Strickland, campaigning for Hillary: Beginning in Iowa "makes no sense...bring this to an end."

[jefferson_dem]

...

Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, "makes no sense," says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,' " he said.

It's too late to do that for 2008, though, which is why the candidates and thousands of out-of-state supporters and reporters are trudging through Iowa this week -- and then on to New Hampshire for the run-up to its Jan. 8 primary --in a quadrennial ritual that many agree is no way to pick a president.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2007/12/30/EARLYSTATES.ART_ART_12-30-07_A1_IU8TRE8.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[mth44sc]

1. I could live with it

if it was a real primary and not a caucus state

[itsrobert]

2. Strickland knows Hillary is toast in Iowa

He must have inside poll information. Looks like he's frustrated that he chose to back a loser.

[rucky]

7. She's polling miles ahead in Ohio

for now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. She always tends to poll well

in places where she has not yet campaigned.

To know her is to....

[papau]

28. GOP tried to sell that in 2000 - and was burned because to know her is to like her n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Then why hasn't she maintained her 'decisive lead' in IA and NH,

where she's actually been campaigning?

In 2000 she was running in a solidly blue state against pitiful opposition. That is not an indicator of anything at all.

[papau]

35. the initial lead was name recognition - her lead has expanded nationally over time in last month

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. It's STILL just name recognition.

As the early primaries draw closer, more people are starting to pay attention and Clinton is a name they know.

When their own states get into the running, and she starts making her mistakes in THEIR states, her numbers will drop, just as they did in IA and NH. Particularly if Edwards or Obama take IA, and people elsewhere are made aware that she has some real competition.

[papau]

42. that may be true - or not - we will see in the next 60 days

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Well, if I said it, it MUST be true.

I am omniscient, and have never been, nor will ever be, wrong.

I just don't understand why the world refuses to do things MY way.

[papau]

45. some how you must be related to my grandkids - :-) n/t

[Tesha]

46. We (Mr. Tesha and I) supported her Senate bid in 2000; now, wouldn't touch her with a 10 point poll.

> GOP tried to sell that in 2000 - and was burned because
> to know her is to like her.

We (Mr. Tesha and I) strongly supported her Senate bid
in 2000 to the tune of major financial support; now, we
wouldn't touch her with a 10 point poll.

So I don't believe your hypothesis is true. The more
we saw how Clinton actually behaved once elected, the
less we liked her.

Tesha

[DS1]

3. Gotta agree

[liskddksil]

4. Thats kind of a dumb thing to say

to Iowans four days before the caucus.

[ElizabethDC]

5. Really not a great thing for him to say right now

even if I do mostly agree with him.

[zulchzulu]

11. That's possibly the worst thing a surrogate can say in Iowa right now

You'd think he could have saved his opinion until after the caucus. If I were Hillary, I'd tell him to take a hike. Talk about bad timing...

[Herman Munster]

13. the thread is deceptive

he didn't say this in Iowa, he said it in response to an ohio newspaper reporter's question.

Get a grip.

[earthlover]

38. Right now, many Iowans will get from this that if Hillary is elected, Iowa will be demoted

Stupid thing to say. But since I hope she doesn't win Iowa, I am just laughing at the stupidity.

I hope she doesn't get nominated. What if she or her surrogates say something equally stupid 4 days before the November election?

I am really surprised at the amatuerishness of her Iowa campaign.

[JDPriestly]

6. I take Hillary is not doing well in Iowa or New Hampshire,

or at least not as well as she would like. Actually, nowadays what with videos and the internet, thanks to Iowa and New Hampshire, we all get to see the candidates up close and personal in smaller rooms and groups even though we aren't in those rooms and groups. I have actually liked the way that the campaigns played out in Iowa and New Hampshire. There should be a western state in the mix. And yes, although I'm in California, and it means we have no meaningful say in choosing the candidates, I can see that it would be a waste of campaign money to hold the primaries in states with more people. Biden, Dodd and Richardson would have had to bow out long ago considering how little money they have raised for the primary. That would have been a shame. Thanks to the small markets and populations in New Hampshire and Iowa they have been able to compete, and you never know who will win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. If Asked Hillary Will Throw Him Under The Bus And Deservedly So And He Will Understand

The truth is not always your friend...

[loveangelc]

9. oh lawd

I hope the iowa media picks up on that statement hehehehehe :D

[Herman Munster]

10. your title is deceptive

He didn't say that while campaigning with Hillary in Iowa. He said it in reply to an OHIO newspaper. He is the governor of Ohio and it's normal for him to favor policies favorable for his state.

There's no story here.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Nice try but no dice.

The Governor is campaigning for Hillary and just offered up this gaffe. Deal with it.

By the way, I had to snicker at your claim that my subject line is deceptive. No room to talk, Herman, as you routinely litter this board with pure, unfiltered crapola.

[Herman Munster]

15. one man's crapola is another man's treasure

Not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. She'll Say She Loves Iowa, Understands It's Seminal Position, And That Governor Strickland Is A

Parochial Fool If Asked Even Though What He Is Saying Is Truth...

Iowa and New Hampshire no more deserve to go first than you or me have the right to demand that we move to the front of the line at 7-11 regardless of how many people are in front of us...

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. It's the sort of thing you say 4 days AFTER the caucus, not 4 days

BEFORE.

Of course, OTOH, if he waited until after Hillary lost it would come out sounding like sour grapes because he supported her.

Maybe he should have just kept his mouth shut.

[CoffeeCat]

17. This is interesting...

...for so many reasons.

Strickland is campaigning for Hillary--and has a close association with her. He was here in Iowa campaigning for her. Why
on Earth would he attack Iowa and openly hope that they don't ever get to be "first-in-the-nation" again.

Isn't that sabotaging your candidate?

I hear comments like this and it makes me so sad. I live in Iowa and I would gladly give up our "first" status, if we could preserve
this amazing process of allowing smaller states get a close-up view of the candidates. It is so essential to our democracy!

I have nothing against larger states or their ability to select quality candidates. However, smaller states with fewer citizens
can demand that candidates connect one-on-one with voters, answer challenging questions and get honest with "We The People." If
you have front-loaded primaries with many states voting on the same day--or if large states begin the primary-voting process, what
happens? Candidates rely on tv ads, radio spots and direct mail.

In effect, you can be a real ass and a bad candidate--and the citizens might never know. Hiding behind cameras and soundbytes tells us
nothing. This also gives the advantage to the candidates with the most money, and often times that money is from special-interests and
lobbyists.

I have had so much fun--feeling like my voice matters--as I meander through this caucus process. I haven't felt that way in a long time.
I see my neighbors, friends and fellow citizens talking politics and taking this thing soooo seriously.

If the politicians want to abolish small states starting this process--it's because they want to avoid being authentic. They aren't
comfortable with "We The People" (instead of special interests, corporations and lobbyists) controlling the process. That would
be such a tragedy.

And again, this is not just because I'm in Iowa. I believe in this PROCESS and would happily relinquish our "first" status to
any other small state, if it meant that this democracy-driven method could be preserved.

Lastly, I know that Hillary has had a very difficult time in Iowa. The chief political reporter for the Des Moines Register reported
that she said she couldn't connect with Iowans and it seemed like she had a tough time with the process. I felt as if Hillary didn't
try as hard to be open and honest, like all of the other candidates did. Her planting questions at at least two events, her attack
on an Iowan when he asked her about Kyl/Lieberman (she accused him of being a plant in front of the entire crowd) and her Iowa fired
staff members who emailed negative Obama info---made me feel as if she could not be authentic. She seemed to find personal contact
uncomfortable. Maybe Strickland's remarks are in response to Hillary's views of this process and her not faring well here.

The MSM polls have had her declining in Iowa since the campaign season heated up in early Nov. I also heard two top-level Iowa Dems discussing
that inside her campaign, they were "very worried" because their own internals were not looking good. That day and the day after, we started
hearing Hillary say that "I don't have to win Iowa, to win the nomination" to the MSM. It looks like things might not be looking too
good for her, and maybe Strickland made the remarks thinking that he was supporting Hillary. After all, if her internals show her
swirling down the drain--and her closest pals know it--what better way to support her than to criticize the process as a way to validate
her.

I guess we'll all find out after the Iowa caucus on Thursday.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Wow. Excellent post!

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

I'm in the "Keep-Iowa-First" camp, by the way. You guys certainly take this stuff seriously and, in my view, the quadrennial exercise is a near-perfect exercise in *democracy*...American style.

[Herman Munster]

19. and if your guy places 3rd

There will be throngs of posts saying how Iowa is unrepresentative because it has no sizeable minority populations and is not reflective of the party or the country.

[jefferson_dem]

21. Perhaps those posts will be coming regardless of who comes in third.

But they won't come courtesy of my keyboard.

[CoffeeCat]

22. Hey thanks for your nice comments...

...I'll be caucusing for Obama and I'm very excited.

He's generated a great deal of enthusiasm in our state. His campaign is
so highly organized, it's beyond real!

Both the Edwards and Obama campaigns have really done a superb job
of reaching out to voters, connecting with them and getting their
message out.

It's been amazing to see!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. She's Doing Quite Nicely In The MSM Polls

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[CoffeeCat]

24. The polls...

The general trend of the MSM polls has Hillary trending downward. Her numbers have
either been sliding or stale in the past couple of months.

The most recent polls that I just saw put Obama, Edwards and Hillary tied in first place,
with no other Dem candidate in double digits. The last two polls I saw showed: Edwards,
Hillary, Obama THEN Edwards, Obama, Hillary. However, there was 1 point between
all of them.

Furthermore, I'm very intrigued by the comments made by the high-level, Iowa-Dem
campaigners, who were on a local Des Moines radio program. They both said that
their sources in the Clinton campaign were worried about their internals.

I do know that the MSM polls are probably pretty accurate. However, the internals
have to be DEAD ON. The internal polls are taken using the voter rolls from all
Iowa precincts--listing registered Dems who have voted in past elections and caucused
before. In some cases, I imagine that the internals are taken from people who say
that they are definitely going to caucus.

The MSM polls call up Iowans and ask them if they plan to caucus. If a random Iowan
says that they plan to caucus, that is not as strong as the weight of a person
on the precinct voter rolls. The campaigns poll from those voter rolls of registered
Dems, not out of the phone book. Many times, the people on those voter rolls have
been contacted several times by a campaign. They know how and if they voted in the
last elections and if they caucused before. How those people are voting probably
gives a more accurate picture of reality than a MSM polls that randomly calls
Iowans--who then SAY they'll caucus but might not. Campaign staff can look
at those voter rolls and predict with greater accuracy which people will attend
the caucuses--based on their past voting behavior which is right there on paper.

IT's all very interesting right now and I guess Thursday night we'll have all
of the answers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. If You Notice The Last Couple Of Days HRC Hasn't Been Bashing Anybody...

Edwards and Obama have been bashing one another and sometimes her but not much...

That suggests to me that Obama and Edwards are in a dog fight and that dog fight will ensure one or the other comes in third... I think the worst Hillary can do is come in second...I could be all wet...We shall see..


P.S. -You are a quick typist... I goofed off in typing class...Kudos...

[ruggerson]

23. you do realize you're trying to spin this the same way Drudge is

except he uses a deceptive picture of Hillary talking to Strickland and you lie by inferring that Strickland said this while campaigning for Hillary which he did not.

This is not cool, jefferson_dem. I'd edit your title, which you know full well is something you completely made up.

Matt Drudge prevarication is the kind of politics that you should be discouraging, not emulating. He will do it to Obama in a heartbeat, should he win the nomination.

[jefferson_dem]

25. No spin. No lie.

Strickland made these comments. He has been campaiging for Hillary in Iowa. Why does it matter if he actually said this in Iowa? In fact, it is worse if he pandered to the Iowa Caucus process while there then reamed it once he gets back home.

[ruggerson]

26. I truly thought better of you than this

Matt Drudge is not your friend nor your ally. I know how badly you want to elect Obama, but this is not the way to try to do it.

[jefferson_dem]

27. Screw sludge and the snake he slithered in on.

This is not about him and I think you know that.

Strickland just barnstormed Iowa with Hillary, introducing her at many stops. Now it turns out he doesn't agree with the whole Iowa-first caucus process. If you don't find this topic relevant, we'll just have to disagree on that.

[ruggerson]

30. That's completely disingenuous

because you got this off of Drudge and then you one upped him by adding your words: while "campaigning with Hillary," which you know very well is a lie.

If you edit your title to read: "Strickland: Beginning in Iowa "makes no sense...bring this to an end" - you would have a legitimate OP.

As it stands you added in your own words "campaigning for Hillary" which simply aren't true. He did not say it while campaigning for Hillary.

If you want to pillory Hillary for it, fine. DO it in your OP and tell the truth: that Strickland has been recently campaigning for her. But for pete's sake, don't make shit up out of thin air in the title of your OP.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Ugh...still insist on dragging around the red herrings, eh.

Your fixation with sludge and my (technically true) subject line, that is...

Strickland has been campaigning for Hillary. He made these comments about Iowa. That was the point of my subject line. That's all. Nothing nefarious. Again...I see no benefit in misrepresenting where he actually made the comments...even if my goal was to be "disingenuous" (which it wasn't).

[ruggerson]

33. No one's buying this one

Your subject line is technically false. He did not say it campaigning for Clinton in Iowa. He did not even say it in Iowa.

But, knock yourself out. If Obama wins the nomination and Drudge starts using Muslim slurs and "Hussein" innuendo, don't start complaining about it. Because you've just joined him at the hip.

[jefferson_dem]

39. The fixation continues. Tell you what...

You can be DU's official "sludge monitor." Whenever someone posts a story here that also happens to be linked to there, call them on it. We'll be watching.

Surely, we only hope to stick to your lofty standards of dialog, including the ridicule the candidates' grandparents, especially if they live in "tiny huts" in Africa.

[ruggerson]

40. Ah, the old bait and switch

those were Obama's own words. No one lied about them. Unlike this post, which is a lie. A fabrication. Total and complete bullshit. But, keep trying to justify the lie. It's there in black and white for everyone to see.

[jefferson_dem]

41. Fabricate this --

The Dispach has more this morning, including confirmation that Strickland was "campaigning for Hillary" yesterday, as I note in the OP.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/31/tediowa.ART_ART_12-31-07_A4_2F8U3RK.html?sid=101

Found any other DUers violating your "sludge rule" yet?

[loveangelc]

37. Are you saying he's wrong for posting this because it was on drudgereport?

Because pretty much everyone looks at drudgereport whether you like it or not, and you would not know that this was from drudge had you yourself not gone to the drudgereport and seen it there.

[Beacool]

34. Actually, he's right.

The average voter in the country couldn't care less who wins in IA. The media loves the drama, but regular folks yawn. I know that I never have, and never will, give a hoot who they choose. I have always voted for the candidate of my choice, regardless of how they came out in the early primaries. I think that most people do the same, I have yet to hear someone say that they voted for X person due to the results in IA and NH.

[K Gardner]

43. Nice article and good idea.