Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to End Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens
In order to ensure other states do not attempt to take up where New York left off, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced legislation Tuesday that would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The bill (S. 2334) would withhold ten percent of federal highway funds from states that do not require, and subsequently verify, proof of legal status from driver's license applicants. Funds withheld from non-compliant states would ultimately be redistributed to states that do not give licenses to illegal aliens. In a statement made Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso stressed the urgent need for such legislation. "We won't truly be serious about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration until we stop the practice of issuing driver's licenses to the very individuals who are breaking our laws."
A similar bill (H.R. 4160) was introduced last Tuesday by Representative Vito Fossella (R-NY) in the House of Representatives. H.R. 4160 provides that if a state does not comply with REAL ID - which requires driver's license applicants to provide proof of legal presence - it will lose 2% of federal highway funds in the first year, 4% in the second, 6% in the third, and 8% in the fourth and subsequent years. Upon compliance with REAL ID, all funds will be re-instated.
In addition, last Wednesday Representatives Peter King (R-NY) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act (H.R. 4176), a bill that would bar states from granting licenses to illegal aliens. According to a statement released by Congressman Sessions, H.R.4176 amends the REAL ID Act of 2005 by eliminating a provision that allows a state to provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens as long as those licenses invalid for federal government purposes. Upon introduction, The Prevention of Unsafe Licensing Act already had 156 co-sponsors. Remarking on the introduction of their bill, Congressman Sessions said, "Providing illegal immigrants with state-issued driver's licenses would undermine the rule of law, further jeopardize the safety of our nation, and open a gateway for fraud." Congressman King said, "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues." In addition, King argued that granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens gives identification to those who could be terrorists and "rewards illegal immigrants." (USA Today, Nov. 16, 2007)
Friday, November 23, 2007
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
SAVE Act Introduced in the Senate
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
The last few days before the Thanksgiving recess were peppered with the introduction of new immigration bills. On Thursday, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) separately introduced versions of Representative Heath Schuler's SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) into the Senate. The SAVE Act increases border infrastructure through fencing and technology, and requires all employers use the E-verify system (formerly Basic Pilot) to confirm that all employees are legally present and authorized to work in the U.S.
In introducing his version of the bill (S. 2366), Senator Vitter remarked, "Strengthening our borders is an important first step in fighting our growing illegal immigration problem, but interior enforcement is also critically important." Meanwhile, Senator Pryor reiterated the need for an enforcement-only legislation. "The American public must have confidence that our immigration system works, and I am happy to work with Representative Shuler to see that it does," he said. "This legislation [S. 2368] addresses these challenges through a fair and practical approach."
John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean
Today John McCain proudly received the endorsement of Governor Tom Kean.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman and former governor of New Jersey, joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain, including:
George P. Shultz
Former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Former Secretary of State R. James Woolsey Jr.
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Henry A. Kissinger
Former Secretary of State John F. Lehman Jr.
Former Secretary of the Navy James R. Schlesinger
Former Director of Central Intelligence
Alexander M. Haig Jr.
Former Secretary of State Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Governor Kean endorsed John McCain because McCain understands the nature of the terrorist threats that continue to confront us all. America needs a commander in chief at the helm who is ready to be president on the day he or she takes office and John McCain is ready. Click here to read about of Governor Kean's endorsement.
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com on November 19, 2007.
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!
And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincidence that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do.
As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.”
Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
Clinton leads the field in seeking earmarks.....
Clinton leads senators seeking presidency in use of earmarks
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
BY BRIAN TUMULTY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Among the five members of the U.S. Senate seeking the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a considerable lead in using the federal budget to pay for special projects known as earmarks.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware also have dozens of these projects in 2008 spending bills passed by the Senate. But they don’t use them as widely and systematically as their New York counterpart, according to a Gannett News Service review of a database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Clinton’s 147 earmarks totaling $728.3 million topped the $640.8 million obtained by Dodd, the $118.6 million by Obama and $108.3 million by Biden.
The fifth senator running for president, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, eschews the practice and has criticized Clinton’s use of earmarks on the campaign trail.
Democratic leaders in Congress and President Bush have separately promised to cut 2008 earmarks in half from their peak 13,496 projects totaling $19 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Those who defend earmarks often point out that local lawmakers are best suited to evaluate the needs of their communities. They deny the projects are wasteful.
Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, defended the projects, noting they “train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments, bolster our national and homeland security.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense and other budget watchdog groups agree that many congressional earmarks are justified.
”The problem is that they are based on political muscle and not merit, ” spokesman Steve Ellis said.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said McCain would almost certainly wage war against earmarks if he’s elected president.
The use of earmarks by the other four senators “reveals very little about how they would behave as president,” according to Mann. ”As senators, they naturally act as advocates for their states, and that includes trying to earmark spending. As president, their focus would be on national priorities and fiscal policy.“
McCain and the Democratic senators seeking the presidency support reforms passed by Congress to disclose the authors of earmarks.
And Obama joined Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on legislation signed into law earlier this year that will establish an Internet database of all federal contracts.
Dodd said in an interview he’s never received an earmark he wouldn’t want to announce in a press release, including $470 million for shipbuilding included in the Senate’s 2008 defense bill.
”The news is, are you doing something that has little or no value?” he said. “Shipbuilding has value. It’s needed in the country. It’s the reason you have Democrats and Republicans on the major committees sponsoring it.”
The allocation grew to $588 million in the House-Senate conference agreement that removed the item’s classification as an earmark and simply lumped it in with other shipbuilding. The bill is the only one of 13 spending bills for 2008 that’s been signed by Bush.
The money will go toward construction of Virginia Class submarines by shipyards that include Electric Boat in Connecticut.
McCain has drawn attention to $1 million for the Bethel Performing Arts Center that Clinton and fellow New York Sen. Chuck Schumer requested in the 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill to commemorate the 1969 Woodstock rock concert.
McCain, a former Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, was a prisoner of war at the time of the concert. Last month he began running a TV ad in New Hampshire observing that Woodstock was ”a cultural event that defined a generation” while questioning if it’s “worthy of a million of your tax dollars to build a museum.”
The Arizona senator also targeted a $500,000 Clinton-Schumer request for a ”virtual herbarium” at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx.
Both the Woodstock and the New York Botanical Garden earmarks were removed during House-Senate negotiations, while funding for other Clinton-Schumer earmarks grew. A $600,000 allocation for Rochester, N.Y., area colleges for “excellence in math and sciences” increased to $1 million, and $250,000 for music education at Manhattan’s Lincoln Center rose to $400,000.
Hillary slippage in Iowa
WHAT IOWA SLIPPAGE MEANS FOR HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 20, 2007.
Strong winds swept through the political community on Monday night with the release of the latest Washington Post-ABC poll in Iowa showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in second place for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) led in the poll with 30 percent, Hillary trailed at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was in third at 22 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, auditioning for vice president, was fourth at 11 percent. This is the first primary or caucus poll nationwide or in any state in the nation this entire year that shows Hillary in second place!
The internals of the poll contain even worse news for Hillary:
• Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women.
• Of the 55 percent of Iowa Democrats who prefer change (versus the 33 percent who want experience), Obama leads with 43 percent to Edwards’s 25 and Hillary’s 17 percent. Being for change in a Democratic primary is like being for stability in a GOP contest. It’s the growth sector.
• Half of Hillary’s voters have not attended a previous caucus, versus 43 percent of Obama’s and 24 percent of Edwards’s. With the caucus system as complex as it is and the places of the meetings as distant as they are, previous attendance is a key indicator of the likelihood of their actually voting this time. If we assume no first-time caucus attendee will actually show up (an exaggeration but worth thinking about) then Hillary would finish third with Obama and Edwards tied for first.
So what does all this mean?
Can Hillary turn it around? She will increase her advertising and personal campaigning in Iowa, but so will her rivals now that they smell blood. The poll’s field dates were Nov. 14-18. The last national debate, in which Hillary had something of a comeback, was on Nov. 15, right in the middle of the sampling. It is possible that her stronger performance might tip some more votes her way, and she does have one more debate before the voting.
But consultant David Garth once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is change direction, and Obama’s and Edwards’s upward momentum, as well as Hillary’s slide, have gone on for three weeks now.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she will not be knocked out of the race. You can’t knock a long-term front-runner out with one punch. John Kerry did knock out Howard Dean in Iowa, but the Vermont governor was a recent front-runner with limited national recognition and a limited funding base. The more likely model is Reagan versus Ford in 1976, Bush versus McCain in 2000, Mondale versus Hart in 1984 or even Bill Clinton versus Tsongas in 1992. In these cases, you have to beat a front-runner state by state. A one-punch or one-state win doesn’t spell the end of the race, only its beginning. (And remember, in all four examples, the front-runner came from behind to win.)
Hillary is strong in New Hampshire. Her average lead over the last five polls reported on www.realclearpolitics.com is 36 for Hillary, 23 for Obama and 13 for Edwards. Of course, New Hampshire is a county in Iowa. A hard defeat in Iowa would set Hillary back a good deal in New Hampshire. But she might well rally there or in Michigan, South Carolina or Florida down the road before she hits the national primary on Feb. 5.
If Obama wins in Iowa, he will face several key problems:
• Edwards will likely do very well in Iowa, so Obama will still have to split the anti-Hillary vote with him.
• Democrats will begin to wonder if an African-American can really win and if they really want to take a chance on a Republican victory by nominating Obama.
• And some will worry about Obama’s lack of experience, even though his real political experience is about as limited as Hillary’s. But by adopting Bill’s record as her own, Hillary can use her faux and vicarious experience to defeat Obama.
My bet is that if Hillary loses Iowa, she will rally to win New Hampshire and go on to win the nomination. But this is the first time she appears vulnerable.
www.mccainalert.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)