You know as much as I do that these polls deal w/ voters limited awareness of the candidates. Sen. Obama is only at 80% w/ the public. At the beginning of the year, he was in the teens!!

Hillary has had 100% recognition since 1992. No Dem candidate would be able to “pass” her in the polls before Iowa.

Thank goodness the caucuses and primaries illustrate grassroots, party activist strength rather than the average voter - which would be Clinton’s demographic.

Did you see the Harkin steak fry? Hillary’s support was not up to par w/ Obama or Edwards, rather a little more than Biden.

But, perhaps Hillary has the biggest obstacle, she is largely not liked by the general public and she rates nearly dead last in likeness in Iowa.

But the mainstream media,based in NYC and DC, love their script for a NYC showdown between Giuliani and Clinton.

If Iowa’s any indication, the heartland of America may just flip the script.

It makes sense why Hillary implored her supporters to talk about her friends and to volunteer…the Clinton ground game is the weakest part of her candidacy, next to her character negatives.

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is
little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading
Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so
quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they
would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American
people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should
stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a
complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.”
On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not
a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and
effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle
East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders,
including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can
sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the
deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and
professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as
American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is
postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the
necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy
to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-
Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as
occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave,
this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of
their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the
terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We
moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as
little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the
Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few
months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to
open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will
start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the
reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the
consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over
their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional
cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to
Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s
neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil-

rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until
we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in
Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we
need another surge to protect them?

It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real
challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring
peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the
crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on
Sept. 11.

By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is
reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam —
with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops
out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them
civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the
communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops
and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring
stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops
without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American
people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief.
How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly?
And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather
than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but
please don’t read the small print.”

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination.