http://www.americanresearchgroup.com

ARG has just released its October early states polls. I have added some brief comments on the trendline.

IA

          Oct (Sept)
Clinton   32 (30)
Obama     22 (24)
Edwards   15 (19)

Their results are similar to Rasmussen's findings. Clinton has a small uptick, Edwards continues to fade and Obama flat lines after taking over Edwards in September. On the GOP side, Huckabee jumps to second place which is consistent with other pollsters' findings.

NH

          Oct (Sept)
Clinton   40 (41)
Obama     22 (22)
Edwards   10 (10)

Very little change in NH. Obama's ads blitz in this state have probably stablized his position, at least temporarily. Clinton still has roughly 18 to 20 points lead on average.

SC

          Oct (Sept)
Clinton   41 (41)
Obama     19 (30)
Edwards   18 (7)

Bashlack on Obama's gay controversy? This SC poll might be an outlier.

Sample Dates: October 26-29, 2007
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Finally we have a scientific poll on Iran. This poll just comfirms my belief ...

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?I D=1379

According to this latest Zogby poll, American voters do not necessarily want a war with Iran, but they are also not afraid of confronting Iran if it's necessary.

A majority of likely voters - 52% - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

Even among democrats and independents, those who favor a strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapons outnumber those who oppose.

Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%).

The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents.

Clinton is most trusted on dealing with Iran.
Among all likely voters

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran - regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran - 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran.

Clinton has an overwhelming advantage among democrats  and she also edges out McCain among independents on this issue

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice.One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%).

The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton is certainly winning on this issue. Preventing Iran from acquring nuclear weapons can be achieved through heightened diplomacy efforts and sanctions. This is why she supported Lieberman amendment and measures of economic sanctions.

All other democratic candidates are claiming they won't allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. When rubber hits road, however, Edwards/Obama/Dodd etc have all dodged. I hope Clinton will be able to challenge them directly in tomorrow's debate. What are they going to do with Iran? Why don't they support a pragmatic approach of diplomacy with economic sanctions?

Obama seems to have dropped his hypocritical attack of Clinton on this issue over the past few days, I guess his pollster is telling him this line of attack is certainly not working. Edwards probably does not have the money to do pollss, nor does he have principles and basic understanding of Geo-politics. He has to reply on Trippi and EE's national security advice. Unfortunately, only 4% of all likely voters trust Edwards' judgement on this critical issue.

Democrats will not be able to win general election if independents still do not trust them on national security matters. Hillary Clinton is clearly the only democratic candidate clearing this hurdle in this race.

Zogby has more on this poll in the following clips...

This is a breathtakingly stunning piece by KOS.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/29 /115433/18
Gays, social security, and the loss of a real choice this primary

On gay controversy...

This is truly an epic flameout by the Obama campaign, engaged in actions that are completely indefensible. Those of you who continue to try and rationalize it -- would you be making the same exculpatory arguments if it was George W. Bush doing the things Obama is doing right now? Or one of the rival campaigns? Somehow, I doubt the vast majority of you would.
...
We're not Republicans, "carrying water" for their leaders and keeping their mouths shut as they drag the nation into the gutter. And we certainly shouldn't be like the 24% dead-enders, who still cling to Bush despite all evidence of him being the worst president in our nation's history.
...
And at a time when he's trying to make an issue of Hillary's "judgment" on Iraq and now Iran, he's shown little judgment in pretending that a rabidly anti-gay gospel singer wouldn't use his microphone on the big stage (with the national media paying attention) to, well, spread his rabidly anti-gay gospel.

On social security...

And it's only going to get worse.

In another jab at his chief rival, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says in an ad released Sunday that the country needs an honest dialogue about Social Security in order to fix the system.

"If we have failed to have a real, honest conversation about Social Security, it will not get fixed," Obama says in the ad.

Kos continues...

We spent most of 2005 fighting the Bush administration and its minions in Congress on this very issue, and battled the media and the politicians on this very frame. There is no social security crisis that must be "fixed". Sure, the system could be improved to be less regressive, but what the hell is Obama doing using scare-mongering language on social security?

In conclusion...

Not a good week for Obama, and it's only Monday. His b.s. about bringing American together is clearly just b.s. His judgment is seriously in question. And now, on a major policy issue, he appears to be adopting right-wing rhetoric.

It's a real train wreck.

I attached two clips. One clip shows Obama using right wing rhetoric to scare people on so-called social security crisis. The other clip shows progressive economist Paul Krugman, usually an Obama sympathizer, demonished his ridiculous onslaught on social security.

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/octo ber/102907poll-topline.pdf

                  Oct (Aug)
Clinton           29 (25)
Obama             27 (19)
Edwards           20 (26)
Richardson        7  (9)
Biden             5

Cautious note on this poll, the MoE seems to be big.

The poll of 285 likely Republican caucus goers and 306 likely Democratic caucus goers was conducted October 17 to 24. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.8 percentage points on the Republican side and 5.5 percentage points on the Democratic side.

Pollster's critism on this poll:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/new_ia_pol l_tomorrowbut_a_caut.php

The methodology of the previous U. of I. poll was unusual in a few respects: they asked an open-ended vote question (that asks respondents to volunteer their choice without prompting), they sampled from a directory of listed telephone households (rather than from registered voter lists or via random digit dial or voting list) and used a screen that was wider than other polls. More details in my post on their August poll.

We have not included the previous Hawkeye polls in our Iowa chart because of the use of the open-ended question. This is not a statement about the quality of the survey. As I wrote back in August:

This [open-ended question] undoubtedly provides a tougher test of voter commitment, but also produces a much bigger undecided and renders the results incomparable to other Iowa polls.

Of course, we do not know what methodology the Hawkeye poll used this time, but the news advisory does promises that the new results will show how candidate support "has changed since August." So presumably the methodology has been held constant.

More coverage on this poll:
http://thepage.time.com/

Huckabee Surges, Edwards Fades
http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1677221,00.html

For Edwards, who has basically been living in Iowa (and who parlayed a second place finish there in 2004 into a spot on the Democratic ticket), the results have to be disconcerting. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he has few other strongholds, and a poor showing in Iowa could place his candidacy in serious jeopardy.
...
Another bad omen for Edwards: only 7.9% of Democrats polled said they are "very likely" to change their minds between now and January 3, when both parties caucus in Iowa.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story /0,,-7030737,00.html

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says prescription drug companies should have to wait two years to begin advertising their new products to consumers.
...
``With such aggressive and often misleading drug company marketing, it's too easy for advertising - instead of doctors or proven results - to influence families' health decisions,'' Edwards said in excerpts of his speech provided to The Associated Press. ``But the (Food and Drug Administration) has been an ineffective watchdog, reviewing only a small fraction of ads.
...
Besides the two-year delay on new-drug advertising, he would require drug companies to get FDA approval before launching major ad campaigns. He also would increase penalties for companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws and would require companies to disclose more information about a drug's side effects and effectiveness compared to placebos and alternative drugs.

This guy is truly on drug. Gosh, this is the most ridiculous proposal I've ever seen.

Anyone thinks this guy won't get killed in general election must be drinking koo-aid...

Best wishes to Hillary! ABC has this terrific clip, no more words needed!

The bad news keeps coming...

Obama Fundraiser Defects to Clinton

A longtime Democratic fundraiser has abandoned Barack Obama's campaign to help rival Hillary Rodham Clinton win the party's presidential nomination.

Bob Farmer, who was a top fundraiser for several past Democratic presidential candidates, had served on Obama's national finance committee.
...
Farmer's defection to Clinton comes as her presidential campaign has been building steam. She holds a double-digit lead in national polls and a clear advantage in early voting New Hampshire. Iowa, however, still remains competitive among Clinton, Obama and John Edwards.
...
For Obama, the loss of such a big name in political fundraising circles is hardly welcome news at his campaign.

Farmer was the finance chair of the Democratic National Committee during President George H.W. Bush's administration. He was a top fundraiser for Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry in 2004.

A Chicago beachhead for Clinton
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

 reader forwards a copy of an invitation to a Nov. 1 fundraiser with Bill Clinton that's raising eyebrows in Obama's hometown.

That's because one of the hosts, Elzie Higginbottom, is a major player in the city's politics and a close ally of Mayor Richard Daley, for whom he's a key point of contact with the African-American community.

A wealthy real estate developer, Higginbottom is close to Obama's Chicago circle and part of the establishment that, until now, has been nearly united behind Obama. My source, who isn't a Clinton supporter, described his support for Hillary as a serious crack in the Chicago front.

Meanwhile, Obama gay bashing tour continues to draw firestorm.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/S C_OBAMA_GOSPEL_SINGER_SCOL-?SITE=SCAND&a mp;SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Obama campaign concert overshadowed by criticism, protest

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was passing out fliers in this early voting state, eagerly promoting a gospel concert dubbed "Embrace the Change."

Now a week later, the concert is overshadowed by gay and lesbian activists upset that a singer who says homosexuality is a choice has not been removed from the lineup. Obama's campaign tried to quell the anger by adding an openly gay pastor to the event, but the activists weren't appeased and planned a protest outside Sunday's concert - once seen as a unifying moment.

The campaign backlash piqued with a conference call Thursday night between one of Obama's top strategists, Joshua DuBois, trying ease national criticism and discontent from more than a dozen of South Carolina's top gay and lesbian activists.

The concert DuBois saw as an event to bring people together had actually fractured supporters who noticed that Grammy-winning singer Donnie McClurkin was a headliner.
...
It's unclear if DuBois was ready for this week's backlash. When the conference call about McClurkin ended, gay activists got off the phone and leaders of the South Carolina Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement agreed to hold a protest, urging national groups to participate, too.

"They really didn't make any headway," the state group's president, Michael VanDiver, said of Obama's campaign. "They would never answer our questions other than saying Obama said he would not pull this guy from the event that is taking place Sunday."

It is getting messier and messier... A a group called PFOX ("Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays") is calling "for Gay Activists to Stop Promoting Hatred Against Former Homosexuals Participating in Obama Presidential Campaign."

http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=20 4

Family Organization Calls for Gay Activists to Stop Promoting Hatred Against Former Homosexuals Participating in Obama Presidential Campaign.Gay groups attack African-American for coming out of homosexuality.

Washington DC -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) has called on gay activists to end their attacks against Donnie McClurkin, an African-American gospel singer and former homosexual. Mr. McClurkin is a Grammy Award winner who is using his singing voice to participate in gospel concerts to raise funds for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Some gay activists are demanding that Sen. Obama drop McClurkin from the singing tour.

"Ex-gays have the same right to participate in the political process as other Americans and should not have to endure this type of abuse because they chose to leave homosexuality," said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director. "Gay rights groups demand hate crimes laws and sexual orientation non-discrimination legislation, but would deny the same protection to ex-gays who want full inclusion in society at the same level that gays currently enjoy."

"This irrational behavior towards those who have overcome unwanted same-sex attractions perpetuates misunderstanding and harm against ex-gays. It also demonstrates a disregard for diversity and a refusal to respect a basic human right to dignity and self-determination," said Griggs.

Uniter or divider?

Bush administration has rolled out some new sanction measures against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Quds Brigades. Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of these harsh sanctions. I strongly applaud her principled standing on this matter. Here's Clinton's statement:

"We must use all the tools at our disposal to address the serious challenge posed by Iran, including diplomacy, economic pressure and sanctions.

"I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why I took to the Senate floor last February and warned the president not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and why I've co-sponsored Sen. Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land. I've been concerned for a long time over George Bush's saber rattling and belligerence toward Iran.

"We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard. The Bush administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program, while also averting military action. ..."

Iran's nuclear program has posed a serious threat to international security.  It's no surprise that wimps inside the democratic party such as Edwards who believes 'fighting terrorism' is just a 'bumper sticker' will come out against such sensible measures. Anybody not taking fighting terrorism, national security seriously does not deserve to get even closer to the white house. After he loses this nomination battle, Edwards will have plenty of time to invite holocaust denier Ahmadinejad to his big mansion in NC for a cup of tea.

For now, Edwards is hit hard by Roger Simon in a latest article published in a NH newspaper.
Roger Simon: Is John Edwards subtly appealing to racism and sexism?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx? headline=Roger+Simon%3A+Is+John+Edwards+ subtly+appealing+to+racism+and+sexism%3F &articleId=d336919d-6ddb-43bd-a712-a 735408be769

Could be. But John Edwards' real problem is that he wants to project a down-home, rural, good-old-boy image, while people instead see him as a super-rich lawyer, living in a huge mansion and getting expensive haircuts.

Being born in rural America doesn't guarantee that you can win in rural America. As Jesse Jackson once said, "My cat had her kittens in the oven, but that didn't make them biscuits."

Indeed, being a fake southern wimp certainly is not going to help the democratic party win any red state. Remember 2004?

Let's take a look at who's actually winning the tough guys.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/6200 84,CST-NWS-hunter25.article
Hillary doing well with 'really macho' unions

Vince Panvini has been the political director of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association for 14 years, and he has seen a lot of Democratic and Republican candidates come and go.

In 2004, he was hoping Dick Gephardt, the congressman from Missouri, would win the Democratic nomination, but Panvini's union was split: some members supported former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; others liked Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. So they didn't endorse until Gephardt pulled out after the Iowa caucuses, choosing to unite behind Kerry.

This time there is no split, and likely before the end of the year, they will formally endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The members were polled about the candidates, and Clinton was the favorite, 2-1, Panvini said. "Our guys are really macho, but it's amazing how they flock to her. They love her."

These 'macho' metal workers are certainly not impressed with a faked Southern male wimp who's more interested in expensive haircuts and kowtowing to a holocaust denier who vowed to wipe Israel off the Middle East map. Voters are not stupid, they value a politican with inner strength who can stand on her ground.

By the way, Clinton campaign also comes out mocking another flip-flopper in this farce.

To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign

RE: Obama vs. Obama: The Real Differences on Iran

Who said this?

"Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region." Later in the same speech, he said: "Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening."

George Bush? Nope.

The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.

Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.

That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran's ambitions. But that was then.

This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois - Dick Durbin - voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no."

Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.

But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn't he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton. A Washington Post editorial summed it up best: "Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and -- given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted -- probably naive, as well."

That's not the kind of and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President.

Hillary has been clear and consistent in saying that diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why she took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and it's why she's co-sponsored Senator Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land.

That's the kind of strength and experience that will lead to the changes Americans want in our nation's foreign policy.

All democratic candidates were saying sanctions were necessary part in keeping Iran's nuclear ambition at Bay, but when rubber hits the road, only Hillary is standing on her ground. Sanctions and diplomacy are certainly starting to work in persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear program. This is a dangerous world, any candidate who does not measure up to their promise on matter of national security certainly does not deserve to lead the free world.

On the record, Edwards and Dodd do not support these sanctions. They have a lot of explanations to do. Their actions certainly do not measure up to their past rhetoric on this issue. They have failed this 'commander in chief' test miserably.