As Jerome writes, everyone is saying that Gore is going to get the Nobel on Friday. That's going to be huge. Could he use it to jump into the race? I don't think so. Gore's good, but he could hardly develop the apparatus needed to actually win in the few months before Iowa. And good polls really don't matter a heck of a lot without strong organization.

The money is on him to endorse someone. And many people say that someone is going to be Obama. Obama put out his energy plan today, and it is bold. The environmental movement is going to be talking about this for a while especially considering his plan to auction off 100% of cap and trade credits. Hmm. Do you think Gore might have offered some advice on the development of this plan?

If Gore endorses, what would maximize that endorsement? Will he play the foil to Bill Clinton? I recently read that many people like Hillary because they see her as an extension of the first Clinton Whitehouse. But would a Gore administration neutralize that effect? Might Obama announce simultaneously to a Gore endorsement that in his administration Gore would serve a a dual role of Environmental Ambassador and Secretary of the Environment? Would Gore accept something like that? Would Gore accept being Vice President again if he were to have exclusive domain over environmental and trade issues (which are fairly linked)?

On a side note, Obama also has the endorsement of Oprah. He hasn't pulled in that chit, yet. What would her role be in the campaign? How might she help him win the primaries? I think she has a lot of power to sway people. But she has to be deployed strategically.

All in all, things are getting extremely interesting. My hope about Obama has returned in full force. His Iowa strategy got good, solid play last week. His environmental plan got stellar grades. His anti-nuke program is really solid (add on that India is saber-rattling right now and Hillary looks weak (to the base) on Iran and their nuclear threat). Right now, Obama is in prime position to surge.

What are your thoughts on what a Gore endorsement would do for Obama? How should he be used during the primary so that he actually helps bring in voters? How should Oprah be used?

In answer to yesterday's diary, here's what the Obama campaign is now putting out about their Iowa strategy and how that will impact the race:

They see hope in the fact that although she is surging ahead elsewhere in the country, Iowa remains a tight race between Clinton, Obama and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

"She's run a great campaign, and she's still at 30 percent," says Steve Hildebrand, who is responsible for Obama's early state strategy.

The Obama strategy for Iowa, outlined by Hildebrand in an interview with The Associated Press and confirmed by other advisers, is three-pronged:

1. Keep Clinton's support down.
   
2. Keep Edwards from surging ahead.
   
3. Continue building Obama's support among both traditional and nontraditional voters.

It's notable that while this strategy has been tried elsewhere by insurgents, Obama would be the first one to have such a large cash box to back it up.

Lately, I've started to fall prey to the media juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton. But, there is tremendous reason to hope. While Hill supporters will give you poll after poll after poll, the game is still on. And I now believe that Obama is still firmly in the midst of the game and positioned to win. He's playing chess while Hillary is playing checkers. She keeps going "King me!" but Obama is positioning his Queen for a triumphant "Checkmate!"

Caveat Emptor

I have made no secret that I support Barack Obama. And while I would support Hillary if she is the nominee, I would be disappointed. I would also be disappointed with John Edwards. Both would be fine presidents. But I feel like Hillary would be more of the same. And Edwards while changing the game would not do so in a manner that I think would ultimately move the country -- it's a matter of strategy.

The Media Race

Everyone is saying it: Hillary has solidified her lead. The latest fundraising numbers from Q3 have been used as a cudgel by the Hillary camp to blast home the trend that Obama's last hope of beating her has been conquered. And while that claim seemed spurious to me, the media has kept touting it. And, like many of Obama's elite supporters, I was feeling like the fight was being lost.

In recent weeks, Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod has met with major contributors at the campaign's Chicago headquarters and in private homes to allay concerns about his candidate's lack of movement in the national polls. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has presided over conference calls to calm down jittery bundlers. The candidate himself has even gotten on the phone with groups of big donors to assure them that the campaign is on the right track.

"They were spending time trying to make all of us confident that there is a strategy," said one major donor to Mr. Obama, who attended a meeting of the campaign's finance team at the Chicago headquarters about a month ago. "And I remember David [Axelrod] saying that he thought Barack was positioned well. And all of a sudden it's turning into October, and I'm not sure I see a strategy. And if it is being implemented--I'm not sure I see it being implemented so effectively.

"Is it frustrating? Highly," said the donor. "National polls do matter, number one. They say don't worry, don't worry, we're positioned well. Well, what does that mean?"

But there's a curious meta-media rumbling that is happening on the edges. It says that the race is still very much going on. It says that Hillary's win was not by much. It also says that at this level, it hardly matters.

Where Things Stand

Hillary effectively stepped on Obama's big anniversary speech. That was very good media management. But it didn't play in the place where it counted most -- Iowa.

The Des Moines Register gave prominent play to the speech on its front page, with the headline: "Obama: Put End to Nuclear Weapons." Beneath it, below the fold, was a one-paragraph squib with the small headline: "Clinton Edges Obama," referring to an article inside about the fund-raising.

As we saw earlier this week, Obama is gaining an edge in Iowa. While there is some controversy about Newsweek's poll and whether it has true statistical relevance (least of all that this is there first with no trend lines), it still shows that it is a three way fight there. More than that, Obama is the best organized candidate in the state.

But Obama's first words were not in his text, even though they may have been the most important words he spoke all day.

"If you have not yet signed up as a Barack Obama supporter, hopefully after the speech you will," he told the crowd at the Polk County Convention Complex.

"Fill out one of those cards. We'll have volunteers all across the doors. You won't be able to get out without seeing one of these cards."

Pretty mundane stuff, right? Which is why most candidates don't bother with it. Especially not in a speech being covered by the national press, with six TV cameras grinding away.

But that Obama did bother with it is the most important sign I have seen that he actually understands Iowa.

Obama has thirty-one offices across the state. He's doing the work that the Dean campaign didn't do. He truly understands how different Iowa is than the rest of the country. And he's working it. He may or may not finish first, but he will definitely not finish below second. And that will catapult him through to New Hampshire. Iowa is a three person race, and whoever comes in first and second there will be positioned to continue on in the race.

So, I've changed the channel. The lazy media punditocracy will continue to say one thing until the picture changes. Hey, remember how Iowa was a race between Clark and Dean a few years ago? Oh, yeah. Let's all stop playing into the traditional narrative. I know the diehard Hillary supporters will continue to spray the national and even state polls around as proof of her inevitability. I don't begrudge them that (and those who try to change their minds are a bit naive). It's part of Hillary's strategy. But the rest of us should watch things more closely.

Obama supporters should have the most hope of all. He's just turned it on. And in the place where it really matters, he won the news cycle this week and is finally beginning his real campaign.

Having had time to read Barack Obama's foreign policy speech and talk with some of his advisers and some of his rivals advisers, I'm drawn to the conclusion that yesterday was meant to be a launch pad of sorts for the final stage of Obama's campaign argument.

Obama, an aide said, wrote the speech himself. It is much less cerebral and much more direct than his usual forays into policy. Actually, it wasn't a foray so much as a surgical strike. Half the speech was a sustained, detailed criticism of the foreign policy establishment. The rest was a precis of the ways in which president Obama would challenge conventional wisdom.

Just when people are really starting to pay attention, Obama has upped the ante. And he's playing to win. I know I'm heartened. And I can now see a winning strategy through the media haze that's obscured my vision.

Update [2007-10-5 11:33:2 by blackmahn]: Check out The Guardian for a really great article by Nedra Pickler (hard to actually say her name positively since she seemed like such a tool a while ago).

The Obama strategy for Iowa, outlined by Hildebrand in an interview with The Associated Press and confirmed by other advisers, is three-pronged:

1. Keep Clinton's support down.

Obama has to be careful about how he makes the case against Clinton, since he's campaigning on the need for a new kind of politics of hope instead of rivals tearing each other down. He's been taking the indirect approach - criticizing the actions of the Washington establishment and letting voters and the media make the connection to Clinton.

``People hold Barack to a different standard in politics because of his own rhetoric,'' Hildebrand said. ``He can't turn to Hillary and say, `You can't get elected because you're too polarizing. ... It's got to be in his own voice. It's got to be measured. It's got to be appropriate. It's got to be factual.''

2. Keep Edwards from surging ahead.

Obama's advisers insist they do not see Edwards as a threat for the nomination even if he wins Iowa because he doesn't have enough money to continue an aggressive campaign in the 24 other states that will follow within a month. But if Edwards emerges as the top competitor with Clinton after the Iowa results, it could squeeze Obama out.

That's why the campaign spent so much time trying to keep Edwards from getting the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union last month. Anything that gives Edwards a boost comes at a cost to Obama, and so far SEIU has withheld its endorsement.

3. Continue building Obama's support among both traditional and nontraditional voters.

Obama will have plenty of resources to air television ads across all the early voting states, plus he has a large field staff in those states working intensively to recruit supporters and keep them on board. Hildebrand said 1,900 new supporters signed up the week before the interview, more than half of whom had never caucused before.

Now that Edwards has accepted campaign financing matching dollars, it's looking pretty clear that he's dropping back out of the first/second tier he had just climbed into. As many commenters have said in a previous post announcing his acceptance of matching dollars, this is political suicide. He won't be able to spend adequately in the early states ($1.5M in Iowa, where Obama has spent $3M already on TV, and $800K in NH -- though he can get around some of that by buying TV spots in border states). No it's not fair that he will be able to spend $6M in Pennsylvania and only $800K in NH. But, by taking federal matching dollars, that's the reality. The reality is that he won't have the resources to win.

I'm sure Edwards considered all of this before making the final decision. But, let's face it, while framed as a principled decision, it was a calculation based on fundraising reality. He just didn't succeed in the money race. They made that calculation that Edwards would not raise even $40-$50M dollars in straight donations over the course of the primary! That's huge.

Whatever the reasons, Edwards has now fallen into Dodd and Biden territory. Even if he does well in Iowa, he won't have the resources to adequately compete in NH where Hillary is a natural and Obama is still coming on strong. South Carolina is either Hillary's or Obama's. And Nevada is up between Hillary, Obama and Richardson.

Yes, there's a case that Edwards could do well in Nevada. But a lot of that was predicated on him getting the endorsement of the SEIU. They are withholding an endorsement. And that, I think, is the reason that Edwards has a lot less chance now. I think that Edwards was holding out for help from that very powerful union. And when it didn't happen, te spokes of his campaign rusted a bit.

For those of us who would like to see a change not just in administration but in politics, I think the time is here to unite around Obama. he's not been a perfect candidate. He's stumbled a few times. He's sometimes not as progressive as I'd like. But e's our best hope to win the nomination against Hillary.

I love Hillary. And I think she'd be a very good president. I think she'd win. But it will be a hard fought, extremely partisan election that, I believe, will result in the Republicans winning Congress once again in the next mid-term elections. In other words, she'll be more of the same. Obama and Edwards both have offered a way to a different level of politics -- a place where the pendulum of our politics actually permanently shifts a bit to the left. Their vision for how to get there is different. But it's a change. And while Hillary has tried to cloak herself in a change mantra, she won't bring the same level of change that an Edwards or Obama administration would.

All along, Edwards and Obama have split the change "vote." With the outlook for the Edwards campaign looking dire, it's time for those of us who want something different, those of us who want to stop the yo-yoing between left and right with the center being further defined toward the right to put our efforts behind Obama.

This is the fight we've been waiting for. Let's not bash Hillary. But let's pump up Obama. Let's get behind him and make change happen!

I'm tired of all of the bickering. I'm tired of the egos being puffed out for display. I'm tired of our collective energy tearing us apart. Like many others, I've been disappointed in what's been happening here at MyDD. But I think they're all symptoms of a larger problem.

I'll start off by giving my biases. I'm for Obama. I was for Dean last time. I didn't like Kerry too much. And in the same way, I'm not a huge Hillary fan. For me, it's a matter of politics as usual and doing something that changes the game. Edwards, by the way, leaves me a bit cold. But whomever is the nominee will get my support.

On to the substance. I just read Mizner's critique of Chris Bowers. All I have to say is "Wow!" I simply can't believe the audacity that Bowers is displaying. But then again, I can. I saw the same thing with Matt Stoller here. And I just read several accounts of users being banned by him, as well. But, to me, this is all just a symptom. It's a symptom of needing to be heard.

We get that over here at MyDD all of the time. People attack each other quite a bit. The level of discourse as gotten a bit tattered. I agree with Jerome Armstrong that people should be with their candidates 100%. But that shouldn't mean that it should be at the expense of civility and reason. And that seems to be what has happened.

What is happening, I think, is that what could have been a truly revolutionary movement is falling prey to itself and becoming the Loony Left. We are victims of a need to be heard and a desire for power within the system. We have believed our own hype. And when the facts don't support us, we shout even more loudly.

What do I mean? Let's start with the war because that's the main thing. It shouldn't have happened. And we adequately voiced our opinion about that. In fact, much of what we have here today is a direct result. And this time we could shake our image as peaceniks and argue that we've been waging the wrong war. We had so much on our side.

And eventually, after much tragedy, the public came along with us. That was due to our endeavors. And politicians have come along, as well. It's amazing that every single Democratic presidential candidate has an anti-war position.

We won. But that wasn't enough for us. We then pushed for getting our troops out now. And that was good. And we've seen a huge amount of movement on that issue. The fact that Bush even talked about his proposal to end the surge using Withdrawal as the frame means that we are winning that debate. Once we have them using our language and frame, it's a matter of continuing to execute.

But we weren't satisfied. No, all troops have to be out. And while that's a legitimate claim, we get into arcana like whether the Embassy is US soil or if that still constitutes an occupation. Oh, come ON! Yes, let's push. But where does it all end? Does anyone seriously think anything worthwhile is going to change while we have Bush in office? He's the stubbornest man in the world, I think. And he's infinitely smarter about picking fights and using the power of his office and the media than the Left typically gives him credit for.

So, come on! There are other issues. The war is a supremely important one. But the other issues are just as important. Let's peal away our day-to-day issues and talk about why we think we should be doing X, Y or Z. Let's stop attacking each other and try to understand each other. We all want a better US of A. I trust that. I trust that you all are good people who only want what's best.

Let's trust that Hillary supporters want the best for our country. Let's trust that those who want every single troop out of Iraq want what's best just as thos who support residual troops. Let's trust each other and argue from there. Let's not let the weeds keep us from seeing that we all want the country to move left. We may each have different tactics or theories for how that should happen. But we each want it to happen.

I want dialog. But we've sometimes moved on from that to pure fighting. And I don't think that's a good thing. And I think a lot of that is that we forget our original goals. When we succeed with that goal, we keep on fighting and do it with each other.

As for me, here's where I'm coming from: I'm interested in Transformational Politics. I look at Europe and see that the pendulum is far further left there than here. I want that to happen. And I think it will happen over time. I keep coming back to the fact that relatively speaking, America is fairly young. It's going to take time for it to age into what I'd like to see it as. But I believe we can help it along. And I have long believed that we can do that by listening to the other side a bit. i don't mean that we shouldn't fight for what we believe in. But we should not demonize them as they often do us. Perhaps that comes from the fact that I'm a black, gay man who grew up as a Christian Fundamentalist. So, I understand a bit about both sides. Perhaps it also comes from having studied Social Anthropology and see how groups form and shape beliefs and habits. I don't know. But I know that listening and respect can do a lot. And I believe that we have to choose our fights carefully. Women's rights, Black rights, gay rights. Those are things that I think were worth fighting for. We're not done with those, yet. But the pendulum has swung to the left in all of those. Environmentalism and global warming is a place where the pendulum must swing. The pendulum has swung on the war in Iraq.

Let's not leave any of these issues. But when we get too het up about the details and make the details the fight, we're damaging ourselves and our collective strength.

(Maybe next time I'll critique the whole idea of the Netroots not having an elite and simply being a collective. But that's for another time.)

That's how the Right thinks of the Clintons according to Jay Cost. Jay may be a Conservative and a journalist, but he's smart and completely fair-minded.

"Many people on the right see Hillary (and, of course, Bill) as devils. A Google search of "Hillary Clinton devil" yielded 1.25 million hits. Wow."

I used to like Hilary. Then Barack came along and stole my love. I've been an Obama Boy ever since. But the Newsweek interview she just did and stories like this have made me feel a bit polyamorous in my dating. While Barack will continue to be my primary relationship, Hilary is a good secondary relationship. And if things with Barack go south, I'll be able to get over it.

I personally think that Barack will do more to move the country in a way I'd like to see it go. But Hilary has her heart in the right place, and I think that she knows how to make thing shappen if on an incremental basis.

Oh, and what about Edwards? I'd date him. But I sort of like my diversity. Symbolism is incredibly important, I think. And having a black or woman president will do more to move this country forward than anything else I can think of. By the way, my support for Barack goes far beyond that.l It's the spirit he'll bring to the table and the healing (unity) he'll try to make happen.

I've been a MoveOn supporter for many years, as I assume many of us here are. But I think they put out a politically tone-deaf ad. Like Joe Klein I think they were originally on to something. The substance of what what they were trying to say is right. Heck, according to Kos, Newsweek is going to be putting up a story about how a lot of the rest of the folks at the Pentagon think a 2/3s reduction in troops is needed by early next year. So, yes, Petraeus is a tool. But a traitor? Hardly. And, yes, as Klein suggests, that's how this will be interpreted. He has been politicized. He's  carrying Bush's water. He's perhaps not even thinking about the best interests of the Iraqi people. But he's not betraying us. That was an easy and clever potshot -- a barnside broadside -- that has ricocheted and hit the Left in the ass.

How long did it take the Left to recover from Vietnam? Or at least the perception that was left from Vietnam? Well, I would venture to say we're just now getting there. And Iraq, while incredibly unfortunate, gave us the way to show we can be smart and strong. But Betray Us has the potential to set us back. I'm not sure it will. But I think to ensure it doesn't, those of us on the Left have to do a few things.

1. When the presidential candidates are asked about the ad, and they will be, we need to back them up when they distance themselves from MoveOn's tactics. We can't let them twist in the wind.

2. We need to let MoveOn know that we their supporters while appreciating what they have tried to do do not approve of how they did it. We need to let them know that this is serious business and that using a facile pun that can be misinterpreted demeans us; it demeans all of the amazing work that they and we have done.

We can't afford to give the Right the ammunition they need. We can't afford to let our tactics be the story. Petraeus needed to be the story. And they failed at that.

I'm willing to concede, by the way, that the ad as written could have worked. But obviously, they did not do the pre-work that was necessary to prepare journalists and others to what the ad was trying to do. They did not set the context. And they put it out there and just let the chips fall where they would. This truly is a game of Poker, and if we on the Left are going to make a move like that, we need to have our game face on.

And, I vow to try to use fewer metaphors the next time I write a diary.

I've just talked with someone high up in the Obama campaign and she's told me that the strategy they're taking is that if Edwards or Clinton wins the nomination, Obama is going to run as an Independent, possibly with Bloomberg as his mate. He'll then take office as a Democrat.

Okay, I've just lied. I don't know any of that. But as I was looking at polling numbers and reading a diary below that said that Obama is the best general candidate, it made sense to me. He could totally do that. Not that I'm advocating this strategy. It's just a possibility.

Take the poll below, if the general election were held today between Romney, Clinton and Obama, who would you vote for?