When I speak of who won, its all about politics. As an issue it is rather absurd to speak about diplomacy in such generalities. Regardless of what they say now, whether they speak to someone as president will come down to the specifics of the situation at the time.

If this issue doesn’t go further it will have no impact on the race. There is the possibility that this could come back to haunt Clinton. She backed herself into a corner and be forced to take a more Bush-like attitude if this issue comes up out of fear of looking inconsistent. It is harder for her to move back to a position she labeled irresponsibile and naive.

I suppose any coverage that makes this a Hillary vs. Obama story is good for Obama, as it prevents a “Hillary is inevitable” meme from developing and keeping him competitive. Apart from tactics and strategy, however, regarding who won on the issue, I still see this as a draw.

I have more evidence that Obama won. Robart Novak’s newsletter this week proclaims Clinton the winner of the dispute. Can you argue with my logic that this means Obama won?

As for whether Hillary “won” or not this past week, I don’t see either candidate coming out on top, as the dispute between was over an issue in which they are in basic agreement. Both support robust, immediate diplomacy with conditions set in place beforehand; the only difference is over how quick should the president meet face-to-face with dictators and over the word “precondition.” I believe all the American people see here is a bunch of pungent rhetoric (Hillary with her “naive and irresponsible” and Obama with his “Bush-Cheney light”), and no clear winner.

In a way that has been Clinton’s strategy from the start–giving the impression that her victory is inevitable. Obama has been at a disadvantage from the start, but recent controversies help an underdog such as himself. All of a sudden the news surrounds Obama, or Obama vs. Clinton.

“You can disregard the most recent polling, if you like, but at some point as the trend continues, the numbers must be acknowledged.”

Historically polls in nomination races are not predictive until the last minute. Look at 2004 when Dean was far out ahead and Kerry was behind Al Sharpton in the national polls. People don’t make up their minds this early.

The race is also a series of state events, making national polls even less predictive. If Edwards wins in Iowa, and then Obama wins in New Hampshire (where both have leads by some polls) then suddenly Clinton no longer looks like the inevitable candidate. As we saw in 2004 such early victories can totally change the race. There have also been cases where front runners lost early and came back to win. Hillary has the best shot at winning, but the race is far from over and she can’t count on the lead in the national polls holding up once we get to the Iowa caucus.

“Savvy, experienced campaigners are less likely to do so.”

Yes, there is much less chance that Clinton will fumble the ball as compared to Dean in 2004. That’s one of the reasons she will probably win, but this is not inevitable.

No campaign will stop trying to win at such an early stage and I’m not suggesting that they should. I’m simply saying, with a bit of hyperbole, that the Clinton strategy now changes from one of slash and burn to one of implied victory – painting a picture that the other candidate, in this case Barak Obama, has gotten a bit out of his depth and has shown himself to be unsuitable by his “naive and inexperienced” statements. She has the luxury of defining her opponent now. This can happen because he has opened that door for her, and the widening gap allows her the luxury of taking on the roll of the calm reconcilliator rather than the rash antagonist. As you know, it is not the substance of the debate that influences most voters, it is the post debate perception of who “won” or “lost”. Hillary’s team, in my opinion has managed the post-debate spin much better than Barak’s team.

You can disregard the most recent polling, if you like, but at some point as the trend continues, the numbers must be acknowledged. Now having said that, any candidate can fumble the ball and make a major gaff that changes the momentum. Savvy, experienced campaigners are less likely to do so.
By the way, I do appreciate open debate without personally attacking those who may have different opinions.

If you have time, please go over to the Hillary “War Room” backdoor website, and you’ll see that the blog seems to have an unusual level of affection for Bill and Hillary and has an unusual level of investigative in-depth reporting of the workings of the Obama campaign to truly be an freelance operation. Also, remember that, if I am right, this is the “war room” for Hillary’s campaign, actively repelling Obama, and not the official sanatizied campaign organ. Go to the comments of Post #175, and you’ll see the cynical and petty and undemocratic discussion of manipulating bloggers like you that compelled me to respond to Sly1’s suspicious comments.

As for the Clinton-Obama spat, seriously, when I was watching the debate, I did not think that their slightly different answers was noteworthy. I definitely did not think it would dominate the political debate for so long. But I can see why you think Obama won, even though others (hillaryis44.org) think Hillary did, and I cannot see a clear winner. To simply survive a brutal attack by a front-runner could be construed as victory, but, to me, the differences between them are so small than neither one could really make a dent. Also, I don’t believe Hillary Clinton ever said that she would meet with foreign leaders without “preconditions” or within the first year of her administration, rendering the whole “flip-flop” accusation on the part of the New York Senator moot, and making this contest a draw.

I doubt Sly1 is an actual campaign operative. I’m sure the actual campaign knows better than to assume the race is won, and would certainly not say so in such a manner.

After writing that paragraph and before posting the comment I happened to get a call from Peter Daou from Clinton’s campaign. He certainly did not sound like someone from a campaign where they no longer feel a need to campaign to win.

It wasn’t a knock out punch by any means, and therefore I don’t mind you calling it a draw, but I do give the exchange over negotiations to Obama for a few reasons.

As an underdog, simply holding his own on the more experienced candidate is a win for Obama. Clinton tried to call Obama’s ideas irresponsible and naive, but at least two different interviews have surfaced where Clinton took Obama’s position.

While the differences are minor, this may have backed Clinton into a corner with regardless to willingness to negotiate. I did see one poll where a majority backed Obama on this, and most liberal blogs seemed to back Obama if they took a side.

The writer of the comment on Giuliani did form a group called Libertarians for Giuliani. Needless to say, there have been lots of posts from people backing Paul. Eric Dondero, who wrote the pro-Giuliani post, also worked for Paul in the past but there is bad blood since Ron Paul fired him due to their differences over Iraq.

You want to enforce the line that Hillary is invincible, never mind the fact that Democrats want to win next year and Hillary may be too polarizing to win in a general election and govern as president, and when an influential blogger disagrees with you, or rebuffs your party line, then you go on the attack.

Hillary “can move into vice-presidential recruitment mode” now? What an arrogant and, yes, naive statement. And it completely betrays you as a partisan, clouded by his convictions, or, at the very worse, a campaign operative using propagandistic language to try to force Ron and his readers to your side. Descipable.

In my opinion, no one won in the last week’s war of words. One could make an fair argument that Hillary came out on top, and one could make an easily viable argument that Obama won. I believe that it was the American people who lost, who had to be subjected to a political fight over a critical issue (diplomacy) in which both candidates were in basic agreement. The only real dispute was apparently over the meaning of the words preconditions and conditions as it applies to diplomacy.

That’s the real assessment; that’s a more truthful analysis of this issue, not your partisan political spin. You operatives (paid or unpaid) that come on this website merely to promote your candidate–whether it be Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani (from post #1924), or Hillary–disgust me. You are only lowering the level of political discourse, and only making yourselves look like trolls, and not thinking individuals.

Obama is not spending all his political capital on a single issue. He is defending a program which is of beneift. Hillary Clinton opposes the same program despite not disagreeing that it is of benefit. Obama comes off as the better leader.