"Dems Fight Spying with Clinton and Obama MIA"

Ari Melber (The Nation):

A trio of Democratic House Committee Chairmen are stepping up the fight against President Bush's surveillance bill this week, vowing to beat back a controversial proposal to grant retroactive amnesty to companies accused of illegally spying on Americans.

Congressmen John Dingell, Ed Markey and Bart Stupak are circulating a letter urging their colleagues to stand firm and keep amnesty out of the final spying bill. The House already passed a bill without amnesty, but the Senate is scheduled to pass a bill with retroactive amnesty as early as Tuesday. That would trigger a fight to resolve the issue in a conference committee of Democratic leaders. While a majority of Democrats in both Houses have voted against amnesty, Senators Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller have fought hard to keep the proposal on the table, quailing at Bush's repeated threats to veto the bill if it does not include amnesty.

The House Democrats' letter explains that amnesty is distinct from the surveillance bill, which grants the administration more spying powers and weakens judicial requirements for warrants. "The issue of immunity for phone companies that chose to cooperate with the President's warrantless wiretapping program deserves a separate and more deliberate examination by Congress," reads the letter. "No special urgency attaches to the question of immunity other than the Administration's general eagerness to limit tort liability and its desire to avoid scrutiny of its own actions, by either the courts or the Congress."

Last week, over two dozen House members hammered the same point in a letter to President Bush:

Corporations that handed over their customers' records without a valid court order [...] undermined fundamental civil protections and privacy rights of Americans. Congress as a whole was kept in the dark for years about these activities, and to this day, the overwhelming majority of House Members and Senators have never been briefed on these activities. We cannot be asked to immunize these actions before we know the full extent of what occurred.

According to several civil liberties groups, the developments in the House suggest that at least some Democrats are now willing to draw a line in the sand to stop Bush's abuse of executive power. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing telephone companies over domestic spying, characterized the House letters as "a significant shift in the political debate over telecom immunity." An ACLU spokesperson told The Nation that the action by House leaders is the only "ray of hope" to scuttle amnesty, because the Senate is considered a lost cause. "We need the House to stand strong and not bless this multibillion dollar giveaway to the telecommunications companies," said the ACLU official.

Most observers agree that the spying bill and retroactive amnesty are distinct issues. After all, the bill governs surveillance policy going forward, while the amnesty amendment dismisses cases challenging past surveillance. Apart from one's view on each issue –- I oppose both the underlying White House bill and amnesty, as I explained in this November op-ed –- it would be highly irresponsible for Congress to rush amnesty without basic information about what happened. Yet the administration refuses to brief members, even in classified sessions, as the House committee letter explains:

For the past five months this Committee has asked, in a bipartisan manner, the phone companies and the Administration to [provide factual and legal information that] would justify Congress telling a Federal judge to dismiss all lawsuits…Surprisingly, even at this late date, the Administration has not deemed it important enough to respond to our repeated inquiries or even to brief the Committee Members in closed session.

But there's nothing surprising about the administration's contempt for the rule of law at this point. Are Democratic leaders just figuring this out?

The past few months of the spying debate do reveal, in a depressing sort of way, both the promise and residual frailty of this (mildly) resurgent Democratic Party. There are leaders who now go to the mat against Bush, even on counterterrorism policy and even when few are paying attention. That includes people like Senators Dodd and Feingold, and the House leaders fighting this week. But even when they summon a majority of their caucus, as they have on amnesty, they are sold out by a few well-placed members of their own party. So Senate Democrats watch the spectacle of Jay Rockefeller doing his best Joe Lieberman impression, and listen to Harry Reid say that he opposes amnesty while rigging floor votes to pass it.

Meanwhile, the two remaining presidential candidates have finessed the issue with such precision, it's the surest proof that their promises of "change" do not include restoring the rule of law until the election is over. Clinton and Obama did vote the right way this summer, but they missed recent key votes, and they have refused to use the enormous megaphone they share to get anything done. Just this weekend, President Bush peddled more attacks and disinformation about spying in an interview with Fox News. The Obama Campaign was quick to rebut Bush's attack on the Senator's foreign policy, and the Clinton Campaign is plenty aggressive when counter-punching to protect The Clintons. Yet neither campaign so much as released statements from aides to rebut the President's surveillance comments, let alone launch a battle plan to protect civil liberties in the looming fight.

Both campaigns talk about how history will view their unprecedented candidacies -- and breaking political glass ceilings is no small feat. Yet history tends to judge not only one's candidacy, but one's character, assessing whether leaders acted on the conviction to do right when pressed with the choice. Amnesty is on the table now. If Congress sends this legislation to President Bush, next January will be too late.

There will be no accountability for domestic spying and few levers for a thorough investigation. And the next President will inherit an office with growing power and receding legitimacy, a dynamic reinforced by Congress and unlikely to abate when even would-be presidents refuse to stand up for the rule of law.

Barack Obama

"Obama On Hillary: "I Think You Are Plenty Likable""

Greg Sargent, TPM Election Central, with video (03:02)):

Obama goes on ABC News, beats back allegations from Hillary about the lobbyist/New Hampshire official in his campaign, revises his earlier claim that Hillary is "likable enough"...

Howie P.S.: Thanks to Heather Larson for passing this along.

Barack Obama

"When You Want to Get Down, Down on the Ground …"

Matt Bai (The Caucus,NY Times political blog):

The colorful Republican consultant Mike Murphy, who has made more than his share of 30-second attack ads, once explained to me why you can’t listen to people who say they don’t like political advertising.

“You get a focus group together and you ask them which toothpaste they use,” Mr. Murphy told me, “and they say, Crest. And you ask them, ‘Is it because of the ads?’

“‘Oh no, of course not!’ they say. ‘I never listen to ads. Ads don’t affect me. I make up my own mind.’

“‘Oh, OK, so why do you use Crest?’

“‘Because four out of five dentists recommend it!’ ”

This anecdote, or some version of it, is probably a familiar trope in every ad agency in the country, and I’ve been thinking about it as I read all these stories that seem to mention, almost obligatorily, that using negative ads in Iowa is risky because Iowans don’t like them. Well, I guess. But in 2000, Al Gore mercilessly caricatured Bill Bradley as a guy who didn’t care a whit about farmers, and it worked just fine. Four years later, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt bloodied each other all over Iowa TV; sure, they both lost, but that was probably more because both candidates successfully demolished their targets rather because their negativity backfired. Iowans can say they don’t respond to negative attacks, but that doesn’t mean we should believe them. Seems to me they’re just like rest of us, only dressed in more layers.

Clearly, the Clinton campaign thinks so. While the candidate herself has been keeping it pretty mild in her remarks, her surrogates have been reaching such nadirs of negativity that you almost have to admire the cold-bloodedness of it. Maybe that Clinton video spoofing the ‘Sopranos’ was a sign of things to come.

First there was Mark Penn, Clinton’s top strategist, on “Hardball,” setting a new record for uses of the word “cocaine” in 30 seconds. Next, President Clinton himself went on Charlie Rose to say that nominating Mr. Obama would be like “rolling the dice” with the nation’s future. And then this week of rhetorical atrocities came to a close with Bob Kerrey, the former senator, smoothly praising Mr. Obama by remarking on how comforting it would be to Muslims around the world to see an American president with the middle name “Hussein.”

Like a lot of reporters who’ve known him, I like Bob Kerrey, but I have too much respect for his intelligence to think that he didn’t know what he was doing, whether or not it was pre-planned.

This is more than just ugly politics. There seems to be, in the Clinton camp, a genuine and growing antipathy toward Mr. Obama personally, a sense that he has been accorded a status he has not earned. For whatever reason, Mr. Obama brings out in the Clinton world a not terribly flattering sense of entitlement that a John Edwards, for instance, does not.

One reason is that they just don’t think Mr. Obama belongs in the big time, and they can’t understand why the media won’t point this out. Another reason for the anger, though, is that Mr. Obama has directly challenged not just Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the Clinton era as a whole. He holds himself out as an indictment of the nasty ’90s, a chapter in Washington with which he alone, among the candidates, has no connection. Clintonism — that is, not the former president himself, but his philosophy and his legacy—has become a subtle but critical issue in this campaign as we head into the final few weeks in Iowa. It’s also the subject of my cover piece in the magazine this coming Sunday, so I won’t say much more about it here, but I hope you’ll read it and share your thoughts.

I’ve just arrived back in Des Moines today, where it is colder than the surface of Mars, so I’ll be blogging from here for the rest of the week. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are here now, and then later in the week Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney return as well. I expect to cover some 600 miles in a Hyundai four-wheeler to catch as many of their events as I can. Let me know, in the comments, if there’s anything you especially want to know about what’s happening out here, and I’ll try to be illuminating.

Barack Obama

Ben Smith: "Clinton wears GOP hate as badge of honor"

Ben Smith:

Republican loathing for Hillary Clinton used to be viewed as her Achilles' heel.

But Tuesday night in Philadelphia, she wore Republican hate as a badge of honor, fending off her Democratic rivals' sharpest attacks yet by casting herself as a kind of partisan warrior queen.

Barack Obama, pressed for weeks by his donors and by the media to take on Clinton more directly, came out swinging against her, moving from uncertainty to a more confident criticism.

She parried an early blow from him, an accusation that she is too close to President Bush and his party on Iran.

"I don’t think the Republicans got the message that I’m voting and sounding like them," she told the Illinois senator.

"If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation – for a reason."

The heart of Clinton’s case was that if Republicans hate her, she must be doing something right.

"The Republicans, in their constant obsession with me, they obviously think I am communicating effectively," she said later in the debate.

But Obama came back sharper.

"Part of the reason Republicans are obsessed with you, Hillary, is I think that’s a fight they’re very comfortable having," he responded, adding that "what we don’t need is another eight years of bickering."

Skillful attacks

John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator.

After almost two hours of largely fruitless sparring with Clinton, accusing her of “double-talk,” Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.

“Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No," Clinton said.

"But do I understand the sense of real desperation of trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who is in New York, we want people to come out of the shadows."

Edwards pounced.

“Unless I missed something, Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of two minutes,” he said.

Obama said he supports the plan. An Edwards aide, Mark Kornblau, said after the debate that Edwards also supported the plan.

Keeping cool

Clinton, positioned in the middle of the stage with a row of men in suits on each side, turned to her left to listen to Edwards and her right to hear Obama.

She largely responded calmly, diminishing the policy differences between the candidates.

When Edwards tried to draw a difference between his plan to fight terror in the Middle East and hers to run combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq, she dismissed the gap as “semantic.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for his part, came to Clinton’s defense.

"You know what I’m hearing here — I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Sen. Clinton ... close to personal attacks that we don’t need," he said. "I think it’s important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans."

The debate later took a turn to the weird, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich confirming that he had seen an unidentified flying object in the company of the actress and spiritualist Shirley MacLaine.

(Immediately after the debate, Richardson offered more ammunition to UFO fanciers in an MSNBC interview: "The federal government has not come clean" on UFOs, he said.

Later, he seemed to backtrack. "I don't believe there are UFOs but the government has not handled this well over the years.")

The UFO exchange also gave Obama, finally fully relaxed, his clearest line of the night.

"What I know is there's life here on Earth, and we're not attending to life here on Earth," he said.

"Obama, Edwards Criticize Clinton"

AP:

LE MARS, Iowa — Barack Obama and John Edwards separately castigated Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for defending lobbyists and portrayed her as the consummate Washington insider with special interest ties.

"If you don't think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you've probably been in Washington too long," Obama said Monday. Added Edwards in an Associated Press interview: "Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we're not taking these peoples' money anymore because it's the way to take their power away from them, and it's the way to bring about the change that this country needs."

Among Republican hopefuls, John McCain promised to protect individual's property rights, Rudy Giuliani sidestepped a question about his daughter's apparent enthusiasm for Obama and Sam Brownback squared off with Mitt Romney over the sanctity of life.

Unencumbered now that Congress is on a monthlong break, presidential candidates from both parties descended on the leadoff contest state of Iowa, where they tested themes, rolled out proposals and maneuvered for support.

The sharpest elbows Monday came from Obama, the Illinois senator, and Edwards, the former North Carolina senator. They seized on Clinton's remarks at a weekend candidate forum in Chicago to argue she was not the candidate of change but rather a Washington creature who would maintain the status quo.

On Saturday, the New York senator drew boos and hisses from liberal bloggers when, unlike Edwards and Obama, she refused to forsake campaign donations from the special interest industry. Instead, she said: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do."

Neither Edwards nor Obama accept money directly from federal lobbyists but both take contributions from people who work at firms with lobbying operations.

"I profoundly disagree with her statements," Obama said in an Associated Press interview here. "This campaign is going to come down to whether you believe that it's enough just to get somebody other than George Bush in the White House to fix what ails Washington, or do you think we need to set a fundamentally new course."

Unveiling his trade policy at a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, union hall, Edwards argued that President Clinton allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs. Swiping at the former president's wife, Edwards said: "It's time to have a president that always _ always _ puts the interests of the American people first."

In an AP interview, Edwards argued that Washington lobbyists "rig the system" of government and candidates can take away such influence by refusing money from them. Edwards added: "This is not specifically just about Senator Clinton or anybody else, it's about restoring the power of the government back to its people."

Responding to the criticism, Clinton's campaign circulated a memo arguing that opponents were threatened by polls showing her gaining ground. Said chief strategist Mark Penn: "She is the candidate of experience and change, a combination no other candidate can match."

"Candidates venture into texting"

WaPo (via Spokesman Review):

Democrats trying to tap into growing cell phone universe

If Sen. Barack Obama is your guy, dial 62262 – which spells "Obama" – on your cellphone and text "Go." For supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, punch in 77007 and text "Join." Text "Today" to 30644 if you're a fan of former Sen. John Edwards.

A small but growing list of presidential candidates, all Democrats, are jumping on the text-messaging bandwagon. With more than three-quarters of Americans estimated to own cell phones – and more than 15 billion text messages sent within the country each month – campaigns believe it's a technology they can't afford not to exploit.

Aides for Obama, D-Ill., the latest to launch a mobile campaign, say they'll use text messaging to organize events and urge supporters to donate money. Hours before Thursday's Democratic forum at Howard University, his campaign sent this message: "Debate tonight! Watch Barack Obama."

"Your cell phone is probably the one piece of technology that is with you all the time," said Joe Rospars, Obama's new-media director. He oversees the mobile campaign, which kicked off a few days ago. "The reality is, I don't think there's a campaign or a political organization right now that has figured out how to smartly use this technology. There's going to be a lot of experimentation."

With their foray into text messaging – also known as SMS, for Short Message Service – the campaigns are taking a cue from corporations and nonprofits, large and small, that have used text messaging to get their message to an increasingly mobile population.

There are already a handful of examples of American politicians using the technology: California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., used text messaging in their re-election campaigns. But the better examples are found overseas, in presidential elections in the Philippines, South Korea and Spain.

So far the Democratic front-runners are using texting in varied ways.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the first of the candidates to launch a mobile campaign, has sent texts urging his supporters to join his Young America program (text "Summer" to 30644) and sign a petition to end the war in Iraq (text "Iraq" to 30644). Late last month, his campaign launched a fundraising drive that started off with a text message and was followed by a prerecorded phone call from Edwards himself: "Hi, this is John Edwards. Thank you for taking the time to respond to our text and listen to my message. ..."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who announced her mobile campaign in mid-May, has sent a couple of texts, one about her debate appearance and another urging supporters to vote for their favorite campaign song. Her campaign faced a little technical glitch at first. When Justin Oberman, a consultant in the field of marrying cell phones and politics, texted his ZIP code to 70077, the reply he got was the address of a community clinic. The glitch has been fixed, said Peter Daou, Clinton's Internet director.

Obama e-mailed his supporters about his mobile campaign and asked them to text "Strk" and their mailing address to get free Obama bumper stickers – another way to update and build his mailing list. In addition, Obama is offering seven ring tones (his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention mixed with a hip-hop or rock beat, for example) and four cell phone wallpapers (two Obama photos and two Obama logos). Everything's free (text "ringtone1" and "image1" to get them), though standard texting rates apply.

Supporters can send their ring tone and wallpaper ideas, and they can text questions about health care, for example, and get a response from a small group of volunteers and staffers. Within about an hour, if not a few minutes, a text such as "Iraq?" gets this response: "... Barack has been strongly against the war since 2002. Please visit www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq ... 2 learn more."

Oberman has closely followed the mobile campaigns.

"Of the three, Obama has had the smoothest release of a mobile campaign so far. You can tell that his camp has really thought it through. Edwards, I think, has been the most innovative – the 'Stop the war in Iraq' petition, the prerecorded fundraising pitch.

I'm a little disappointed with Clinton's," Oberman said. "A text-messaging campaign shouldn't be about telling me to go online and vote for a campaign song. It's about Clinton telling me to meet somewhere for a local Meetup event. It's about Clinton telling me to sign a petition. It's about something that takes into account my surroundings. Remember, my cell phone is with me everywhere, so what comes to my phone better be personal to me. Otherwise it's unnecessary."

"Racial Issues Top Debate Agenda"

AP:

The struggles of the nation's blacks, a loyal Democratic voting bloc, topped the agenda Thursday as the party's eight presidential candidates gathered for their third primary debate.

The debate at Howard University was scheduled to begin just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against public school programs aimed at achieving racial diversity, a certain topic for the event.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton said the decision turned its back on the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

"As president, I will fight to restore Brown's promise and create an education system where all children have an equal chance to learn and excel together," she said in a statement.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois called the ruling "wrong-headed."

"It is the but the latest in a string of decisions by this conservative bloc of justices that turn back the clock on decades of advancement and progress in the struggle for equality," he said.

Also scheduled to appear on stage were Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware; 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Moderating the debate is Tavis Smiley, who says he wants to steer the conversation to issues raised in his book, "The Covenant with Black America." The 90-minute event was being broadcast live on public television.

The debate is an opportunity for Obama, who got lukewarm reviews from his first two debate performances, to stand out and share a bond with the audience. But he's in a tight contest for the black vote with Clinton, who benefits from goodwill for her husband in the community.

Edwards is trying to make gains. His campaign put out a memo Thursday showing how he is addressing Smiley's 10 covenants, including health care, education, criminal justice, police accountability, housing and voting rights.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only black governor, was to make opening remarks and introduce the candidates. He has yet to endorse a candidate but many are seeking his support.

"Clinton signs up Congressman Inslee"

Joel Connelly:

Saying the nation needs a "battle tested" president who can lead a "clean energy revolution," Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., has signed with the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Inslee will serve as co-chair of Clinton's energy and environment task force, along with former Environmental Protection Administrator (and Al Gore confidante) Carol Browner.

"She understands that tectonic plates need to shift in the American economy, and that we have an opportunity to both grow the economy and develop technologies to deal with global warming," Inslee said of Clinton.
"We need a leader who talks about it in those terms -- of growth and optimism -- rather than gloom and doom. The world depends on America to develop these global technologies."
Inslee is serving his sixth term in the House. He was recently named to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a key panel in developing legislation to deal with climate change, fuel efficiencey and new technologies. Inslee, 57, is also repaying a major political favor. He was an underdog challenger against GOP Rep. Rick White in 1998, and one of the few Democratic House hopefuls to stress his opposition to Republican House leaders' bid to impreach President Clinton. Hillary Clinton came to Seattle late in the '98 campaign, speaking to a rally at the Westin and again to a big-giver Inslee fundraiser held in the glass sculpture studio of Dale Chilhuly. The money helped Inslee, and aided in a sweep that saw another GOP-held House seat fall to the Democrats.The Inslee endorsement comes on the eve of the first major Washington event of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Ex-President Bill Clinton is appearing Saturday to raise money for his wife's campaign. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards have recently campaigned in the state. Three Washington congressmen have already made early endorsements in the 2008 presidential race. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is backing Obama. Smith was chairman and organizer of Sen. John Kerry's 2004 campaign in the state. On the Republican side, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., has announced his support of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and is co-chairing a Giuliani law enforcement task force.

Inslee indicated that Clinton's experience, and her interest in global warming, were key aspects in his endorsement. "So much is at stake in this election," he said. "The last eight years have been a disaster. We can't take risks. We need a leader who is battle tested." The Bainbridge Island congressman praised Clinton for playing a "constructive" role on Iraq by proposing legislation that would remove Congress' authorization for the war. In 2002, Clinton voted and spoke for Congress' war authorization resolution.

"Clinton Owes Lead in Poll To Support From Women"

WaPo:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

Campaign advisers say they expect Obama to pick up support from all categories of voters once they get to know him better, and that could change the structure of the race. But for now, women appear to be playing an outsized role in shaping it and could tip the scale toward the winner.

In 2004, women made up a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, including between 54 and 59 percent in the early-voting states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

"Women are a significant proportionate share of the Democratic primary electorate in most of these states, and women are disproportionately in favor of Hillary Clinton," said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic pollster who is not affiliated with any presidential campaign.

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, however, the general election may be a different story. In a Post-ABC News poll conducted in April, 43 percent of female independents said they definitely will not vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, compared with 29 percent who said the same about Obama.

In the meantime, Obama and Edwards see potential openings among female Democrats.

Betsy Myers, the chief operating officer of the Obama campaign, who served as director of women's initiatives and outreach in Bill Clinton's administration, said she expects women to see the appeal of a candidate who takes a new approach to politics.

"Women are tired of the polarization of politics, and Barack is such a uniter," she said. Women, she said, "are tired of people not getting along."

Unwilling to cede any part of the female vote to Clinton, Obama has launched a "women for Obama" campaign and is heralding "Obama moms," and Edwards has released a long list of female supporters in Iowa and elsewhere.

"The excitement of Hillary's candidacy, the historic nature of it, is capturing the attention of women -- there's no question about that," said Kate Michelman, an abortion rights advocate who is leading Edwards's effort to attract women to his campaign. But, Michelman said, "eventually, gender will recede a bit from the foreground. It will recede a bit in its singular, driving importance. And women will be looking at the values, the views, the competence, the electability of a candidate."

Harrison Hickman, a pollster for Edwards, said he believes there is potential for Clinton's early bond with these voters to falter. "When you talk to women in more detail, they express doubts," Hickman said. Only when rival campaigns start trying to exploit those doubts, and when Clinton's camp starts addressing them, will the polls start to paint a more meaningful portrait of the race, he said.

According to the most recent Post-ABC national poll, taken between May 29 and June 1, women 18 to 44 years old are more likely to see Clinton as the most inspiring of the candidates. Clinton drew support from 61 percent of women who had at most a high school degree, compared with 18 percent for Obama. By contrast, female college graduates were more evenly split: 38 percent said they preferred Clinton, and 34 percent backed Obama. (Twelve percent said they supported Edwards.)

A large gap also appeared on the question of which candidate seemed the most honest and trustworthy: Clinton was considered most honest by 42 percent of women who had only a high school education, compared with 16 percent for Obama. But only 19 percent of college-educated women said Clinton is the most honest; 50 percent chose Obama.

"She ran the country for eight years, so I feel like she could do it again," said Juanita Anders, 71, a registered Democrat who lives in a rural area near Springfield, Ohio, and participated in the Post-ABC poll. Anders, who is a high school graduate with a bit of college education, said that she would "very much" like to see a female president and that, as a result, she has barely given Obama a second thought. She described her support for Clinton as "definite."

Clinton is pursuing multiple tracks in hopes of widening the gender gap. She recently banked endorsements from key women's political organizations, including Emily's List and the National Organization for Women. She has launched a women's finance committee to recruit female -- and, her campaign hopes, first-time -- donors. She held women-specific events -- a breakfast in New York, a club party in Washington -- last week and announced that Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, will serve as a national co-chairman of her campaign.

A video on her campaign Web site titled "Ready for Change" shows testimonials from female leaders and other women, interspersed with shots of crowds waving "Women for Hillary" signs.

One goal for the Clinton team: pulling in women as first-time political donors. At a recent meeting of members of the Clinton finance team, Susie Tompkins Buell, a Clinton fundraiser and California executive, shared the results of a report by the Women's Campaign Forum, a nonprofit organization with ties to Clinton.

The group found that women have accounted for less than a third of individual "hard money" contributions to political candidates but make up a huge untapped source for future donations.