The New Republic

"At the beginning of the next clip, Russert does his best to press Clinton on a "Would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?" query, but Clinton, who proved herself to be something of an evasion-ninja last night, deems it a hypothetical and refuses to answer." I think she did answer in the affirmative indirectly. By saying that she supported the Israeli action in Syria she was also saying that she would support such an attack.

- jacksondyer

September 27, 2007 at 9:05pm

Obama pulled over 20k in NYC this evening. Does TNR have an opinion about what this means, or are they gonna go with the MSM's tired analysis that is entirely based in national polls, which must be flawed (given Obama's fundraising and star power), and these debate performances, which normal people are ignoring like the plague?

- ralphnelle

September 27, 2007 at 9:56pm

You play up how Obama drew 20,000 people in NYC, but say that "normal people ignore" the debates "like the plague". Yet this last debate drew close to 1,500,000 viewers. Thats more people than would see Obama speak at a public rally like the one in NYC even if he were to do seventy of them. The whole notion that the ardour of tens or even hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters proves that polls showing him far behind among the overall electorate "must be flawed" is irrational. One thing does not need to say anything about the other. Dont get me wrong: passion and fervour are great things to be inspiring among your supporters, and they certainly pay off in the campaigning work they will do for you. But even sincere and deep passion and fervour of two hundred thousand people who come to hear you speak, or even five hundred thousand who give you a donation, need not say anything about how you're faring among the overall electorate of tens of millions of voters. Just ask Howard Dean.

- jobeek2

September 27, 2007 at 11:01pm

You're dealing with a straw man. I cited two things: rally numbers and fundraising. Get your target straight. I'm not alone in thinking the money "poll" is a more accurate reflection of actual support. Howard Dean is a red herring here. The similarities are extremely superficial. Dean lost the nomination because his campaign was a trainwreck in Iowa, he was too angry, and he got mired in a bloody fight with Gephart. Obama's appeal isn't rooted exclusively in Bush-hatred. It's something much more compelling.

- ralphnelle

September 28, 2007 at 1:31am

I appreciate your enthusiasm for Obama - he's a good guy. And yes, his personality is quite different from Dean's. However, the point stands, and there's no straw man here. You said that Obama's "fundraising and star power", as measured in his superior rally numbers and fundraising, show that the national polls that show him behind "must be flawed". That's nonsense. One doesnt necessarily say anything about the other. One can have a far more ardent core group of half a million or a million supporters willing to give money and attend rallies, and yet still be behind, far behind even, another candidate in terms of popular preference among the overall electorate of your party. That, and only that, was where the comparison with Howard Dean comes in. Or with, say, Eugene McCarthy.

- jobeek2

September 28, 2007 at 9:45am

Am I the only person who is concerened with what happened in Syria? Russert says that the area bombed had material from North Korea. Israel bombed that site. Everyone knows about it and yet ehe MSM is very hush. I think the open secret Hillary admitted too needs more scrutiny. Even Stratfor is saying something is fishy here and they are not exactly fearmongers.

- awrobi01

September 28, 2007 at 9:52am

"Just ask Howard Dean." Give me a break. Dean was set to win the nomination. He stumbled at the end (polls showed Kerry/Edwards overtake him in the middle of January in Iowa, and he was getting tons of negative press between Dec-and Jan). He was leading the national polls, Iowa poll, and NH poll. This is a bad analogy. In fact, the better analogy might be Dean=Hillary. The inevitable nominee with huge flaws who MAY be toppled in Dec/Jan if those flaws are effectively exposed to the primary electorate. You say tons of people are paying attention, but how many folks have seen the videos of Hillary condescending Democrats repeatedly about staying the course (using Bush's language)? How many folks have been bombarded with Hillary's anti-labor record for weeks straight? this race is hard from over - in fact, I don't see how Hillary makes it through the upcoming barage...

- virginiacentrist

September 28, 2007 at 10:33am

I think what the Obama team knows, is that if they unleash the real attacks on Hillary now, she will go into slime and defend mode and find a way to neutralize those attacks before the voting begins. They're planning to sandbag her and I think she knows it. Ergo the look of death at the last debate.

- seanwright

September 28, 2007 at 10:41am

Your original reply to me was a straw man. I cited two reasons to distrust the polls; your reply mentioned only one. That's how the straw man fallacy works. Sorry, you're just wrong on this point. As for the "non-sense" of my view that fundraising and grassroots energy is a better measure of Obama's campaign strength, you're confused. Sure, there other ways to interpret all of the data on Obama, one of which includes trusting the polls over everything else, including his impressive organization in Iowa. But that isn't the only way. Consider an earlier post on the plank: "When you have a test result you know is accurate (in this case, the fund-raising numbers) that contrasts with a symptom or test result you can't explain (the poll numbers), you go with what you know is right and keep testing the other one until they match."

- ralphnelle

September 28, 2007 at 11:12am

Great format TNR. More of the same for the rest of the debates. I particulary like the way I can click onto the TNR crews views. My 2 Euro Cent: Edwards won it by a distance. Clinton is starting to jar; it's a thin line between focused intellect and Al Gore. Obama is strange for me - I can't figure out if I hate him or just like him. Gravel is senile but great craic. Biden should be given more bandwidth, he's comparitively impressive.

- The Ignorant Populist

September 28, 2007 at 5:35pm

"Your original reply to me was a straw man. I cited two reasons to distrust the polls; your reply mentioned only one. That's how the straw man fallacy works. Sorry, you're just wrong on this point." I'm sorry Ralphnelle, but you're wrong. You did indeed point to his success in two things: fundraising and attracting people to rallies. And if you read my first reply again, you'll see that I did also address both of those things. So I dont know what your point is there.

- jobeek2

September 28, 2007 at 7:03pm

"Dean was .. leading the national polls, Iowa poll, and NH poll. This is a bad analogy." Fair enough; that is where the analogy breaks down. In my defense, though, the comparison with Dean that I was making - or trying to make, in any case - was simply that just because you have the most enthusiastic and mobilised core support base (people who will come to your rallies, people who will donate to you) does not mean that you are also the guy the much larger mass of voters will pick. In fact, one has proven to say nothing about the other. The history of primaries is littered with candidates who had a very enthusiastic support base of donors and activists and yet bombed when it came to the larger mass of passive voters. Dean, too, was a trailblazer when it came to solliciting small donations from a large, grassroots network of donors, while other candidates still depended on larger, institutionalised financial support. Now Obama, too, has outraised Hillary by activating a much larger total number of donors, ordinary people who make small donations. But did Dean's success in activating an enthusiastically donating core basis say anything about his appeal to the overall Democratic electorate? I'd say, hardly..

- jobeek2

September 28, 2007 at 7:13pm

I dunno - has any candidate every raised as much money (adjusted for inflation) as Obama? Is the history of the primaries littered with anyone like him? "But did Dean's success in activating an enthusiastically donating core basis say anything about his appeal to the overall Democratic electorate? I'd say, hardly.." NOT TRUE! Dean was in first place until the last month. Don't discredit his entire campaign because he flamed out (for the record, I hated the guy, if you care). If anything, Obama is in a WORSE position than Dean, because while Dean had enthusiasm, fundraising, and poll numbers, Obama only has two of those three (his poll numbers suck). That's why I don't like the Obama analogy. If anything, Dean was better. It wasn't his fundraising or enthusiasm that lost him the nomination - it was his lack of discipline and poor strategy toward crunch time. If anything, Obama's campaign is reading Dean's playbook and focusing on discipline and BETTER organization - an organization that doesn't obnoxiously enter a state and assume that everyone is a true believer and that anyone who opposes Obama is dirt (that's what Dean basically did - he sent hippies into Iowa who believed that Dean was Jesus. And people didn't buy it, in the long run).

- virginiacentrist

September 28, 2007 at 9:12pm