Obama climbs in Iowa poll

Barack Obama scored four more state legislator endorsements, his presidential campaign announced Friday.

State Sens. Rich Olive of Story City and Frank Wood of Eldridge and Reps. Helen Miller of Fort Dodge and Janet Petersen of Des Moines bring the total to 10 state lawmakers who have endorsed Obama. Attorney General Tom Miller and Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald also have endorsed Obama.

Olive is a lifelong resident of Story City where he owns and operates Norsemen Insurance & Realty. He is an active member of the community, serving as the president of the Story City Economic Development Corporation, as the announcer for Roland-Story football and the Scandinavian Days Parade, and as a board member for the Bethany Life Community Foundation, the Ackley State Bank of Story City, the Mary Greely Medical Center Foundation, and the Riverbend Golf Course. Olive is the past-president and member of the Story City Lions Club and the recipient of the Story City Lions Club Lifetime of Service award and the two-time recipient of the Governor’s Volunteer Award. Rich and his wife, Marian, have three daughters and seven grandchildren

Senator Wood is chair of the Education Budget Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Education, Human Resources, Natural Resources & Environment, Appropriations, and State Government committees.

In addition to his committee work, Senator Wood serves on the Public Retirement Systems Committee, the Prevention of Disabilities Policy Council, and the Midwestern Higher Education Compact.

Senator Wood previously served as mayor of Eldridge. He is the student activities director at North Scott I

McCain drops below Obama among Iowa Republicans
(AP)Iowa

Less than a month ago, with his campaign in free-fall, John McCain’s presidential campaign circulated talking points to supporters, explaining the skeleton of the senator’s comeback plan. In a nutshell, the strategy was premised on McCain excelling in three early-voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Success in these three states would get McCain back on track, and victory would beget more victory. The plan looks a little shaky in light of the senator’s wholesale collapse in Iowa.

[A] new University of Iowa poll finds that McCain is at all of three percent in that state. Incredibly, this onetime presumed frontrunner is behind even Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, who each have four percent.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney leads the field with 27%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 11%. And in third place is Fred Thompson — who only just recently announced that he would be making his first visit to the state.

Taking a closer look at the numbers, one other important tidbit jumped out at me. Respondents to the University of Iowa poll were asked an open-ended question: name the candidate they support for president in the 2008 election. They could name any candidate from either party, and were not offered choices.

Among Republicans who said they were caucus goers, it’s Romney 27% (up from 17% in March), Giuliani 11% (down from 20%), Thompson 6.5% (up from 1.5%), Brownback 4.2%, Tancredo 4.2%, and McCain 3.2% (down from 21%).

But the poll also gauged support among registered Iowa Republicans, whether they’re planning to participate in the caucuses or not. And that’s where it gets ugly.

The changes among Republican voters since March are dramatic. Romney is now the preferred candidate at 21.8 percent — double his March support.

Giuliani’s support, 10 percent, decreased by almost 8.5 percent. McCain’s support has collapsed in Iowa. His support among registered Republicans dropped from 14.4 percent in March to 1.8 percent in July-August. UI political scientists note that McCain has been passed in popularity not only by former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who earned 5.2 percent support, but also by a Democratic challenger, Obama, who is supported by 6.7 percent of Republicans. No other candidate received more than 3 percent support. (emphasis added)

Think about that for a moment. Among Iowa Republicans, McCain has fallen behind Obama? And Iowa is the key to McCain’s comeback plan?

According to Bruce it really doesn't matter that Obama is now leading in Iowa. He was losing by a large margin in August so apparently he was supposed to drop out of the race because of that.

The latest "national polls" the article mentions but that the Swamp never reports on:

Rasmussen: Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 14%
CBS: Clinton 43%, Obama 22%, Edwards 16%
Gallup: Clinton 47%, Obama 25%, Edwards 11%

Every newspaper in the country headlines these poll results. But not the Swamp.

We all know why.

Don't Swamp writers know that in the internet age they aren't able to hide such information from their readers?

"Daddy Dearest
Rudy Giuliani's Daughter Is Supporting Barack Obama"

By Lucy Morrow Caldwell
Slate.com

There's one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can't count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter's. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

On her profile, she designates her political views as "liberal" and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it.

In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site. But she didn't lock her profile, allowing any Facebook user with access to the Harvard or Trinity School networks (more than 42,000 people) to view her detailed profile. (As a Harvard student, I was able to see it.)

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News.

Caroline's Facebook profile does not reveal why she doesn't want her father to win the White House. She has not responded to e-mail questions from Slate.

Lucy Morrow Caldwell is a student at Harvard College and a columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

I suppose we'll have to put up with Obama, McCain and other unlikely prez wannabees for a few months longer, but it really is a waste of time.

Obama no longer presents a real alternative to the more experienced and articulate Hillary. He says he doesn't know if and when he would withdraw troops from Iraq; indeed, his foreign policy statements are either eccentric or downright George Bush-like. Meeting with dictators is one thing but saving the world for democracy is scary and saving the world for democracy is exactly what Obama has been proposing if you read his fp statements carefully.

As to the Repubs, McCain is too old and his campaign is in too much disarray. And although Americans as a group have apparently concluded that staying in Iraq forever is an acceptable use of our lives and resources, they don't want to think about it too much. McCain, with his ardent defense of the war and George Bush, wants to talk about it all the time.
It's getting way annoying.

These guys need to get off the national political state and get an alternative life.

Let the real election contest begin. Hillary vs. Giuliani or maybe even Romney (who is worth a quarter of a billion after all. Buys a lot of ads).

Helena,

Show me a recent quote from Hillary that tells us when she would bring the troops home?

Obama's supporters are disproportionately young. They may think they will be voting in Iowa, but come January cold weather and snow they will rethink waiting out in the cold for a candidate they don't "strongly" support.

Helena,

Your blind support of Senator Clinton is truly amusing. I suppose if Barack Obama is Bush-like, then you haven't been reading or listening to Ms. Clinton's statements? How about her statement that another terrorist attack would greatly benefit the GOP? How about her warmongering against Iran? Your disregard of Obama and McCain as "not serious contenders" clearly reveals your arrogance, and typical Clintonian contempt for democracy.

Forego the election, HRM Helena has spoken! Hillary is our new President, and don't anybody dare challenge it. Who do Senators Obama and McCain think they are, running for President and trying to change America? Where do they think they are, where anybody can run for public office? America? HA!

"The real contest" indeed. Hillary the spineless pollster versus Rudy Giuliani, the real failure of 9/11. At least McCain's inadequacies haven't caused hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to develop respiratory diseases, and he doesn't suffer from 9/11 tourettes.

Take it from a New Yorker: Neither Rudy Giuliani nor Hillary Clinton are ready to lead America. If you want four, or even eight, more years of imperialist failure, by all means vote for Rudy or Hillary. Neither of them have the slightest grasp of the scope of the responsibility the President faces as leader of the free world. It is all a game to those heartless lobbyist puppets.

I'm giving my vote to a candidate that represents the ideals of America and will work to bring us all together. I'd encourage anyone who plans on voting to actually read and think for themselves, and make an educated decision on who will be their next leader. If you don't wish to make an educated decision, I suggest you move to Cuba so the government can make those decisions for you. You are not needed in a free society.

Ta,
Hannibal

Helena: Clinton "articulate" - Well I guess it's easy to be articulate when you evade - or flatly deny to answer - questions you're not prepared to answer. As far as experience, maybe people are finally beginning to recognize that Clinton presents some kinds of experience we DON'T need. An objective evaluation of what Clinton has actually accomplished independently - and not as First Lady - yields very little - if any - beyond any of the other Dem. candidates. Obama - ESPECIALLY in regards to his foreign policy - offer an excellent alternative. I have a son in Iraq in military intelligence. He and the majority of those who are in his unit are Obama supporters he tells me. It's a complex situation and I haven't heard Clinton provide a superior - or original - idea.

Iowa polls can never ever make any sense in any way. It is a swing state. It was Edward, Clinton in the past and now to day it is Obama, only in Newsweek. Tomorrow it will be again Edward or Clinton or some one else. Be an abstract analyzer of candidates. Swamp has right to endorse Obama, but you have to stop barking like made dog and trying to con us. Iowans cannot be conned. At the end of Iowa primary whoever wins is the winner. Till then all these fake one-sided audacious prediction is turn off for your readers. Please grow up, by making analysis of each candidate by issues (that concerns (middle class) or ordinary people) only
Amir

You are not needed in a free society. What an oxymoron. Would this free society be only made up of people like Obama, you, or those who only think like you. If your an example of the best and the brightest Obama has to offer I'd say were in a pickle. The same one that has us in this mess. Everyone who agrees with W can talk, and everyone else who disagrees with him is discredited and told to move to Cuba to Castro for crumpets and tea. Yah a uniter. You and Obama. Telling others to go to Cuba bc their opinion is not educated on default...its not supporting Obama. Take it from a TriState resident Guiliani and Hillary did not win their seats by default. No matter how you cut it people voted for them, and it looks that people polled continue to support these two. Should Hillary win and announce Obama as VP or if Obama is nominated and wins and pick Hillary for VP I guess Hillary won't be that bad to you,huh?

Ps don't look to discredit the polls when I'm sure your one of the people who never lets dubya forget his.

AS I SAID BEFOTE-OVER ALL ITS HILLARYS YEAR- THIS YEAR IS 2007-IN ZODIAC SIGN ITS A BOAR YEAR AND ALSO 1947 WHICH IS HILLARY WAS BORN IS ALSO HER YEAR. THATS WHY SO FAR THIS YEAR IS HER YEAR.F

Don't Swamp writers know that in the internet age they aren't able to hide such information from their readers?

Posted by: Bruce | September 30, 2007 5:00 PM

Hey Bruce, even in the "internet age" an ignorant bigot like you is still an ignorant bigot. Some things never change.

I don't like Hillary either.
She is articulate, though.
Decades of practice. And I agree that her plan for Iraq is no better. But given that none of the leading candidates (Bill Richardson is not a leading candidate) in either party wants to set a timeline for troop withdrawal or even get us out (of Iraq)
by 2013, the next Prez's second term, we have to look further to find differences in foreign policy approaches. And
Obama has made some scary Bush-like statements about the US being responsibility for everybody in the world's security, that's where he lost me. How many wars can we finance in lives and blood?

This poll says Clinton leads Obama 31% to 25% among Iowa Democrats. Why did Swamp gloss over that?

Mg, Fact is other polls have Barack in second and in third in Iowa. And today, in an interview, the political guru for the Des Moines Register says Obama has little chance in Iowa, that even though his campaign says it's reaching "those not inclined to vote," that isn't reality in Iowa.
In 2004, Howard the Duck Dean said he was tapping into "new" voters in Iowa. And where did those "new" voters get him?

If I have to hear Clinton's "cackle" one more time, or Romney's flip-flopping BS, I swear I'll go insane.

There's a reason Mrs. Clinton is beginning to falter Helena. Check this out: She is UNBEARABLE!!

"Barack Obama scored four more state legislator endorsements, his presidential campaign announced Friday."

WOW! A garden variety politcal hack gets endorsements from state legislators! Start ordering drapes for the White House, Michelle!

"...where did those "new" voters get him?"

Not only did they get him chairmanship of the DNC after years of atrophy under the various Terry McAullifes, but he has energized a true 50 state party. No more strictly focusing on a 'swing state strategy', you are seeing the rise of truly national party as opposed to the shrinking of the Republic party.

Yeah, I'll give Howard some props. Good for him.

In 2004, Howard the Duck Dean said he was tapping into "new" voters in Iowa. And where did those "new" voters get him?

Posted by: John D | September 30, 2007 8:43 PM

Lil Johhny Dreadlocks,

Those "new" voters are at least four times larger in numbers than they were back in the Dean days and they're are soooo happy that you Wingnuts are discounting them.

RNC Brucie, take your meds, dude.

Giggles... If you want to look at an exciting race, it would be the Republicans. The General Election Matchup will be:

Clinton vs. ? (McCain, Giulinai, Romney, Thompson, or Huckabee)

Hillary fans should not be so quick to discount Obama supporters. If she does indeed win the nomination, she'll need Obama's endorsement in order to sway his loyal followers. Right now, her campaign is creating an atmosphere of contempt which may linger and ultimately cost the Dems the White House.

At the end of the day, change aNd experience, or experience aNd change, sound wayyy more promising than mission accomplished at this point in time!

We'll try this again:
Mark, what is wrong with asking a poster to stop using the bigot card?

But while you seem to have a hard time dealing with a plea to not use the bigot card, especially when their is no bigotry, you seem to be OK with this:

Lil Johhny Dreadlocks,

Those "new" voters are at least four times larger in numbers than they were back in the Dean days and they're are soooo happy that you Wingnuts are discounting them.

RNC Brucie, take your meds, dude.

Posted by: John E | September 30, 2007 10:13 PM

So, let me get this straight: Admonishing someone for falsely using the bigotry and racist card is bad, but calling folks childish names is OK?

And didn't you tell me you were tired of "childish, schoolyard" name-calling?

Vegitarian,

Your "the voter is always right" mentality and inability to speak beyond talking points and rationalization won't win anyone over.

Do hate groups have a place in a free society? Do murderers, rapists, and thieves have a place in a free society?

When I say "free society" I am talking about a caring, orderly civilization that welcomes discussion and doesn't simply discount other people's well-reasoned opinions as "stupid" or "irrelevant."

One could reasonably argue that Sam Brownback, Chris Dodd, Ron Paul, or Bill Richardson would make good Presidents. Just because they're not "front runners" in some inaccurate polls doesn't mean the opinion is any less valid than that of the ignorant mainstream sycophants.

Maybe "free society" wasn't the right word. I'll rephrase it, and perhaps you can try to comprehend what I am getting at: Vitriol has no place in a sapient society.

Take a pill, and keep on voting for who the pollsters tell you to. You're doing a commendable job destroying America.

Ta ta,
H

The latest "national polls" the article mentions but that the Swamp never reports on:

Rasmussen: Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 14%
CBS: Clinton 43%, Obama 22%, Edwards 16%
Gallup: Clinton 47%, Obama 25%, Edwards 11%

Every newspaper in the country headlines these poll results. But not the Swamp.

We all know why.

Don't Swamp writers know that in the internet age they aren't able to hide such information from their readers?

Posted by: Bruce | September 30, 2007 5:00 PM

Bruce, please don't vote in this primary! We don't need people as stupid as you picking the leader of the free world. These are national polls are commenting on, which EVERY paper/magazine has always said Hillary was in the lead. The Swamp is reporting Iowa polls, let me repeat, IOWA POLLS, which show Barack narrowly leading.

Hilary has stove pipes for legs. Who could vote for someone like that?