These two stories seem related to me. First, Obama claims to have more Clintonista support than Hillary:

In Iowa on Friday, Obama suggested he had the support of more Clinton administration figures than the former first lady. Lists provided by both campaigns quickly showed hers is almost twice as large. "Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?" Obama said. "They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century."

Clearly the Clinton mantle is still strong with Iowa Democrats and Obama is seeking to blunt it. Which makes this story even more interesting:

According to today's Washington Post, the Hillary campaign is planning to close out the Iowa and New Hampshire races with a "tight embrace" of her husband's legacy, an argument that only she is equipped to handle future foreign policy crises . . .

Makes sense to me. TPM Cafe notes:

Obama's counterargument has been that whatever the successes of the 1990s, it has also saddled Hillary with a kind of political baggage that will make her less effective as a President than his "new politics" will.

Clintonism without the Clinton baggage. It is an interesting development. I wonder if Edwards will try and flank it by rejecting Bill Clinton entirely.

As Jeralyn notes, Obama just attacked John Edwards. I guess he is a pol after all. Politico's Ben Smith reports:

"I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk, I've been doing this all my life, and John has not had that same record," he said.

"John yesterday said that he didn't believe in 527s," he said. "We found out today that there's an outside group spending $750,000...and the individual who's running the group used to be John Edwards' campaign manager."

"You can't say yesterday you don't believe in them and today you're having three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you," he said.

Does this mean Edwards is eating into Obama's vote? Seems likely as otherwise pols don't notice their opponents. Hillary used the same trick when she was ahead and then attacked when she was being challenged. Oh and of course Edwards was the first to go really negative.

As I say, pols are pols, they do what they do.

Jerome Armstrong brings us Obama's answer on his present vote (the only legislator NOT to vote in favor of it) on an Illinois law to protect the privacy of victims of sex crimes:

What do you think of it?

The AP reports on Barack Obama's changed opinions on issues over time. Chief among them:

• The death penalty

  In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

  Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

• The Patriot Act

  When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives. Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

The article says Democrats are unlikely to attack him on his changing positions for fear of seeming negative, but Republicans may not show such restraint. Another person interviewed in the article thinks Republicans will use a different argument:

"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don't think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They'd be attacking him on his experience."

Update: Obama is now criticizing John Edwards' record. I thought negativity didn't play in Iowa....

A few days ago, Jake Tapper of ABC ran this false story:

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is false because as the story itself states, no site had been launched and John Edwards launched an attack site against Hillary Clinton previously. No correction has been made by ABC. It is egregiously bad jounrnalism. There is no question that, as Howard Kurtz reported, the Beltway Media detests Hillary Clinton.

But I also think there is strong evidence that Barack Obama is the Beltway Media darling. For example, consider this Obama "attack" site. Think Jake Tapper will run a story on that? Me neither. How about Obama's planted question?

In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.

More.

I just received notification that TalkLeft has received press credentials to cover the Iowa Caucuses. Credentials are required for admission to the Polk County Convention Complex, which will be open 24/7 from December 30 to January 4.

On January 3, caucus night, the convention center will be the location of the “big board.” This is where real-time numbers from both parties will be reported.

An assigned workspace at the convention center, including an electrical outlet and internet connection, is $200.00. Since media with assigned workspace will have priority to be in the "big board" room on caucus night, I just faxed in my $200.

So, my New Year's Eve will be spent in Des Moines. I'll be in Iowa, along with Jane of Firedogake and other bloggers, from Dec. 31 to Jan. 4. I hope you'll log on to read us.

USA Today has released a new poll of New Hampshire voters. It's a toss-up between Hillary and Obama, but there is a 5% margin of error rate. Even so, there are a few differentiating clues.

• Who are you leaning towards? Note, this was asked of Democrats and those leaning towards a Democrat but without a preference.

Hillary 32%, Obama 32%, Edwards 18%

• How certain are you to vote for that person?(Note, this was asked of Democrat voters not those leaning without a preference)

Hillary 20%, Obama 18%, Edwards 10%

The terrific Mark Schmitt writes a great piece on what is clearly the central issue of the Democratic campaign - the competing theories of change the three top tier candidates are offering. I am on record as disagreeing with Obama's theory of change. Schmitt here mounts an articulate defense of the Obama theory:

let's take a slightly different angle on the charge that Obama is "naïve" about power and partisanship. Suppose you were as non-naïve about it as I am -- but your job wasn't writing about politics, it was running for president? What should you do? In that case, your responsibility is not merely to describe the situation exactly, but to find a way to subvert it. In other words, perhaps we are being too literal in believing that "hope" and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.

As I have written ad nauseum, I believe it fails as a tactic. But Schmitt's argument is well worth reading. On the flip a bit more from Schmitt.

The very important Iowa caucuses are 13 days away which will mark the mad dash to nominate the candidates. Chris Cilizza has a nice rundown.

If you believe in polls, RCP and pollster.com do a good job of summarizing the polling. In Iowa, the polls show Obama in a virtual tie with Clinton with Edwards further back. However, polling Iowa is especially tricky because of the caucusing format and the 15% thresholds per precinct (an incredibly undemocratic provision by the way.) Because of all this, it is safe to say that no one really knows who is going to win Iowa among the top 3. I think Obama wins narrowly with Clinton 2nd and a fading Edwards 3rd. It becomes a new ballgame after that with a real race between Clinton and Obama. New Hampshire will be wild.

Among the GOP, Huckabee has moved into a solid lead in Iowa and since there are no 15% thresholds for the GOP in Iowa, this seems to be a likely result. But Huckabee has money problems and a lot of resistance from the Establishment GOP. Like Cilizza, I still see Romney as the favorite for the GOP nomination. More.

CBS' Harry Smith interviews Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Iowa, trying to get them to reveal something of their personalities with questions like what's on your iPod, what's the first thing you do when you wake up, last thing before going to sleep, what's the last movie you saw, etc.

Here's the video. See for yourselves, they sure are different.

CBS notes in a companion article that Obama has a hard time showing emotion and empathy, even in a pre-arranged setting, suggesting he struggles "to feel the pain." It doesn't come naturally to him. Example: His campaign invited six voters in New Hampshire with hard luck stories to meet the candidate. Here's what happened. [More....]

The New York Times yesterday featured an article about Barack Obama's voting record as an Illinois Senator -- and his penchant for voting "present" instead of yes or no on controversial bills.

Why does someone vote "present" instead of yes or no?

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose.

When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

I think he voted present to dodge the political bullet a "no" vote would have caused with some constituents or organizations. If he believed a bill was bad, like the bill banning partial birth abortion, why not take a stand and vote it down?

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion....

....In his book, the "Audacity of Hope," on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

This leads to the question, will he have the courage of his convictions as President? Unlike in Illinois, his options if elected to the Oval Office will be "yes" or "no." Can we count on Obama to take a stand?

More...

I always thought that the Obama (and Edwards) moralizing on lobbyists was utter nonsense. Now we see just how nonsensical it was for Obama:

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents. The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

Of course Obama accepted money from lobbyists, but not from current lobbyists (just past and future lobbyists) and the clients of current lobbyists. It was all hypocritical nonsense. And this makes it absolutely clear it was nonsense.

This is a bad development for Obama.