Hillary's About To Jump Out Front In Iowa

Hillary's new ad is very good. It's not perfect, but it's very good.

It's going to appeal to women and working people and just plain old Democrats -- it shows a human side to her, it shows her taking on Bush/Cheney, and it shows her promising not to be out of touch.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that her poll numbers in Iowa will go up at least a bit -- and possibly fairly significantly -- as a result of her media buy.

What I didn't realize is that she has already closed most of the gap with Edwards and is clearly leading Obama.

I'm basing this on one source -- the Pollster.com graph which shows the impact of multiple polls as a tracking line.

Take a look.  You'll see Edwards going down, Obama going down, and Hillary jumping up.

So what does it mean?

It means she's in a great position to jump into the lead in Iowa, with a boost from her TV campaign.

Will it last? Probably not. Edwards and Obama have plenty of cards to play.  

But I think her media buy's looking pretty smart in the short term.  And I have to say, the MSM's going to go nuts as soon as they see some polls with Hillary in the lead out there. It's an irresistable story -- get ready for an inevitability/frontrunner memestorm.  

I'm not gloating, and I'm not trying, I hope, to be overly partisan.  I'm just reporting that to me, at least, it looks like this campaign is definitely playing to win.

•  A preview of TOMORROW's poll.

  Sheesh.

  by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:10:09 PM PDT

•  Word on the street is that the ad is boring

  Clinton's Boring Problem.

  by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:10:49 PM PDT

  •  I saw a clip of it

    It was okay.  That's it--okay.

    by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:13:09 PM PDT

    •  i say "very good," you say "okay"

      but it doesn't need to be much better to have an impact, most likely

      by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Matter of opinion

    You can even read in the comments of Bowers's article- Iowa is a mostly partisan heartland state.  It's not New York or California - voters want to be appealed to.  If you do something completely wacky a la Sopranos, it's not going to sell well.  Especially as her first ad.

    by TheSilence on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:13:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm probably not the target for political ads

    but IMO it didn't say much.  This current president doesn't see people with problems, HRC does....meaning she's not a sociopath.  I'm not sure where it wins her a vote over anyone who would know better than to avoid having a "fly over" photo op for New Orleans.

    by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:18:00 PM PDT

  •  Is it more exciting to be losing by 20 pts? ;-P

    According to today's CNN poll, Hillary holds a 20-point lead over Obama:

    CNN/Opinion Research:  Clinton 44%, Obama 24%, Edwards 16%

    With Gore: Clinton 40%, Obama 21%, Edwards 13%, Gore 11%

    Strongest leader: Clinton 47%, Obama 22%, Edwards 13%

    Most Honest: Clinton 28%, Obama 24%, Edwards 19%

    Most Likeable: Obama 34%, Clinton 31%, Edwards 19%

    Winning General Election: Clinton 55%, Obama 19%, Edwards 12%

    Right Experience: Clinton 59%, Obama 9%, Edwards 11%

    Most qualified to be commander in Chief: Clinton 46%, Obama 13%, Edwards 15%

    Most likely to bring needed change: Clinton 40%, Obama 27%, Edwards 15%

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:20:19 PM PDT

    •  Don't you agree that a nail biter is more

      exciting?

      by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:23:20 PM PDT

      •  They're fun but you get no mandate

        by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

        •  A mandate over Democrats in the primary?

          And what kind of mandate is that?  

          by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:26:09 PM PDT

          •  Huge

            One common complaint about Democrats is the lack of unity.

            by kck on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:44:37 PM PDT

            •  Huge like the mandate Gore had when he

              won the primary without much opposition?

              by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:46:31 PM PDT

              •  Gore won the election.

                by kck on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:48:15 PM PDT

                •  His mandate eeked out enough votes to give him a

                  tie in electoral votes.

                  Not much of a mandate.

                  by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:05:52 PM PDT

                  •  picture this...

                    A mandate from the Democratic primaries is a huge advantage over a nail-biter with lots of disappointed Dems.  You brought up Gore...Thinking back to bloody and body strewn nail-biters of yore, it's natural to wish for a clear mandate. GOTV, if nothing more.

                    by kck on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:18:59 PM PDT

    •  I'll make your job easier on you and just

      provide a link to Pollster.com where you average all those polls you listed above.

      http://www.pollster.com/...

      Then you can sit back and maybe write a diary of substance. :)

      by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:25:15 PM PDT

  •  Boring?

    Boring?  Why?  Because the ad shows her to be human, responsive, knowledgeable about the issues and caring for different types of people?

    Only in your distorted view that every political ad must show a little girl picking daisies is this ad boring.

    I think it's actually superb and blunts all the GOP criticism of her.  It puts forward precisely the message she should be putting forward.

    by tailor324 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:22:10 PM PDT

    •  Bill Richardson's ads

      torpedo this bore of an ad.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:31:25 PM PDT

      •  his ads are great

        and i think they're directly related to his rise in Iowa polling.

        by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:33:54 PM PDT

      •  Yes, but .....

        it's my "choice" not to pay any attention to him any longer.

        by emsprater on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM PDT

  •  On Bower's street maybe

    On MainStreet USA I think it will play quite well.

    by Niniane on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:46:51 PM PDT

  •  Not boring, just not thrilling

    She really has to dump her handlers.  
    We could write her a better ad.  I saw her new yesterday and the thing that stands out in my mind is "invisible".  Now I know the point she is trying to make but that is not the word I would want people to remember from my camapign ad if I were her.  

    by goldberry on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:52:23 PM PDT

    •  Devastating to White House

      The ad is so good that the White House went out of its way to forcefully criticize the ad and Hillary.

      Now that's my idea of a powerful ad.  One that brings on the wrath of the WH.  They're really scared of Hillary.

      That's fabulous news for us.

      by tailor324 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

      •  oh, please

        The White House is going to jump on EVERYTHING she does.  She is about to undergo a constant barrage of criticism from now until election day (assuming she gets that far).  But if anyone can take it, it's going to be her.  
        If you've ever had a bully boss you'd know what I'm saying.  Once you've been through that trial by fire and you come out of it intact, it's very difficult to be rattled by more of the same.  They've already put her through the wringer.  They've examined her personal life in intimate detail and exposed for all the world to see.  They've ruined her work on healthcare, called her a congenital liar in the paper of record and hounded her incessantly the whole time she was in the WH and after she left.  And she's still here.  Not only that but she's a senator who was reelected and by all accounts, her constituents like her.  What more can they do to try to destroy her that they haven't already tried?  Is there anything new?  
        Actually, I can't wait to see her reaction.  I'm guessing it will be something like Glinda the Good Witch laughing and saying, "You have no power here.  Begone before someone drops a house on YOU!"
        It will roll right off of her.  And the more they try to crush her and the more she stands up to them and tells them to take a hike, the better she's going to look to the voters.  She'll look feisty and bold.  
        This is going to backfire on the GOP.

        by goldberry on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:07:45 PM PDT

  •  Boring is good

    by Batfish on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:27:29 PM PDT

  •  in all fairness

    she doesn't need the excitement. She is a compelling character.  Like it or not, Hillary is known around the world by her first name, like Princess Di (was) or Madonna.  She is never lacking for attention, or the insatible appetite of  press (and people) for Hillary stories.  What she has done very well is not letting that get in her way of communicating her message.

    by ghost2 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:00:33 PM PDT

•  You left out an option

  WHO CARES???????????

  Iowa isn't for 5 months, and the only poll that matters is the one taken the day of the caucus.

  Just ask Howard Dean...and John Kerry.

  {PS: the "one source" you base your "analysis" on is old, and it doesn't reflect the most recent Iowa polls.)

  by DemDog on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:10:53 PM PDT

  •  The caucuses are such a unique event

    I really don't think you can generalize about them this far out.  Things will break for a particular candidate right towards the end, as we learned with Dean and Kerry.

    by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

  •  the most recent polls are better for her...

    actually the most recent poll, which is the university of iowa's poll ending august 5th, shows Hillary leading both Obama and Edwards by 5 points.

    again, i don't think this will last -- I'm just saying it looks like it's going to be a story.

    by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:33:15 PM PDT

•  When you take

  ARG out of the polling Obama is trending up, Clinton is also trending up- and Edwards is falling or steady.  ARG has been pretty much discounted in Ia over at Mydd - put pollster keeps them in their graph.

  Iowa is a three way tie right now - Obama probably has the biggest upside, but Hillary could also grow.

  by GB1437a on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:14:08 PM PDT

  •  but only Hillary is hitting the airwaves

    in the short term, I think she's going to surge ahead.

    probably not a big deal in the end but i think it's interesting.

    by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:11:11 PM PDT

•  Thank You Very Much, Criswell

  "We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives!"

  by Malacandra on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:14:12 PM PDT

  •  Props for Criswell.

    The grief from his wife's death became greater and greater agony. The home they had so long shared became a tomb, a sweet memory of her joyous living. The sky to which he had once looked was now only a covering for her dead body. The ever-beautiful flowers she had planted with her own hands became nothing more than the lost roses of her cheeks. Confused by his great loss, the old man left that home... never to return again!

    by droogie6655321 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:25:36 PM PDT

  •  "And remember, my friends ...

    future events such as these will affect you in the future!"

    by section29 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:01:14 PM PDT

•  Great.

  You have a poll about a poll.

  Is it okay if I write a diary with a link to your diary and include a poll asking people who they think will win the poll about who will be leading the Iowa poll?

  by GTPinNJ on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:14:17 PM PDT

•  That graph's two weeks old.

  by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:16:36 PM PDT

  •  fair point

    the only poll i know since 7/30 is the university of iowa poll, with Hillary in front by 5 points...

    by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:31:40 PM PDT

    •  Honestly ....

      That poll overlaps the ABC/WaPo poll that has Obama taking the lead.

      And, since the point of the diary is about "Hillary leaping ahead in Iowa," the real question isn't who's ahead--it's does this poll show her taking or extending a lead.

      If you look at all the polls the poll you cite shows her losing two thirds of her 15 point lead over Obama (closing to just 5 points).

      So that would mean she's slipping.

      by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:26:58 PM PDT

      •  i don't think it works like that

        you would have to compare the same poll taken at different times to see someone slipping. there isn't a previous U of Iowa poll to compare. If you're comparing to the ARG poll, I don't think you can say she's slipping.

        And my point was that she is poised to leap ahead over the next few weeks based on her on-air campaign.  

        The ABC poll shows a 3-way tie (Obama leads by one point), which doesn't disprove my contention -- that she is in a great position to take the lead, based on her on-air campaign, and to exploit this in the national press.

        by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:05:37 PM PDT

        •  That's exactly my point.

          It's just as lame to say:

          What I didn't realize is that she has already closed most of the gap with Edwards and is clearly leading Obama.

             * nbutter's diary :: ::
          *

          I'm basing this on one source -- the Pollster.com graph which shows the impact of multiple polls as a tracking line.

          Take a look.  You'll see Edwards going down, Obama going down, and Hillary jumping up.

          IMO

          by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:49:50 PM PDT

•  Here's Hillary's ad (video)

  by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:17:19 PM PDT

  •  What's amazing about it?

    "Standing up for the people others don't see"?

    Sounds an awful lot like the speech GHWB delivered at the 1988 Republican National Convention:

    "And I am a quiet man, but I am a quiet man, - but, I hear the quiet people others don't. The ones who raise the family, pay the taxes, meet the mortgage. And I hear them and I am moved, and their concerns are mine."

    by Adam B on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:23:49 PM PDT

    •  Reminds me more of Clinton/Gore '92

      ...and the 'Putting People First' campaign theme.

      by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:25:13 PM PDT

      •  Not really.

        Gov. Clinton said that as a populist fighter, a doer:

        I have news for the forces of greed and the defenders of the status quo: Your time has come and gone. Its time for a change in America.

        Tonight 10 million of our fellow Americans are out of work, tens of millions more work harder for lower pay. The incumbent President says unemployment always goes up a little before a recovery begins, but unemployment only has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin. And Mr. President, you are that man.

        This election is about putting power back in your hands and putting government back on your side. It’s about putting people first.

        Sen. Clinton says it, like GHWB, as a listener.

        by Adam B on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:26:46 PM PDT

        •  Well, you listen before you act...

          ...and we all remember Bill Clinton's famed role as empathizer-in-chief ("I feel your pain").

          by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:30:53 PM PDT

          •  Hillary should stay FAR from "I feel your pain."

            by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:32:04 PM PDT

            •  Remember this? (Hillary & Gore video, '92)

              Speaking of great campaign videos:

              by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:39:30 PM PDT

              •  God Al Gore was cute back then

                Sue me.

                by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:42:00 PM PDT

                •  LOL so was Hillary (still is)

                  by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

                  •  Sweet the way Chelsea puts her head

                    on Hillary's shoulder.

                    by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:44:31 PM PDT

                    •  I'm still living off that '92 campaign, heh

                      I was just a kid back in '92 and it was that campaign that made me study political science, go to law school, and become the presidential-politics junkie that I am today.  Every election since that has paled in comparison -- it's like watching amateurs out there, compared to the way Clinton used to campaign.  This is the first year I get that same inexplicable spine-tingling sensation again.

                      by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:48:20 PM PDT

                      •  Ah, much that I did not understand before

                        is now explained to me.

                        My advice? Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow  and remember that 1992 is now yesterday and:

                        "Yesterday's gone, Yesterday's gone"

                        By 1992 I was already close to middle age and YES Bill Clinton winning over George H. W. Bush was a huge thrill for me and I relish those memories BUT times have changed and even at my age, at any age, at every age, we must not stop thinking about tomorrow.

                        Bil Clinton was the perfect campaigner for his era.

                        But, its a new era now.

                        by Bill White on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:35:50 PM PDT

                        •  PS -- It is Karl Rove and his tactics

                          that have most significantly changed things since 1992 and the interactive features of the Internet are OUR best weapon against talk radio and Rove-ian politics.

                          Also, between 1992 and today, public awareness of how TV manipulates our thinking is much greater.

                          HRC's TV ad is well produced but it is old school campaigning.

                          by Bill White on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:43:21 PM PDT

          •  Well, she has studied the issue for 15 years

            Where's Sen. Clinton's health care plan?

            by Adam B on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:33:32 PM PDT

            •  It's coming, don't worry

              by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

            •  Waiting for a Few More Focus Groups

              so she knows what she stands for.

              by Mr X on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:52:55 PM PDT

              •  Nah, waiting for the right media cycle

                No need to roll it out now, when it's summer, everyone is on vacation, and you're ahead by 20 in the polls.

                by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:56:53 PM PDT

      •  "I feel your pain"

        My republican brother always drops that line (with an eyeroll) whenever I mention either of the Clintons.

        by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:28:34 PM PDT

        •  Poor Yoshimi, a publican brother?

          That would be hard.

          by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:33:59 PM PDT

    •  Or Nixon's "Silent Majority".

      Well, that might be pushing it, but IMO she's promising "Not A Sociopath".  It's a lowest common denominator commercial.

      by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:29:58 PM PDT

    •  And Nixon's "Silent Majority"

      by kck on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:45:55 PM PDT

  •  I don't think we've ever been "invisible."

    Seems that the VRWC sees us ... and takes aim.

    -----

    What I want is action.  When I listen to her speak and read the "issues" section of her website, I don't see enough (and I do like her).

    -----

    It's not just "this president."  It's broader and deeper than that.  

    by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:25:56 PM PDT

  •  Oh God...

    that ad is fucking brutal.

    Wow.  I bet she paid a shitload for it too.

    by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:28:11 PM PDT

    •  How do you think it will play in Iowa?

      by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:29:10 PM PDT

      •  "heckled"

        is the word that comes to mind.

        by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:37:26 PM PDT

    •  It's giving you the warm fuzzies, admit it.

      All you want is for somebody to metaphorically SEE you.

      by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:31:38 PM PDT

      •  My pulse is quickening

        and my eyes are getting moist as we speak.

        by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:32:40 PM PDT

        •  Old people. Farms. Hugs.

          Puppies.  Barn raisings.  Black man, white man shaking hands.  Dewy meadows.  American flags against a blue sky.

          I've got something in my eye.......((sniff))

          by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

          •  They all use the same template

            more or less.  Morning in America.

            by chicago minx on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:39:48 PM PDT

•  Sorry

  I have a moratorium instituted on all polls until someone jumps or falls at least 15 percent. Until then, the fingers are in the ears.

  by droogie6655321 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

•  Pet peeve about the video

  Says it is paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee.

  Um, when's she going to stop exploring and just declare already?

  Seriously.

  by wmtriallawyer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:24:38 PM PDT

  •  She doesn't deal in hypotheticals.

    A good presidential candidate leaves everything on the table.

    by Inland on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:28:12 PM PDT

  •  That was bright up earlier today. I don't

    remember the boring specifics of it (it was something like the ad had been paid for with old money raised by the exploratory committee) but she has declared already.

    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM PDT

    •  Ah, gotcha

      I would have thought she would have declared by now...thanks.

      It would have seemed silly to milk the exploratory thing for a "formal" announcement in September or something.

      by wmtriallawyer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:51:20 PM PDT

•  As an actual Iowan,

  it's amusing to watch non-Iowans claim to know what's going on in Iowa.

  And if you really think some milquetoast ad aired in August is going to help her in January, well, ha ha ha.

  It's all quite entertaining though.  Keep it coming.

  PS...the "inevitability" angle doesn't mean shit here.

  by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM PDT

  •  actually, i said it won't last

    i'm just saying that her media buy comes at a time when she looks well positioned for a jump into the lead, and that the national media will probably have a field day if that happens.

    by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:29:30 PM PDT

  •  Don't you guys have an expectation to actually

    meet each candidate?  I am not sure how a "boring" ad makes up for that.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:30:29 PM PDT

•  Don't know -- Don't care -- and its too early

  to focus on the horse race aspects of this.

  The telling thing about that TV ad, however, is its nostalgic throwback feel to an earlier political era when being seen but not heard was all the American voter could hope for.

  Hillary Clinton is a talented, liberal, accomplished and amazing woman.

  I see little evidence she LISTENS to anyone outside her core circle of advisers and her TV ad reinforces that for me.

  by Bill White on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:29:52 PM PDT

•  "I see dead people"

  would be a way cooler ad.

  by Yoshimi on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:32:48 PM PDT

•  Good

  because it'll be an even bigger shock to her and her supporters when she loses in Iowa.

  I don't what it is with this 'inevitability' meme these Hillary supporters are trying foist off on us. She is not the best candidate. And as another commenter pointed out Iowa is FIVE MONTHS AWAY.

  My money's on Obama. He's a strong contender and he's got the right stuff.

  The presidental election is the least concern of mine. Unless Cheney is impeached and removed from office the 2008 election will be irrelevant. There's a lot that must be done now before November 2008. Waiting until January 2009 is not a option. We have to get out of Iraq. We have to stabilize the Middle East on a strategic level through diplomacy. We have to restore limits on the Executive branch, restore habeas corpus, stop torture, restore oversight on spying. The list goes on.

  by londubh on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:34:56 PM PDT

  •  who's foisting this inevitability meme?

    i keep seeing people complaining about the idea that Hillary's inevitable. But I don't actually see Hillary supporters using that argument on this site.

    Do you think I was saying as much in my diary? I don't...

    by nbutter on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:38:33 PM PDT

    •  Glad that someone else ...

      other than myself noticed that.  

      I think it's just one more way the ABC ABH "we hate Clinton" crowd is attempting to frame the debate.  It's sad, because they have nothing positive to work with, therefore they have to resort to such attacks on the opposition.

      by emsprater on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:45:43 PM PDT

    •  Not inevitable

      Neither Hillary nor her supporters think anything's inevitable. It's a hard fight all the way to the end. To think anything else would be foolish, definitely not a winning strategy.  Iowa is going to be a tough battle too, but she is doing well, after being behind Edwards by quite a good margin, now she's leading. That's progress.

      by kitsapdem on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:04:04 PM PDT

•  I'm not very smart

  So I voted I don't know. All I know is that whoever wins Iowa is going to become the strong favorite to win the nomination. With the super compact primary schedule, Iowa will become even more important than it ever has been in the presidential nominating process.

  But I did see the ad, and I liked it a lot. Clinton knows how to campaign.

  by BlueTide on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:45:58 PM PDT

•  I don't think there will be any inroads

  since the ad just came out today and on the net, yesterday.  I would look at the next round of polls.  But Obama is increasing in IA, since he put his ads out.  We will see what happens for Clinton.

  by icebergslim on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:13:13 PM PDT