Hillary Clinton and Monsanto's K Street Test Plot

The ironically named "Rural Americans for Hillary" are holding a shindig to raise some funds for her presidential hopes. Where is this being held?

Iowa? No, sir.

Western New Hampshire? Nope.

South Carolina's low country? Wrong Again.

ABC News reports (and this flyer confirms: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/cl inton_invitation.pdf) that Rural Americans for Hillary are holding this high-toned get together at a lobbyist's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"... and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs...

...which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2007/10/yee-haw.html)

You can't take big money and expect big change.

Vote Edwards.

Big Media's Push Poll...and why history is on Edwards' side

Have you heard that this could be an historic election, because Hillary Clinton maybe the first woman elected President and Barack Obama may be the first African American man elected president?

Are you aware that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively, lead in national polls?

Are you aware that Barack Obama has raised more money than Hillary Clinton, and that both of them lead the other candidates in the "money primary"?

Have you been following the debates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had over foreign policy?

Which Democratic candidate do you support for President of the United States?

The above is an example of a "push poll", a tactic used by a campaign to elicit a targeted response after a series of biased questions.

Here's another great example of one:



Whether intentionally or not, the media have thus far been conducting one large "push poll" on the American populace, by focusing on the Hillary and Obama dynamic. How much money did Hillary raise? Who won the "foreign policy" squabble - Hillary or Obama? Is Obama less "presidential" than Hillary?

And yet...this dynamic was played out before. Four years ago:

"...In sheer numbers, however, Kerry had fewer endorsements than Howard Dean, who was far ahead in the superdelegate race going into the Iowa caucuses in February 2004, although Kerry lead the endorsement race in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, South Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada. Kerry's main perceived weakness was in his neighboring state of New Hampshire and nearly all national polls. Most other states did not have updated polling numbers to give an accurate placing for the Kerry campaign before Iowa.

Heading into the primaries, Kerry's campaign was largely seen as in trouble; the key factor enabling it to survive was Kerry's mortgaging his own home and lending the money to his campaign. He also brought on the "magical" Michael Whouley who was Al Gore's national field director and would later become the Democratic National Committee's National Field Director for Kerry-Edwards. Whouley is widely credited with helping bring home the Iowa victory the same as he did in New Hampshire for Al Gore in 2000 against Bill Bradley..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_presidential_campaign,_2004#Campaign_history)

For all of us Edwards supporters - does any of this sound familiar? A campaign that the media has written off before the Iowa caucuses? A campaign that hired new staff to craft a new message?

...How about, against all pundit expectations, a campaign that won in Iowa and went on to win the nomination?

Are the current polling numbers correct...or is there a bit of the media push poll effect reflected in them?

We'll find out soon enough.