Recently, I have been seeing stories pertaining to Obama's campaign working to bring in people from other states to caucus for him in Iowa.  Regarding "Outsourcing" the IA Caucuses, the stories include bussing students in from other states, who attend college in IA but who are not residents there. The caucuses will be held during Winter Break, so the Obama campaign can ill afford to lose its youth vote, as college students go home for the holidays. Apparently, this is not Illegal, but it certainly raises eye brows, coming from a candidate who is declaring a "New Kind of Politics".

I have a great deal of respect for Bobby Kennedy Jr. and all of his great work on the environment, and so was very happy to see him announce his support for Hillary today.  I grew up in Massachussetts and we were avid Kennedy fans. The "word" is there may be a few more Kennedy endorsements on the way. I certainly hope so!

Here's to Bobby!

Hey I was watching Larry King last night and guess what surprising news I heard? The Osmonds (all of them) plan to vote for Romney. On this special segment of Larry King to commemorate the death of their father, and the resurgence of their career...they talked about the virtues of Romney and why having a Mormon in the White House is a good thing.

Imagine my surprise when I saw a new Edwards Ad today - claiming that he would take away Health Insurance from Congress if they failed to pass Universal Health Care. I remember hearing this rhetoric in a recent speech or debate. And it got applause. Sure, people are angry about this issue and understandably growing impatient. But I heard some pundits say that Edwards really didn't have the power to take away health insurance from Congress. But heck, Edwards is a successful attorney, so I figured he knew a little about this.

I came across an interesting article on the LeftCoaster by eriposte yesterday that compares Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on Iraq and Iran. I found it quite enlightening. It's helpful to see the candidates' positions contrasted in one place and to see how similar they are in their approaches, even though the rhetoric may seem otherwise.

As Hillary's poll numbers continue their strong leading trend in the primaries, it is understandable that her opposition is now making an effort to draw distinctions. Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards, lacking clear distinctions on policy positions, and trailing on experience and leadership attributes, have chosen to focus on what they hope voters will see as "personal" distinctions or some might say - personal attacks. Hillary Clinton and her Team know full well that the frontrunner is always attacked and Hillary herself says that "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."  She knows things will only get hotter and is prepared for that. It's also good preparation for the General Election.  Even though pundits like Chris Mathews and Russert have accused her of playing the gender card, she has chosen not to do that.  While some supporters, especially women, may have been offended by the pile on by Russert and friends last week, Clinton continues to view this as business as usual. I think it's interesting that Obama and Edwards have chosen to question Hillary on transparency, honesty, and doubletalk, as if they are somehow pure in this regard.  

The Clinton Campaign today announced the endorsement of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).  This is the nation's largest public sector union, representing more than 1.4 million workers.

With this endorsement, Clinton continues to garner support for leading national unions who recognize her long held dedication and committment to America's families.

With Clinton in the White House, America's working families will again have a partner in the White House.

I have seen numerous diaries and comments on the significance of Hillary being a woman Presidential candidate. Comments have included that it doesn't matter that she's a woman, that just because she's a woman doesn't mean that she will be better on women's issues, or the ever popular..."I won't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman". Let me be crystal clear on one issue, I would never vote for a woman just because she's a woman and I don't know anyone who would. I wouldn't vote for Liddy Dole, Condi Rice, or even Democratic candidate Carol Moseley Braun, who I liked, but who was not experienced enough to be President or to run a competitive campaign. BUT- Hillary is the woman who I believe will make the BEST President AND will do the most for women.  Being a woman - this is EXTREMELY important to me. And in the Democratic Party which has always stood solidly for civil rights for everyone....this should matter to Democratic voters.

There's been a lot of discussion here about which candidates are corporate and which are not. Recently Obama and Edwards have aggressively gone after Hillary for being "The Corporate Candidate". Implying or directly stating that they do not take money from Lobbyists.  I would argue that the loopholes in their rules about Lobbyist money are big enough to drive a truck through.  There are a number of reasons why their arguments about this fall flat.  I am not arguing that Clinton doesn't take Lobbyist money, because she clearly said she does. I am also not arguing that our current campaign system should not be vastly improved. But what I do think is that it is disingenuous to say that Obama or Edwards do not accept corporate or lobbyist money in some form. It's not all good, but it is the reality. We can only hope that our chosen candidate has the integrity and strength to still do what is right despite who their donors happen to be.

There have been several diaries recently on the South Carolina appearance of McClurkin for one of Obama's campaign events. Why is this such a big deal?  I for one, don't think it means that Barack is anti-gay. I do think it may be a major error in judgement and/or a deliberate attempt to woo Black evangelical voters. For those solidly in Obama's camp, I realize this is something you may want to defend against, and deem - Just Politics. Or try the argument, no matter how nonsensical, that I see often. "Yes, but Clinton or Edwards would do it too".  The fact remains they haven't done it, Obama has. The spotlight on this issue is now on Barack Obama.

Obama may have just taken a page out of the Bush playbook of both 2000 and 2004, when Bush had McClurkin appear for him, in an effort to woo the support of gay bashing black evangelicals.

As we Democrats know, the South is a challenging region of the country for us to lead in. Much discussion has taken place here at KOS, as well as in many other blogs on the issue of which candidate will have the advantage in the South. While it is certainly still early, the latest South Carolina poll is telling. Rasmussen today reports a sizeable lead for Hillary in this state. She leads over Obama, who until recently was the perceived favorite here.

Today's Zogby Poll shows Clinton moving into the lead in Iowa. After only recently starting to campaign in Iowa, this is quite impressive.

As a strong supporter of Senator Clinton, I do not presume that she is the inevitable nominee. In fact, I don't believe that most of her supporters or the Clinton Campaign Team takes anything for granted about the nomination.  I do believe that the Clinton Campaign Team will continue to work tirelessly for every vote throughout the campaign.

And I think that these recent Iowa poll numbers demonstrate that as more and more people meet the Senator and learn more about her that more people are favorably disposed to her candidacy.