the field (note: I now include both Edwards & Obama in the field), Quarterback Tim Russert ran with a play outside the Clinton playbook. Russert went long with an illegal immigration pass to Hillary. Hillary fumbled. Dodd recovered…Lisaed scored!

You see this was the question I had waited nearly 2 hours to hear. This was indeed the question I provided to Calvin on 10-24-07:

"Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Eliot Spitzer's plan to make it easier for illegal immigrants to receive driver's licenses has drawn fire on many fronts not least of which is from families of 9-11 victims in your state. Can you please explain to us clearly your position vis a vis Governor Spitzer's illegal immigration plan?" #30 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:18 PM EDT

http://tang.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/23/1045066-democratic-debate-october-30th

But lest I come off too much as tooting my own horn, it was jfxgillis in our newsvine post debate analysis who quickly recognized my Spitzer question and called me on it:

Here:

Jfxgillis: "lisa: By the way ...RUSSERT JUST ASKED YOUR QUESTION FROM CALVIN'S EARLIER THREAD!" #23.11 - Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:54 PM EDT

And then again here again:

jfxgillis: "lisa: Sheeeeesh. Your Spitzer question was the top story of the debate, in my opinion. Chris Matthews is having a fit over it." #37 - Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:06 PM EDT
http://tang.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/30/1061099-viki-gonia-on-msnbc-oct-30th-democratic-debate

Thanks, Jack!

From the debate transcripts here are some highlights of Russert's exchange with Clinton:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.
I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.
There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It --

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

To say I was thrilled that Senator Clinton was finally being forced by Russert to state her position on this critical drivers license issue affecting her own New York constituents is an understatement. Despite the ongoing negative headlines against Spitzer in her home state, Hillary had managed up until last night to dodge the question on whether or not she supported her Governor. Now finally Russert pushed her. He not only asked the question he came back and asked her to plainly tell us if she is with Spitzer or against him. What we got was a classic example of Hillary doublespeak. She criticized the question as a "gotcha question" (and yes, this Charming Conservative will take that one proudly to her grave) then attempted to defend Spitzer and blame the federal government all in the same sentence. Bottom line, she came off as Spitzer supporter providing a gift to the GOP candidates that is likely to keep on giving. Moreover, the change in her demeanor when asked this question was quite telling. She was clearly rattled --forced outside her canned response comfort zone Dodd was able to capitalize saying driver's licenses are a privilege not a right.

The key take away with Clinton's support of Spitzer is that the Senator from New York is willing to trade on our national security for the benefit of illegal aliens. Who will benefit the most from millions of illegal aliens running around with driver's licenses? I see a massive voter fraud scandal in the making, but that's another story. As Chris Matthews and many others commented in the post debate analysis, the Republicans are going to "ride this like a thoroughbred" into the general election as a national security issue against Hillary. Joe Trippi said Hillary will have no choice but to change her position on this before the general election. We shall see. I will be watching closely for more cracks in Hillary Clinton's body armor. Illegal immigration will be a major issue with the American electorate whether Hillary Clinton likes it or not.

Again, killfile, thanks for making us newsviners proud to be viners last night. I believe the corporatism topic you raised in your interview last night is clearly tied to this hot button topic of illegal immigration,and Viki, good luck to you today!

Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more ill fit for those shoes...

The more things change, the more they stay the same. More fun and games with campaign finance from the Clinton's.

NEW YORK -- Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

Related
-TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Pres. Clinton's plans for ex-Pres. Clinton
-TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on McGovern endorsement
-TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks
-TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Iowa's voting record on women
-TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks

Related Stories
-Not all Hsu-linked funds are rejected
-How Clinton has built her lead
-On policies, Clinton plays it safe
-Clinton outpaces Obama in money race
-Bay Area gives Clinton a boost
-Clinton's political blessing is her political curse
-Clinton makes the Sunday talk-show rounds
-Clinton unveils new healthcare plan
-Clinton appeals to antiwar Democrats
-Hsu is accused of Ponzi scheme
-Donor Hsu projected wealth, likability
-Hsu thrived in 'bundling' system
-Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case
-Clinton to cut ties with fundraiser
-Clinton: Change is better with experience
-A Democrat in '08! But not that one
-At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The latest Iowa Poll, published Sunday in the Des Moines Register, has drawn attention largely because of what it shows about the Democratic race: Hillary Clinton is now leading in the state. What has drawn less attention, but is equally interesting, are the gyrations underway in the Republican race.

It's just October 2007 (and hurrah the Yankees are in the playoffs) and already I'm sick of this. It seems the 2008 election news coverage has been reduced to all Hillary all the time. All I hear when I turn on any of the cable news programs is about Hillary this and Hillary that. It's what I like to call the "Hillary 24/7 Show." There has never been any doubt in my mind that she will be the next democratic nominee for President which makes the whole Democratic primary news cycle and the endless debates all so predictable. Yes – she won the debate again. And yes - she wore something from the orange family again. I do confess that at this stage I could never have predicted the strength of her lead over Obama. John Edwards was a dud nominee from the start. Not too long ago Iowa was his to lose and last I heard Edwards is in third place in Iowa still hiding behind Elizabeth's apron strings. He's done. I would wager that Obama was done too oh some time back when he said he wanted to make nice nice with Iran and then bomb Pockey-stan. Obama also, as others have said, made a fatal error putting himself up onto the "I'm the nice candidate" pedestal from which it seems he cannot climb down to effectively punch Hillary. Ho Hum.

When I watch the Hillary 24/7 Show, I hear about how she will win based on the strength of her healthcare program. What? Perhaps there is something to what Ann Coulter says about the female vote in her new book. Soccer moms and unwed mothers are supporting Hillary in droves. I can't decide if Hillary is like the serpent in the Garden of Eden offering up the HillaryCare apple or if perhaps she is the evil witch in Snow White (heck she has the cackle down, right?) offering up a poisonous apple to the innocent female.

But still I have to give Hillary credit. We're told over and over again on the Hillary 24/7 Show that she has skipped the primaries and is running a general election thumbing her nose at the left and holding on as tight as she can to the center. Her numbers would indicate that this is indeed a winning strategy. Some others on the Hillary 24/7 Show wonder if she has she peaked to soon. Nah. Being a Clinton she has a very well oiled, very efficient election machine that protects her in a bubble from any hard questions from the people or the press. And let's face it. She's too smart to have a Howard Dean-style melt down which is the only way Obama could ever really had a shot. And like they gleefully point out over and over again ad nauseam on the Hillary 24/7 Show she just seems so "Presidential!"

But what about the GOP? With Hillary a foregone conclusion, this is where the true race for the presidency lies. Nevertheless, news coverage of the GOP presidential nominees is just a footnote to the Hillary 24/7 Show. Where oh where is Fred Thompson? A late entry to this race, I yearn to hear more from him. Will Fred be the Reaganesque conservative that can rally the GOP base and save us from Hillary? Or will Rudy Giuliani truly be as he has positioned himself the only candidate who can beat her reminiscent of the Nixon-Reagan race for in '68? Last I heard McCain (who in my humble opinion like Edwards never had a chance to win his party's nomination) was in third place with Romney slipping post Thompson's entry to fourth. And though it seems the GOP race will be between Giuliani and Thompson, it remains to be seen how much more momentum Thompson will gain. Assuming Thompson continues to climb in the polls will those percentage points come from Giuliani, McCain, Romney, the rest of the non-contender field? This indeed will be very interesting to watch, and let's hope the media gives it some coverage!

And when the GOP finally has a nominee – it will be game on. Will it be Rudy? Will it be Fred? To me at this point it's a toss up. If Fred cannot pull ahead in great strength against Rudy then Rudy it shall be. In my opinion, the GOP will need to balance a Rudy for President ticket very carefully with a more traditionally conservative voice. Perhaps Fred Thompson? Being conservative, my vote of course is for a Thompson-Guiliani ticket as the winning combination to beat Hillary. But if Rudy cannot be surpassed, I will settle for Guiliani-Thompson and then dear Hillary, the Hillary 24/7 Show will be pre-empted and the subway series will begin.

President Bush thinks New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination. But who's his choice for the Republican side?

Yet more politicians taking funny money from business interests. One day we will demand better from them.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson and a host of congressional candidates from both parties accepted cash from Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. and his wife, Lynn,since the federal government accused the Texas oilman of paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.

Wyatt was indicted in 2005 on charges related to illegal payments for oil contracts from the Hussein-led Iraqi government under the United Nations' oil-for-food program. And since then, the Wyatts have found willing recipients for nearly $22,000 in political donations.

Well it looks like the Clinton/Hsu money connection is getting murkier and murkier. It seems that Hsu took the money from the original Woodstock organizer for business purposes and then started handing out cash to the dems. It is not going to be fun explaining this one.

The Wall Street Journal has tracked down the source of Norman Hsu's cash, and the good news is that the People's Republic of China didn't provide the funds -- at least, not some of them. However, the bad news is that Hsu apparently moved from Ponzi schemes to outright embezzlement as a former Woodstock backer proved as inept at background checks as the Democratic Party:

New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.

Thanks to Rand Simberg at www.transterrestrial.com for catching this one.

Well duh. It is just simple logic to vet large donors. The response is to go on the offensive and imply racism. Will they ever learn?

Hillary Clinton's links to illegal fundraising by Asian-Americans in 1996 should have made her wary of accepting $850,000 from a fugitive Asian-American this year, a rival presidential campaign said Tuesday.

The criticism came from an adviser to former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, who chaired a Senate investigation into illegal contributions by Asian-Americans to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign and the couple's legal defense fund in the 1996 election cycle.

Thompson adviser Rich Galen said Clinton's 2008 campaign has become "the sequel" to her husband's scandal-plagued 1996 campaign.

Well its about time. I wonder what the response will be if we find out that the money that funded this guy's misadventures came from the People's Liberation Army or at least were embezzled from investors.

WASHINGTON — The FBI has begun examining a murky business venture run by disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu that paid out hefty profits over the last several years to investors, some of whom were pressed to make contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other political candidates.

Sources told The Times on Sunday that a number of participants and their associates in Southern California and elsewhere had been in contact with the FBI about an investment pool operated by Hsu.

One associate, Irvine businessman Jack Cassidy, said he had tried to warn authorities and the Clinton campaign as early as June that he feared Hsu was running an illicit enterprise, but had gotten no response.

Ya know, we knew this kinda stuff was going to happen with the big money grab in the presidential race. Just remember this in 2008.

A Democratic fundraiser who has raised $1 million for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says he has done nothing wrong and has asked no favors in return, but Norman Hsu didn't mention that he's a wanted man.

A California prosecutor says Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft, was sentenced to three years in prison and then disappeared, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview with the newspaper. "Do you know where he is?"

(CNN) – On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, former President Bill Clinton criticized the media for not pressing Barack Obama more fully on Iraq, and accused the Illinois senator of shifting his position to reflect changing attitudes on the war.

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war," Clinton said at a campaign stop in Hanover, New Hampshire.

"And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

He added, "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Not only was the punishment meted out for Libby's perjury conviction "excessive" as Bush so described, the prosecution of Libby by Chicago's very own Patrick Fitzgerald, who served as special prosecutor in the case, was a politicized star chamber proceeding.

Fitzgerald sailed into Washington on the tailwinds of liberal, anti-war bloviations about an illegal Bush administration conspiracy to blow the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame for the alleged purpose of discrediting Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, a vocal, if not accurate, critic of the War on Terror in Iraq.

"Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline."

- Fred Thompson's more than adequate response [emphasis added].

In what could be a looming nightmare for Democrats, Ralph Nader said he is seriously considering running for president again in 2008 – calling front-runner Hillary Clinton a "political coward."

"The two parties are still converging," he declared in an interview with Roger Simon of politico.com.

"I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties . . .

"What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."

Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters -- even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher -- the personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the presidential campaign.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama's campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate's message to religious leaders and opinionmakers and report their concerns to the campaign.

Democrats in general are targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even evangelicals, hoping to enlist enough voters for whom religious and moral issues are a priority to put together a winning coalition.

Political junkies have been awaiting the new memoir by Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. After compiling an 0-8 record in presidential campaigns, Shrum has taken something of a beating from the political and media establishment of late, and he has been conspicuously absent from the 2008 campaign thus far. But it seems he's determined to play a role after all, as is clear from his forthcoming book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner.

As befits a canny campaign veteran, the book is self-serving in some places and remarkably tough in others.

No one comes in for rougher treatment in this book than Shrum's former client, John Edwards.

This is a nice companion piece to my earlier article: Toast: Edwards and McCain See link:
http://tombombadil.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/24/738189-toast-edwards-and-mccain

Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I believe this has been a very bad two weeks for John Edwards and John McCain. So bad, in fact, that I believe their respective candidacies are essentially over, finished, kaput, toast. Stick a fork in 'em, they're done.

For McCain, who has had a love/hate relationship with GOP Conservatives, his attachment to the Kennedy immigration bill is definitely the final straw. Many who admire him for his courageous military service, his strong pro-life record, and his commitment to victory in Iraq are nonetheless outraged by his puzzling refusal to secure our American borders and his confusing stands on amnesty for illegal aliens and the process for citizenship. Everytime one hears the phrase, "McCain-Kennedy," it is the sound of one more nail being driven into the coffin of a once promising campaign.

John Edwards has had it even worse. His earlier embrace of virulently anti-Christian bloggers and his recent $400 haircut have been hot topics, but he jumped the shark when he ridiculed the war on terror and suggested that it is a figment of the Administration's imagination...a "bumper sticker." How grossly offensive that suggestion must be to every very real victim of terror, every military family, and anyone who understands the stakes in this life-and-death struggle. And today, it was announced that Democratic strategist and Kerry/Edwards campaign insider Bob Shrum has written a book that is highly unflattering to Edwards. He paints a picture of a shallow man, obsessed with style, lacking substance and knowledge. He also paints Edwards as anti-gay, which might be good if Edwards was running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, but not so good when running for the nomination of the MoveOn.org Party.

Then, of course, there is Edwards' appalling plan to politicize and desecrate Memorial Day observances by attempting to launch massive anti-war demonstrations at that time. The Breck Girl has taken yet another hard left, and will soon find himself left far behind Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama...with al-Gore waiting in the wings.

So, what do you think? Are Edwards and McCain finished? Will they both be highly paid political correspondents by this time next year? It's sort of like "dead man walking." They still appear to be credible candidates, but I suspect that things are getting a little shaky behind the scenes for each.

With the White House's blessing, the Senate has reached a deal on immigration. And Sen. John McCain has handed his opponents for the Republican nomination a mighty club to wield against him -- if they choose to use it.

The controversy over the proposed immigration legislation heats up. Has the Senate just offered amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants, and their families? What will be the fallout for the current Presidential candidates and their campaigns?

What do you think?

'I think America is ready for a multilingual president," said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Bill) last week, responding to pesky critics who don't like the fact she uses various Southern accents, including Daisy Duke. And now they're pecking at her, mercilessly, the way chickens peck on a hen with a head sore.

I happen to think she's correct. America is ready for a president of multiple accents. President Bush talks cowboy when he wants. So why can't Hillary channel multiple Southern women if she so desires?

And if she wants to slip in and out of Southern and Northern accents like a Long Island mom playing Blanche DuBois at the community theater while her thumb is on the nuclear trigger, well, that's her business.

America might finally be ready for a white Yale Law School graduate from Park Ridge who is fluent in Southern Woman and various dialects, including Granny Clampett and Black Female Preacher. She commands many different voices -- and uses them without blushing -- as you may see for yourself on YouTube.

Years ago, she spoke excellent Tammy Wynette, in defending her Bill from the clutches of Yankee females who tried to take advantage of her man.

Recently, she's been using Black Female Preacher to appeal to black voters, first in Selma, and the other day in Manhattan, speaking to supporters of Rev. Al Sharpton.

"Kentucky Fried Hillary!" yowled the Drudge Report. Clinton was "adopting the Southern-fried lilt of a preacher at times," sniffed The New York Times, not generally the Bible of conservative opinion.

Wal-Mart's chief executive is shooting back at Senator Hillary Clinton's comments that the retailer has been a -- quote -- "mixed blessing" for America.

Wal-Mart C-E-O Lee Scott was in Dallas yesterday to accept an award from The Salvation Army.

Scott said Wal-Mart is doing a better job of responding to critics and taking part in policy debates.

During a debate Thursday, Clinton said that Wal-Mart has helped consumers by selling goods at low prices. But she said the company has also "raised serious questions" about how corporations should be leaders in providing health care and not discriminating based on sex or race.

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination has tightened significantly between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, according to recent polls that show a sharp increase among voters who have negative opinions of the former first lady.
The New York senator held on to her front-runner status last week, but pollsters and political analysts said she was losing strategic segments of her party's base, including younger, single women, liberals and independents.
"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups," the Gallup Poll said.
Gallup's survey of registered voters last week found that Mrs. Clinton had lost her double-digit lead over Mr. Obama of Illinois, who now trails her by five percentage points.
It also found that her favorability ratings had taken a nose dive.
Mrs. Clinton's favorability score fell from 58 percent in February to 45 percent last week her lowest Gallup score since 1993. Fifty-two percent said they have a negative view of her candidacy. This compared with Mr. Obama, who had a favorability rating of 52 percent.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is trying to get out of a hairy situation, reimbursing his presidential campaign $800 for two visits with a Beverly Hills stylist.
Two $400 cuts by stylist Joseph Torrenueva, who told The Associated Press that the former North Carolina senator is a longtime client, showed up on Edwards' campaign spending reports filed this weekend. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said it never should have been there.

"The bill was sent to the campaign. It was inadvertently paid," Schultz said. "John Edwards will be reimbursing the campaign."

Edwards is also the subject of a popular YouTube spoof poking fun at his youthful good looks. The video shows the candidate combing his tresses to the dubbed-in tune of "I Feel Pretty."

Federal Election Commission records show Edwards' campaign also spent $250 in services from Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H.

Schultz said those services were legitimate campaign expenditures to prepare Edwards for media appearances.

Political candidates often have hair and makeup done before media appearances. Edwards rival Hillary Rodham Clinton got some attention last year when her campaign paid $2,500 for two hairstyling sessions that the campaign classified as media production expenses.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday assailed a "culture of cronyism" in government as the Democratic front-runner vowed to streamline the federal bureaucracy and improve accountability.

In a speech in early primary state New Hampshire, Clinton called for slashing 500,000 government contractors, potentially saving up to $18 billion a year. The New York senator promised that a second Clinton White House would cut back on no-bid government contracts.

"It's not exactly the subject matter that gets people marching in the street, but if we don't restore the confidence and the competence of our government, we will see the steady erosion of our government's capacity," Clinton said.

The speech also sought to emphasize her knowledge of government and - although she never mentioned him - highlight the differences between her resume and that of Democratic rival Barack Obama, a freshman senator.

"It's time again for a president who can earn your respect and trust, one day at a time," Clinton said

The former first lady acknowledged voters look at politicians and government with cynicism - "that's sort of the American birthright" - but she said her plan could remedy that.