Newsweek Iowa Poll--OBAMA SURGING! [AND IN SC!!!]

Newsweek has a new poll out today, and it seems to confirm what everyone has long thought: for casual Democrats, Hillary is the default choice.

But for those paying attention--and those prepared to actually caucus--Obama is SURGING!

For ALL Democratic voters, here are the numbers:

Clinton 30----Obama 29----Edwards 21

[NOTE: Obama has picked up 6 points from the same question in September (was Clinton 31, Obama 25) thanks, Geekesque!]

But let's be honest--Polling "Democratic voters" in Iowa is useless.  As everyone here knows, the caucuses involve a real investment of time, and any polling outfit worth anything will poll based on one's likelihood of actually attending the caucus.

So what's really meaningful about the poll...

How about this:

Among those most likely to attend the caucuses, Obama has moved substantially ahead of Clinton, 35 percent to 29 percent, while Edwards falls back a bit, to 18 percent.

So for people who are MOST likely to show up, Obama has surged to a 6 point lead!

And when you poll people who are "probably going to show up," his lead is even BIGGER:

Obama also gets more support from those who say they will "probably" attend a Democratic caucus (40 percent vs. 27 percent for Clinton).

13 points!!!  

This is real, folks--THIS IS REAL!

UPDATE:

A new Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina (conducted Dec. 3-4 of 421 likely Dem voters) has Obama at 26%, Clinton at 24%, Edwards at 15%, and Biden at 10%.

Hat tip--State Department's comment below!

•  Tips...

  For Oprah giving Obama a new audience for his message of CHANGE!

  by DemDog on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

  •  Oprah can't take credit for this.

    Or, I think Kindergate gets at least as much credit as she does.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:25:56 PM PDT

    •  Not for this...

      But if he gets to speak to 100,000 people this weekend, that's 100,000 ears (technically 200,000) who will hear a message they may not otherwise have heard!

      by DemDog on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:26:52 PM PDT

      •  re

        100K?

        Is there a series of rallies?

        by cookiesandmilk on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:27:53 PM PDT

        •  re

          I like that.  "re".  I always knows its you.

          by bugscuffle on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:29:32 PM PDT

        •  Aggregate

          of rallies in Iowa, NH and SC, I'd imagine.

          by Daaaaave on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:30:48 PM PDT

        •  Football Stadium

          I believe the venue was changed from an arena to a stadium.

          by RokkiBlueboa on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:30:50 PM PDT

        •  100K =

          probably 10K each for the O/O rallies in IA and NH, plus the one in SC has apparently been moved from an 18K stadium to an 80K.

          by section29 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:09 PM PDT

          •  They're expecting around

            30,000 combined in Iowa for the two events, from what I've heard.  I haven't seen any estimates for New Hampshire, but it's also a small stadium.  And then Columbia, South Carolina, may be around 50,000.  (I don't think they'll fill it.)

            by psericks on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:49:16 PM PDT

            •  About 12,000 at the Arena in Manchester...

              my sister's going--and she's pumped!!!

              by serrano on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:40:54 PM PDT

            •  There's two?

              Are they both in DSM?
              If not, where's the other one?
              And are they expecting half a foot of snow?

              by section29 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:16:38 PM PDT

              •  Cedar Falls

                by psericks on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:14:52 PM PDT

                •  lol, Cedar Rapids

                  I'm a gaffe machine.  Last week I said the University of Iowa was in Ames...  I wouldn't last a day in Iowa as a politician...

                  by psericks on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:16:35 PM PDT

        •  Well, if they allow people

          On the field in SC stadium, I suppose they could get close to 100k if it sells out.

          by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:40:08 PM PDT

          •  I'm a big believer in the power of O

            (Obama) and also of the power of O-squared, but I can't imagine they'll get even the 80,000 the stadium can hold.

            by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:43:41 PM PDT

            •  They don't expect to get 80,000 either

              The campaign said that they simply had to move it because there were so many more than the initial 18,000 that they had anticipated that they had to move. They said they would they would be happy with 20K+.

              by smartdemmg on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:46:34 PM PDT

              •  I'd say they'll be happy with 25K

                Thrilled at 30-35k and so on.

                by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:54:06 PM PDT

                •  I'm calling

                  50,000. They wouldn't have moved to accomodate 5,000 people and curious walk ups with free tickets will make a big difference.

                  by Daaaaave on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:16:25 PM PDT

                •  That would be my guess

                  25K would be great. 30K would be fantastic

                  by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:16:40 PM PDT

              •  Lo-balling, or wishful thinking ...

                No one chooses an 80,000 capacity stadium unless they expect, or hope, to more or less fill it, because even if 35,000 people show up it would still be more than half empty.

                by al Fubar on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:20:46 PM PDT

                •  Lo-balling, I'm sure.

                  They've got a pretty good idea of the turnout, or they wouldn't have switched to the stadium in the first place.

                  But even then, I wouldn't expect them to fill it.

                  by Fonsia on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:36:19 PM PDT

                •  Depends on how many venues you

                  have to choose from and which are available.

                  If you're too big for all the small and medium sized ones, or they're not available, you have to go with the biggie.

                  by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 06:19:14 AM PDT

        •  I know tonight he's in Chicago---

          appearing Live And In Person in Second City's presentation of Between Barack and a Hard Place----which I have seen(funny) but I would much have preferred tonight with the real live Barack.
           And then I know he's also appearing at a concert tonight in Chgo---Rock the Change, which I wanted to go to so badly but already had plans to go to Chgo tomorrow night to see Jersey Boys-----would have rather seen Barack tonight than anyone from Jersey tomorrow but that's the way the cookie crumbles----and it's crumbly.
           Good news on the polls---trending upward and upward and .....away we go!

          by dotster on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:03:22 PM PDT

          •  Jersey Boys will be a good

            consolation prize. Saw it on Broadway and loved it! Obama will understand;)

            by speck tater on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:09:36 PM PDT

    •  I've seen Obama speak many times in Iowa

      The credit doesn't go to Kindergate or Oprah I can tell you that.  The credit goes to the candidate.  

      by Sun dog on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:29:27 PM PDT

      •  I wish I was

        as lucky as you.  I recommend the Youtube of his JJ speech to a friend last night.

        I've been waiting for a democrat to talk like that for a long, long, time.

        by demkat620 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

        •  It will be weird

          when the caucuses are over.  These campaigns bring so much energy to the state if you are interested.  It also gives such a different perspective.  People here are influenced by actually being in a room with a candidate and hearing them talk, even personally asking them questions.  Or they get canvassed by people who have done that.  There is maybe one degree of seperation.  It's why Iowa can confound the analysts who rely on national media models to predict what will happen.  They look at the numbers but here in Iowa we look at the candidates.  

          At an event like the JJ, it was as obvious as a freight train which campaign would really carry the banner for us in the general election.  Anyone could analyze the hell out of it, but if you were there, it was obvious.  

          by Sun dog on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:59:22 PM PDT

    •  I think Obama gets credit.

      He's been steadily building his policy portfolio, his ground game, and not panicking into doing somehting that's not his style..

      by Inland on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:00:35 PM PDT

      •  I admit I panicked

        eom.

        by JMS on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 06:18:55 PM PDT

  •  Oprah hasn't even started yet.

    However, calm down its going to be a long 28 days till caucusing begins.  There will be many polls and some will look better than others.  To put so much on them risks having the same problem Clinton and her supporters are currently having in desperately clinging to older polls and outliers.

    by Tempus Figits on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:29:13 PM PDT

  •  WHOOOOO HOOOOO

    can't wait to go and hear o/o tomorrow here in des moines...and the iowa democratic party finally has up on their website the locations where each caucus will actually take place, so things are moving along...your precinct doesn't necessarily caucus at the same place where your precinct votes...nice to finally know where we are heading...and big round of house parties across iowa for obama on dec. 13...my mom's hosting one in ames, and i just rsvp'd to mine in des moines! PUMPED UP!!!

    by sunhaws on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:49:03 PM PDT

  •  More Exciting Poll Results

    Edwards's Internal Poll from Iowa

    Clinton 27
    Edwards 24
    Obama 22

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:00:40 PM PDT

•  Hallelujah!

  I could use some good news.  

  by demkat620 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:26:31 PM PDT

  •  There's been quite a bit of it lately! n/t

    by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:45:09 PM PDT

•  re

  This poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from December 5-6.

  One of the first polls after Kinder-Gate....

  by cookiesandmilk on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:27:00 PM PDT

•  This +

  Oprah + Surge in NH and SC = Things looking REALLY good for the Obama campaign.

  by marcvstraianvs on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:27:10 PM PDT

•  For some reason

  I just slowed my heartrate down to "sombalistic".  Otherwise, it would have spiraled out of control in the other direction.

  Is this true?  Is this really true?  

  by nolalily on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:28:59 PM PDT

•  New South Carolina poll..

  The polls are coming out fast and furious this Friday afternoon... A new Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina (conducted Dec. 3-4 of 421 likely Dem voters) has Obama at 26%, Clinton at 24%, Edwards at 15%, and Biden at 10%.

  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

  by State Department on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:29:10 PM PDT

  •  Fritz Hollings must be stumping hard for Joe.

    Well, Joe's great with African-American audiences as well.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:30:19 PM PDT

    •  Nice to see Biden moving past Richardson

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:31:23 PM PDT

      •  Whoa, good catch! I hadn't noticed that. n/t

        by Fonsia on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

      •  The thing that I like most about Biden...

        is that he's not Richardson.
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:07:45 PM PDT

    •  Fritz was clean and articulate. eom

      by Geekesque on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:31:28 PM PDT

      •  Fritz told Wellstone he reminded him of Humphrey

        because "they both talked too damn much"

        by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:20 PM PDT

    •  LOL! n/t

      by Akonitum on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:35:54 PM PDT

  •  This should be added to the diary.

    So, it looks like Obama is starting to pull away even.

    Why would they even bother polling people who aren't likly caucus-goers?

    by Geekesque on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

    •  Yes, it's tough to deny that the momentum

      of this race has shifted and Obama is trending up at a nice, steady rate.

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:32:31 PM PDT

      •  he's the front runner right now.

        by Salo on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:12 PM PDT

        •  No he isn't. Hillary's still leading nationally

          by quite a bit.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:49 PM PDT

          •  He most certainly is the front runner.

            Likely Republican caucus-goers are 16% of all Iowa adults 18+ (weighted cases). Likely Democratic caucus-goers are 24%
            of all Iowa adults 18+ (weighted cases).

            But this seems odd. They are expecting 24% of all adults to turn out for Caucus?

            That's got to be a small red flag.

            but let's face it Obam ais the front runnner now.

            by Salo on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

            •  Are you talking Iowa or national?

              Sure, he's leading in Iowa...but it's tough to call him the front runner when he's only leading in one or two states and HRC leads everywhere else.

              by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:42:17 PM PDT

              •  one or two defeats...

                ...the only real info is in Iowa NH and SC.  Everything else is contingent on those three results.

                by Salo on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:45:53 PM PDT

                •  I disagree

                  If Obama wins Iowa and one or two other early states, he has a shot on 2/5. Clinton will still be a serious force and the Obama campaign (and supporters) will be scrambling to help him beat her. Just looking at CA and NY, with the huge number of delegates is daunting (Clinton has a huge lead right now in CA).

                  by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:48:27 PM PDT

                  •  California will shift with the wind.

                    They always tend to.

                    by Salo on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

                    •  Hope so

                      And hope there are some big Santa Anna winds!

                      by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

                  •  New York

                    Obama is on the ballot in all 29 voting delegate districts and he will get a portion of all delegates if he gets over 15%.  He and Hillary are the only 2 candidates to qualify for all the districts.

                    by ronnied on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:45:33 PM PDT

                •  The only real info is in IA and NH?

                  Would you really view this race the same way if the IA and NH numbers were the same, but Edwards was up 20 points nationally and leading in the other 48 states?

                  by Partially Impartial on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:21:50 PM PDT

                  •  Agree, HRC still front-runner

                    but the race is tightening and momentum shifting.   I think calling Obama the front runner just isn't accurate, even if Iowa, NH, and SC have the power to shift things in the other states.  That hasn't happened yet.  Until it does, HRC remains the front runner...her lead is too big in the rest of the country.

                    by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:25:26 PM PDT

        •  Hmm...not sure. Yes, he's got the mo...

          but she's still got that national lead, you know, I think otto had a poll.

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:34:10 PM PDT

          •  otto is looking at an irrelivant

            data point

            by Salo on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:41:48 PM PDT

            •  No!!! Shocking, say it isn't so! :)

              by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:42:42 PM PDT

    •  re

      Random thought:

      Is Biden moving into serious consideration country for Obama or Edwards if he loses?

      He's had a good month it seems. Having a wise old Foreign Policy Pol would be a great add to the VP slot.

      Thoughts?

      by cookiesandmilk on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:44 PM PDT

      •  RE: Biden

        I know he doesn't get a lot of respect around here...but I think Biden is a very solid candidate, and appealing for the straight shooting honesty that he projects.  Plus he's he knows his shit...and yes, I think that's why he's moving up.  

        It's hard for me to picture him as a top tier candidate...I mean he's got no money and no national org...but he's serious VP material (I assume we could keep his seat, right?)

        by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM PDT

        •  Agreed

          I wouldn't mind seeing Biden as someone's VP

          by casperr on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:49:28 PM PDT

        •  Biden is a fave of my spouse----(who is voting

          Obama or dies)----I think a lot of guys, especially, like his forceful, adamant, macho style.

          by dotster on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:15:36 PM PDT

      •  I like Biden

        As a VP. Especially for Obama. He eliminates the light on foreign policy meme.

        by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:41:17 PM PDT

        •  If Biden goes for a VP slot on a ticket

          is his seat safe for the party?

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:43:27 PM PDT

          •  He's from Delaware, I think we're fine. n/t

            by Nick Blas on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:10:51 PM PDT

            •  Mike Castle is the

              only Repub who'd have a real shot at a statewide win...but he's close to retirement and had a stroke recently.

              by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:34:57 PM PDT

        •  re

          Biden's comment below is reason enough to like him:

          Biden: Rudy's Sentences Consist Of "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11"

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          by cookiesandmilk on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:44:19 PM PDT

          •  Too bad Rudy is tanking

            Biden destroying him is fun to watch.

            by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:05:33 PM PDT

            •  I'll be satisfied if they can

              beat Huckabee/Romney and whomever else is on the GOP ticket...and yes, it's hard to believe both Fred and Rudy are slipping this much.

              by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:16:07 PM PDT

        •  I said this a few days ago but last weekend

          I was on base and I heard from some soldiers who mention an Obama/Biden ticket.  They thought it would sweep.  Seems a bit odd pairing to me for some reason, but I would be happy with that.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:48:00 PM PDT

      •  Either Hillary or Obama would pick a white guy nt

        by iowabosox on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:56:01 PM PDT

    •  Because to be "likely" you have to have done it

      frequently, and/or in the recent past.

      Which is why I've always argued that Obama's strength is much better than any of these polls show. We know he's pulling in lots of folks who won't classify as "likely," and therefore will be left out of the polls.

      They generally include a small percentage of those folks, but the argument is that they're consistently lo-balling the percentage.

      We'll see.

      by Fonsia on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:49:43 PM PDT

  •  THANKS!

    by DemDog on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:35:25 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the h/t DemDog

      Barack can win this thing!!!

      by State Department on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:39:33 PM PDT

  •  I'm surprised that Edwards hasn't budged. I would

    have expected some of Hillary's lost support to go to him--but it seems to be going to Obama.

    But gad, wouldn't it be delicious if Edwards could force her into third!

    by Fonsia on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:43:02 PM PDT

•  This Oprah thing

  he is gonna get a lot of play out of this.  And Oprah brings a really rare commodity: class.

  People view her as one of the classiest people in America and one of the most trustworthy.

  This will be really fun to watch play out.

  by demkat620 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:29:24 PM PDT

  •  Too bad...

    ...that Krugman keeps picking apart, and correctly imho, Obama's rhetoric re: healthcare, not to mention his inadequate health care plan itself.  And his Social Security reform talk is also disturbing.  Krugman is certainly convincing.

    And that's a downer because I love many things about Obama-- mostly his anti-war stance in 2002.    

    He's speaking on Monday at the Gibson Amphitheater in LA-- a big rally with Scarlett Johanson (will you marry me?) and some less important starts.

    Glad there is some movement in the polls, and that Hillary isn't a sure thing anymore.  This way, she has to earn it IF she's even going to win.

    by ramsfan on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:36:33 PM PDT

    •  he will be sandwiched by

      Scarlett Johanson and Jessica Biel, what can't that be me I'm not married.

      by nevadadem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

      •  Drool

        Johanson and Biel...

        by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

        •  i want to be part of their primary campaign

          if they are seeking endorsements.

          by nevadadem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:43:19 PM PDT

        •  Damn, even my wife thinks those two are hot

          more drool...

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:46:24 PM PDT

    •  Krugman is WRONG about mandates

      We should not discuss compelling people to buy health insurance until we are assured that K Street hasn't tweaked the fine print to mandate that we purchase crappy policies at inflated prices.

      A federal law to require everyone to buy over-priced poor quality insurance would be a financial feast for health insurance executives and a wet dream for K Street.

      First things first -- quality care at an affordable price. Then we can discuss mandates (which are not relevant to single payer, anyway).

      = = =

      In the meantime I support 200% the idea of using general federal revenues to purchase medical care for the uninsured -- especially children.

      by Bill White on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

    •  Sadly Krugman is full of shit

      on mandates.  He has nothing to back his arguements up, and they've been widely criticized here.

      To say Obama is using right wing talking points when he discusses changes to the cap to fix any SS shortfall is just bogus.

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:45:23 PM PDT

      •  Definitely! If an argument is criticized at

        Orange Satan, there's no question it's just WRONG!

        by BoringDem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:27:16 PM PDT

    •  Bob Reich disagrees with him.

      Link

      by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:49:23 PM PDT

      •  So does Obama!

        Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan

        by xndem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:04:45 PM PDT

      •  And here's a good answer to Reich

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        oops, sorry, i mean "pffft"

        by BoringDem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:27:52 PM PDT

    •  Read the plans side-by-side.

      Read them yourselves. They're short and easy to read.

      I think most of you will find, like me, that Krugman is spinning on this one, and losing credibility. The free rider issue, for example, has merit, but Clinton's plan fails to resolve it.

      Clinton's mandate fails to address non-compliance or enforcement. She also does not address exemptions, either, which in MA, for example, is about 20% of the population. Exemptions are for people who can't afford to pay.

      Mandates could prove to be either regressive or progressive depending on how insurance costs are set. Clinton's mandate easily could be a boon to insurance companies and a burden to workers. I think so especially considering other omissions or corporate-lite wordings in her plan (see below).

      Then look at support for low-income workers. Clinton aims to give an income-based refundable tax credit. That's good if you pay taxes. Edwards aims to give a refundable income-based sliding-scale tax credit. Obama? He aims for an income-based, sliding-scale subsidy.

      Here is a comparison on some other issues:

      1.  Watchdog. Obama would set up a "National Health Insurance Exchange" to "act as a watchdog" and create rules and standards for ensuring fairness and making and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible.

      2. Catastrophic illnesses. Obama would reduce "costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers who will apply savings to [reducing] the cost of workers' premiums." Clinton would provide "a (time-limited) tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures that exceed a certain threshold."

      3. Chronic care delivery. Obama would coordinate chronic care delivery by reducing multiple physicians, duplicate testing, and contraindicted prescription drugs with care management programs. Others might do this, but they are not specific.

      4. Transparancy. Obama would require "full transparency about quality and costs including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care and costs. Health care plans will be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that actually goes to paying for patient care as opposed to administrative costs." Edwards would create a "Consumer Reports" for health care, a "report card." Clinton is mute on transparency.

      5. Malpractice. Obama would reform medical malpractice. He would "strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance." Clinton and Edwards omit this issue in their core plans.

      6. Drug purchases. Obama would "allow Americans to buy medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe."" Clinton and Edwards don't address this in their core plans.

      7. Generics. Obama would seek to increase use of generic drugs. Clinton would do this, too, claiming savings of $4 billion. Obama specifically would "prohibit large drug companies from keeping generics out of markets."

      8. Information Technology. Clinton will invest $3 billion a year for information technology improvements for "$35 billion  per year savings). Obama would invest $10 billion per year over five years for savings of up to $77 billion each year. Edwards claims savings with IT of up to $160 billion per year. He doesn't talk about up-front investment.

      9. Medicare and Medicaid. They all will prevent abuse in Medicare and Medicaid spending. Clinton claims $7 billion in savings for this. Obama would "repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion." Clinton also would "allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices." Edwards' plan is mute on this.

      You can see that Obama addresses a good number of these industry failure-points with specificity that both Clinton and Edwards gloss over.

      But don't take my word for it. Read them yourselves!

      by Akonitum on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:16:03 PM PDT

    •  Oh Krugman

      For all the times that I bemoaned how little real people pay attention to him, I repent.  I'm just so pleased that his real impact is so small at this point!

      by huckleberry on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:16:27 PM PDT

    •  the same krugman

      who got pwned by ... himself?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      krugman sucks

      by blueterp on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:56:28 PM PDT

•  Damn!

  Damn these misogynist polls!

  by bugscuffle on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:31:10 PM PDT

  •  The Politics of Polling On. eom

    by Geekesque on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:32:29 PM PDT

•  YES!!!!

  Obama needs all 3, Iowa, NH, and SC, and he can get all 3!

  by duha on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:31:19 PM PDT

  •  Think the more people think

    He can win, the more people will vote for him...still a month out, but he's getting the big MO moving.

    by marcvstraianvs on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:33:33 PM PDT

    •  Very true

      and especially true in the African-American community where doubts about whether Obama could win were keeping many from really getting behind him.

      Thanks to his good poll results in Iowa, I think Obama will start to get more support.  We can already see evidence of that from the new South Carolina polls which show Obama surging into a tie with Clinton thanks to a huge gain in African-American support.

      by MattBellamy on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:39:22 PM PDT

•  A great.........

  triumph for a serious change vs more of the same "bought and paid for" governance.

  by Fuzzy5150 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:32:57 PM PDT

•  Huckabee's the one that's surging

  that's the main thrust of the article

  - and Obama moving slightly

  Nevertheless, good news (not necessarily the Huckabee part).

  You link to the second page of the article.

  The first page mainly has the Huckabee surge:
  http://www.newsweek.com/...

  by HairOnFire on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:34:24 PM PDT

  •  Huckabee's being Clubbed for Growth as

    we speak, though.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

    •  the Club for Growth

      has a pretty mixed track record in affecting elections - despite all of their bluster.

      You can't beat "regular, honest guy populism" to draw in middle-American Republicans.
      --------------------------------

      by HairOnFire on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:39:49 PM PDT

      •  true ... but there's an important feature here

        C4G might not put their fave candidate over the top by smackin' Huckabee around, but the preacher's campaign will suffer from their withering fire

        by wystler on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:06:18 PM PDT

    •  not sure if that will work with "Value" voters

      when they attacked Spector a couple years ago, they attacked him on "cultural values" as much as they attacked him on taxes.

      if they're going to club him, they have to play the "parole" card.

      by Kyl Lieberman Clinton on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:28:36 PM PDT

      •  Not sure that will work either.

        Because the reason for paroling the guy was hatred of Bill Clinton.

        That still holds amongst those folks. No matter the consequences.

        by Fonsia on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 04:14:52 PM PDT

  •  That Huckabee thing is just nuts.

    The Social Cons were waiting for one of theirs to make a move.  And they've found their Huckleberry.

    by Geekesque on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

    •  And after you get past Huck's good ol'

      boy genial, jokey manner, his views are whacko to the maxo.    

      by dotster on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM PDT

  •  Huckabee

    That surge is astronomical...I always figured the support for Romney in Iowa would be soft, didn't think it would be like Charmin though.  Can't wait to see what the Club for Can't Win err Growth tries to do to him now though....and if money or religion really controls the Rethugs.

    by marcvstraianvs on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

  •  Insane Jump

    I wonder what the response will be from the other GOPers. They have to be stunned.

    by turneresq on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:43:04 PM PDT

    •  Most freepers hate him

      See him as Bill Clinton-lite, high taxes, nanny state policies on health, immigration, non-neocon foreign policy, etc (he's flipflopped on all of them, for what it's worth.)

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:20:33 PM PDT

      •  who do they like?

        freepers are neo-cons?  I thought they were Buchananites.

        so who do they support?

        by Kyl Lieberman Clinton on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:31:03 PM PDT

  •  Huckabee isn't surging