Going solely on past performance and recent polls, “Johnny Sunshine” is relegated to first place in IA right now. And announcing in New Orleans is a stroke of genius.

The most important point you raise is the date. Right now, it’s all about organizing, and little else matters.

Multi-candidate fields mean nothing to front-runners and the instant they announce it’s HRC and BHO and everyone else. I think even Johnny Sunshine gets relegated to pretty low on the totem pole against those two. But it’s December 2006, not December 2007.

Much remains to be seen.

This, however, is where I differ on Obama’s susceptibility to the same treatment:

1) it is a multi-candidate primary, and while I don’t discount the potential of the Clinton crowd to deal in spite, I really don’t think they’re in the business of delivering the nomination to John Edwards, who at this point has to be considered the favorite in IA. It simply isn’t an ends that justifies their means. Now if their data shows they can knock Obama out early to set up a one-on-one with Edwards, then the story changes. But based on what is now known, there just isn’t enough there there (this lends credence to your idea to nip it in the bud now).

1a) it’s a multi-candidate field. Gephardt’s calculation that he had to knock off Dean and Dean’s response assured both would lose and left Kerry, by then the organizational guy, to win and left Edwards literally unabated to woo rural voters, deal with Kucinich, and pick off unviable caucus-goers and make the biggest splash of the night. Now Gephardt is a special case, as IA was a must-win for him. But given the Black guy v Southern guy dynamics of SC, and the labor politics of NV, IA and NH are pretty important for HRC too.

2) Primary voters are a self-selecting group – this goes double for Caucus-attendees. A scorched-earth campaign that might deliver victory in a general election, when many voters are getting 100 percent of their knowledge of a candidate from paid media won’t have quite the same effect. And while people have been holding Obama up as above politics, I believe these voters are more apt to punish Hilary for her sins in office than Obama for what is at present an isolated incident of a politician being a politician.

In short (ha-ha), I just don’t know if I believe such a campaign against Obama would have the efficacy it had against Topinka (or Gore – who I believe could be the real wild card, but that’s another topic for another day, or Kerry).

I think Hillary is a lot weaker with the base than anyone thinks, but the thing she can do is usher in John Edwards or just run a scorched earth campaign.

It seems ludicrous to me that Clinton would ever run against someone as ethically challenged on a land deal. Hence, it’s genius. Too many operatives will dismiss it and then be slow to respond.

The way to avoid the problem is full disclosure up front and a whole bunch of nastiness in waiting for when she does try to use it. First, make sure the press is inoculated from the story and then be ready to hit back hard in paid media when it hits.

I did marginally misunderstand (rather than attempt to intentionally malign) your point, and to a certain extent I can agree with that. The relentless offense is very Clintonian. But I would still contend that Bill Clinton’s team fired the arrows, while Bill himself delivered faith, optimism, etc.

Hilary’s team may fire flaming arrows, but believing in a place called Park Ridge doesn’t have the same aura.

Obama may not have the monopoly on optimism, but that message, along with his “rock star” status, and the fact that it is a multi-candidate field, makes the math a lot different.

The comparison is hardly apt, and Rich does himself a disservice to put any weight behind it. Topinka was a Republican running in a big Dem year whose act never caught on outside of the hair salons and dumpling joints in Riverside. She was constantly caught with her foot in her mouth, and when she fought against it, she swayed from petulent to angry to flip. And perhaps most importantly, she offered no solutions, only complaints.

She never offered optimism, giving voters instead an easy target to dislike from the get go.

Besides, the Clintons can count. A pissing contest betwen Clinton and Obama in IA will benefit one person. John Edwards.

And Sheila Simon won’t hold much weight in Iowa or NH. Nor will Durbin for that matter. But BC will — and he’ll be working just as hard for HRC as he did in two New York Senate races.

I’m not too familiar with Axelrod attack ads. Has he done any? His bio and character ads are impressively emotive; they evoke a positive response from the watcher. But can he pull that off while playing defense and offense? (And is Axelrod even going to be with Obama? Didn’t he work on Edwards’ 04 prez campaign simultaneous to Obama’s Senate race?)

I’d love to see Bill Hillsman working on a big-name presidential race. He’s adept at concepting both character ads and attack ads. (I still love watching and listening to Wellstone’s old ads — chiefly “Looking for Rudy” and “Fast-Paced Paul” for TV and “Names” for radio. And no, I don’t work for Hillsman — don’t even know the guy, just know and admire his work.)