The Pollster
Clinton Lead in Pa. Dwindles
By Jon Cohen
Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania lead has dwindled to six points, according to a new statewide survey of likely Democratic primary voters.
With two weeks to go until the crucial April 22 primary, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds 50 percent of likely voters supporting Clinton and 44 percent backing Barack Obama. Three weeks ago, Clinton was 12 points ahead of Barack Obama in the poll; in late March it was nine points.
Clinton's lead, however, may be stronger than the apparent movement suggests. Support for the New York senator has been steady in the 49 to 53 percent range in each of Quinnipiac's polls since Super Tuesday. Almost all of the changes have come from varying percentages of Obama voters.
Since mid-March, Obama has narrowed Clinton's advantage among women, white voters and economy voters, and made strides in the central and southeastern parts of the state. Among women, Clinton's 13-point lead is down from 24 points, and her 15-point edge among those prioritizing the economy is now just four points.
Nevertheless, as many Pennsylvania voters now rate Clinton favorably (71 percent) as said so when her lead was twice the size. And Obama's positive rating is up slightly over the period, to 67 percent.
Also of note in this season of highly variable pre-election polls is that while the Quinnipiac poll is one of the most reliable covering Pennsylvania, the data should not be read as a prediction two weeks out (no poll should). All pollsters conducting interviews until the eve of elections this year have stumbled, with many mischaracterizing the momentum of particular candidates.
Posted at 2:35 PM ET on Apr 8, 2008
| Category:
The Pollster
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: Fred L. | April 10, 2008 10:39 AM
I'm sorry BD, my last post about the "gutter ball" should have gone to "farfalle" not you!
Posted by: Briskwood | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM
(To BD) Just a thought! If you'd have watched Ellen last week, you'd have seen Hillary bowl a "gutter ball" also!
Posted by: Briskwood | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM
To JakeD and others who want to know how many Black voters will vote for Hillary if she "steals the nomination":
It is hard to say because we have to consider that 1) Hillary insulted the Black community during her campaign via comments made by Bill and her supporters (including ones in these threads), 2) we are aware that we could remain in Iraq indefinitely if McCain was elected, 3) the Clintons are fodder for the Republican machine and probably have a lot of ammo to attack them is she is the nominee and 4) Black people are sick of racist tactics whether they are employed by Republicans or Democrats.
I would consider voting for Hillary to get our soldiers out of Iraq once we rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during our invasion but I am not sure she would.
Posted by: wetheridge | April 9, 2008 2:43 PM
Her and Bill beat the crap out of the VRWC twice.
How about that one.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 12:05 AM
Whats VRWC?
Posted by: gs | April 9, 2008 8:39 AM
To treetopflyer | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
I appreciate your response. You are one of the few posters writing logically and intelligently. Most people have a problem with the Wright issue. Unfortunately, people who did not want to vote for Obama because he is black and Wright gave them an excuse not to. Kind of like reverse racism. At least you are considering the issues pro and con before making your decision.
Posted by: GWS | April 9, 2008 8:37 AM
Will someone from the Hillary camp please tell me what you see in her....I'm not a fan of any of the candidates - but I'm dumbfounded how one can support an individual that has been countlessly caught lying..
Posted by: John | April 8, 2008 4:45 PM
I wonder that too. I am dying to hear this.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Her and Bill beat the crap out of the VRWC twice.
How about that one.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 12:05 AM
I guess the government intervention I would like to see
is the enmasse arrest of the Whitehouse crewe and the suspension of payments
to
Halliburton
KBR
DynCorp
Blackwater
Bechtel
Carlyle Group
and their subsidiaries until the gomers aka "pigs with their snouts in the trough of public funds" aka friends and family members of the bush and associates
are financially seperated from those companies and the books have been examined.
I would also like to know if the flow meters taking out of IRAQI OIL PIPELINES by Paul Bremer have been replaced or if
bush and friends are draining IRAQI OIL w/o keeping records of it and passing it off as SAUDI OIL ????? or KUWATI OIL ???
where are the records ???
where are the papers that Saddam was keeping when he was captured that were immediately classified that showed collusion with George H.W. Bush and Donald Rumsefeld....that would get them shot ???
I am all for a shooting, a public execution of some Whitehouse officials tha thave been found guilty of treason and dispatched
for our viewing pleasure.....can I get an amen?
.
Posted by: your best friend.... | April 8, 2008 11:54 PM
GEORGE OPENS HIS MOUTHS AND SAYZ......
___________PUT IT IN________________
GEORGE BUSH ON HIS KNEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE GIVING AND GETTING BJ's from $200/hr PROSTITUTE ????
George Bush and this man James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) - a $200/hour gay male prostitute? (See Monday's expose by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org)
Sooner or later, Washington will have to ask: Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?
On January 26, George W. Bush called on Guckert/Gannon at one of Bush's rare press conferences, "bypassing dozens of far more experienced reporters" according to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher.
I guess that depends on the meaning of "experienced."
This was not Guckert/Gannon's first time near Bush. Guckert/Gannon was at other Bush press conferences and was called on by Bush once before. Moreover, Guckert/Gannon went to the White House nearly every day for nearly 2 years. Each time he went, he got specific permission from Scott McClellan's White House Press Office. And Guckert/Gannon went to Bush's White House Christmas Party.
How did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get near George W. Bush nearly every day for 2 years?
Don't tell me the Secret Service didn't know Guckert/Gannon's background. It took amateur bloggers at DailyKos about 5 minutes to find out Gannon owned male prostitution websites, and just two weeks for Aravosis to find out he was a $200/hour PROSTITUTE !!!!! I guarantee Scott McClellan and other top White House officials knew exactly who Guckert/Gannon was. According to RawStory.com, McClellan himself has been spotted at gay bars.
So how will the American people learn the sordid truth about Bush, the White House, and Guckert?
The Lying Right-Wing Media (LRWM) won't ask the question. According to those brave News Hounds who watch FOX so we won't have to, Gannon/Guckert's name has never even been mentioned on FOX. Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on FOX if this had happened in the CLINTON White House!
But we'll ask it - and we'll keep asking it until we get the truth.
Did George W. Bush - and/or other top White House officials - have sexual relations with that man, James Guckert?
Lest you think this is an absurd question, I'll refer you to the widespread rumors that Bush had a long-term sexual relationship with his Ambassador to Poland ("don't forget Poland!"), former Yale classmate and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe. As with every other Bush scandal (AWOL, Bulgegate, Harken Energy, etc.), the Victor Ashe scandal has been blacked out by the LRWM.
I'll also refer you to widespread rumors that GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. Why has DNC chair Howard Dean been put under a microscope by the LRWM, but not RNC chair Ken Mehlman? Surely a party which used homophobia to "win" the 2004 elections should explain how it could tolerate a gay chairman at the same time as it militantly opposes gay rights?
Finally, I'll refer you to the "call boys" scandal of the Reagan-Bush White House, which made the front page of the Washington Times in 1989. (Thanks Necco!)
Last week, we posted a petition for a Special Prosecutor for "Jeff Gannon." (So far, we've collected nearly 8,000 signatures - please sign it if you haven't yet.) Reps. Louise Slaughter and John Conyers asked Plame-gate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include Guckert/Gannon's access to secret CIA documents about Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has subpoena powers, so he'd have no trouble tracking down Guckert/Gannon's clients from his pager records.
Guckert/Gannon is at the center of what may be the biggest sex/spy scandal in American history.
Sooner or later, the truth shall set America free.
LET's SEE WHAT FELON REPUBLICANS SAY ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH giving BJ's to JEFF GANNON....
any thoughts ?
Posted by: let's do the right thing... | April 8, 2008 11:44 PM
And you Obama supporters don't think he lies and you don't think he has bought off these old geezer senators with government jobs! Get serious. He is about as corrupt as the day is long. Fortunately, Hillary will prevail despite the media. You can go to the bank on it!
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 8, 2008 11:39 PM
THe Clintons lie, lie, lie (probably the subject of the Beatles' song, or it is the Clintons' theme song).
Posted by: meldupree | April 8, 2008 11:12 PM
the Clintons: lying to America from DAY ONE!
Posted by: meldupree | April 8, 2008 11:09 PM
At this rate it looks like I'm going to end up writing in Stephen TYRONE Colbert for President. Yikes.
Posted by: Too bad | April 8, 2008 11:05 PM
Anyone in the mood for a laugh? I promise, it's non-partisan
Posted by: shockedAndAwed | April 8, 2008 10:55 PM
If Hillary would try to be truthful she would do much better nobody trush a liar and every week shes caught in another lie.
Posted by: sharon | April 8, 2008 10:30 PM
Even America signed various FTAs,The Clinton's still will make big bucks.
Yes,Actually,they don't need any job,their fame world wide help their mouth worthy 1 billion dollors.
Posted by: jeff Xiao | April 8, 2008 10:29 PM
Please know that I will never, ever vote for Barack Hussein Obama, Jeremiah Wright Jr., or Michelle "the first time proud" Obama, for anything!
Hillary 08!
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 10:26 PM
I see some idiot hijacked my screen-name to place support for Hillary. jaked and all other Clintonistas, please know that I will never, ever support Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton for anything!
OBAMA 08!
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 10:19 PM
remenber . the family
Posted by: cesarver | April 8, 2008 10:18 PM
Nixon was a good bowler.....
Posted by: Skins Fan in Maine | April 8, 2008 10:16 PM
remenber . the family
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 10:15 PM
I think it is amazing how quickly Obama has cut the lead campaigning against Bill and Hillary.
Posted by: mm | April 8, 2008 10:11 PM
Jacksmith - you ARE an idiot.
Posted by: Mrs, Jack Smith | April 8, 2008 10:07 PM
Do you Obama supporters really not know that BO is misleading you completely when he says he isn't influenced by lobbyists?! Ok, let me explain a little something to you....Obama takes money from "friends" of lobbyists, "firms" that hire lobbyists, has former "registered" lobbyists working on his campaign, takes money from "employees" of the oil and gas industry, has paid the superdelegates more to date than Hillary, has taken more from the drug co.'s to date than Hillary..Why don't you all please check Factcheck.org once in awhile.
Hillary exaggerated the Bosnia story, but if you read her book, there's no exaggeration at all. Also, if you read the entire Bosnia story, you'll find that the trip was indeed a historical one. She was the first first lady to land in a war zone since E. Rooselvelt. There really was sniper fire in the surrounding hills, and there were helicopters patrolling the area. She and Chelsea really were moved to the armored cockpit and issued flak jackets, but yes, there was an exaggeration. If you aren't going to vote for a candidate who exaggerates, I guess you won't be voting at all !!!
The hospital story has now been substantiated by the aunt who says Hillary told the truth. D. Gergen says Hillary told the truth about her Nafta stance. Wesley Clark, and many other military personnel corroborate Hillary's foreign policy experience.
Obama speaks of being a unifier..Well, I wonder why he wasn't interested in working across party lines while in the US Senate, commented C. Roberts. Hillary, she says, demonstrated the ability to do this very well. See..if you listen to people who actually "know" Hillary, they speak of her being of high morals, discipline, knows policy extensively, works her heart out, has a passion to see a commitment to fruition. Now, on the other hand, if you let the mainstream media tell you how to think, that's another story altogether.
Hillary is a good person, one who is complicated, which explains why she is so misunderstood. She is not a liar. She does play too much defense at times, but just imagine if you had been microscopically scrutinized for years ad nauseum more than any other political couple, wouldn't you be a bit defensive too?
I'm glad the Clinton's finally make tons of money. They're intelligent and they work their hearts out. They pay more in taxes and give more to charity than most in their tax bracket. Obama gave 3% in charity.
Did you take the Obama IQ quiz and find out about him almost coming to blows with an IL Senator because Obama mistakenly hit the wrong button, and voted for budget cuts that eliminated a child welfare office from the colleague's district. He also earned the reputation of "gutless" and "absent" while there because he always seemed to be gone when time to make the tough votes. Oh, boy, the Republicans love weak Democrats.
Well..there's so much more..but I'm tired.
Posted by: KMB08 | April 8, 2008 9:38 PM
The man in black-
The majority of Obama's money comes from bundled donations = lobbyist money.
All three candidates are soiled with corporate money. Obama is no different. PAC and lobbyist donations are capped and amount to little or nothing since McCain/Fiengold.
Leon
Posted by: NYC Leon | April 8, 2008 9:34 PM
Hillary has by far the highest negativity ratings of the remaining 3 candidates. For some reason over 50% of the nation have a very unfavorable view of Hillary, and that is putting it mildly for how many feel about her. She represents the same corruption and self dealing in Washington DC we are all disgusted with. The sooner we can get rid of her, and the sooner she catches on, the better off we will all be.
Posted by: bastanow | April 8, 2008 9:30 PM
These poll number don't mean much to Hillary, she has got her strategy all mapped out. It's the Politburo stupid !!
Back in USSR it was the Politburo who picked the candidates and that is what Hillary would like to have the Superdelgates do.
Posted by: Democracy Now !! | April 8, 2008 9:28 PM
You people in media are sickening. There was also a poll by C-SPAN in California that showed Obama was ahead by six points just before Super Tuesday as well.
Posted by: Kevin | April 8, 2008 9:23 PM
The writer seemed to twist the figures with caveats until the figures meant almost
nothing. But that is not the case. Trends that persist mean something.
The Hillary people phone and rant about the meaning of numbers every time a poll is published?
Yup.
Posted by: Coursery | April 8, 2008 9:11 PM
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 9:04 PM
As an Obama supporter, I worry about those other Obama supporters who say that they will not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. President McCain??? Are you nuts??? Because he is.
Posted by: lydgate | April 8, 2008 8:51 PM
We all need to email the Super-
Delegates and tell them that
we WILL un-seat them if they
vote for Obama.
Obama = Lobbyist Pig
Posted by: Supporter of People of America | April 8, 2008 8:47 PM
We all need to email the Super-
Delegates and tell them that
we WILL un-seat them if they
vote for Obama.
Obama = Lobbyist Pig
Posted by: Supporter of People of America | April 8, 2008 8:46 PM
America has been so focused on Iraq that we seem to ignore the rest of the world.
South America is divided into three political camps: Neutral, Pro-America and Pro-Chavez. Colombia is the only country down there that is Pro-American.
This is why it is so incredibly stupid for Obama and Clinton to be against the only Pro-American country down there, just so they can please the Pennsylvania unions at election time. Shame on both of them - they are pro-Chavez idiots and the worst kind of pandering opportunists!
Posted by: alance | April 8, 2008 8:38 PM
Preview your Comment
After reading some of the comments here i can't help but lmao. Oblama supporters actually try to give him credit for a speech on race. One that showed no courage or leadership or strength just Political Necessity. I for one viewed his speech as Nothing but a political run for cover from his TRUE feelings on race relations. H e has run a campaign full of racism an sexism from J.Jackson Jr., Axelrod, Rev Wright.
OBLAMAS CAMPAIGN PLAYED THE RACE CARD. DON'T YOU REMEMBER? LET ME REMIND YOU.
1. Senator (Punjab) Memo
2. after N.H. J. Jackson Jr. ( Oblamas Nat. Campaign Co-Chair) on MSNBC " I DON'T REMEMBER HER CRYING AFTER KATRINA" (Code for she doesn't like or care about BLACK PEOPLE "
3. TWO days after Bills "Fairy Tale" Comment Michele Oblama Spaeking in a BLACK Church in S.C. Says " He called baracks entire campaign a FAIRY TALE. WELL LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING THIS CAMPAIGN AIN'T NO FAIRY TALE"
4. In the Nevada Debate Tim Russert ASKED OBLAMA " In the spirit of reconciliation do you REGRET YOUR CAMPAIGN DRIVING THIS STORY LINE?" His Answer " YES I DO! NOT ONLY IN HINDSIGHT BUT GOING FORWARD AS WELL."
NOW IF HE DIDN'T DO IT WHY SAY THAT HE DID.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rW1XR7eXPUM
At about 9 min in.
Posted by: Pete Rosa | April 8, 2008 8:29 PM
if everyone is to vote by their belief, instinct or conscience, i think Obama will come out victor. howevr, the race and religion factor seemd to conceal the temperament of this man. he is truly one that can unite all races, religions and humanity.
Go Barack Go!
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 8:23 PM
Operation Chaos will make sure our little Hillary wins in Pennsylvania....Don't worry Hillary---we got your back!!
Posted by: charko825 | April 8, 2008 8:18 PM
Yeah right, wash post, we know for the hundredth time, you are in the tank of Obama.
04/05 - 04/07 Survey USA poll
Hillary: 56%
Obama: 38%
That's a new poll came out today that has Hillary up by 18 points.
Obama's only thread hope is screwing millions in Florida and Michigan. And that strategy is a sure defeat in November.
Obama needs to face the music and quit the race now.
Posted by: John in Northern VA | April 8, 2008 8:17 PM
Clinton cannot catch Obama in delegates. To get close to competitive with Obama, Clinton needs to get 56%+ of the vote in each and every remaining primary.
Even if the party decides to award Florida and Michigan according to their results, Clinton will still need to get 53%+ of the vote in each and every remaining primary.
Clinton simply cannot pull down these big numbers in the remaining primaries.
Clinton is holding on in hopes that Obama implodes between now and the last primary. If he doesn't implode, then she will try to sway the super-delegates to support her.
Mathematically, a Clinton win through the election process is impossible. However, Clinton will not leave the race until the last super-delegate gives her an emphatic "no" to her nomination.
Posted by: C. G. of Houston, TX | April 8, 2008 8:11 PM
Maria,
When JakeD said my mother sounds like a nice lady, it made my skin crawl. I was just trying to show what Barack is fighting against in PA. I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with her reasoning.
Posted by: bill | April 8, 2008 8:02 PM
appalachian blue:
If this goes all the way to Denver, my guess would be "the day AFTER" too ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 8:02 PM
hillary's supporters remain strong but there is a growing sense of independents
moving around...and not making a final call
...its disturbing..and i'm a hillary supporter
she needs to get the message of her policy
issues and her softer image
out inside of pa...
and its just amazing how much the media has influenced the average voter in pa...
in western pa...
if you care about hillary's campaign
and her ablility to deliver pa
and if you are near pa or can get there
better make plans right now and head for western pa and the pitts area region and get busy with GOTV
getting out the vote
please its really really important and the need is serious
she is undoubtedly THE most qualified dem to lead this nation and she has ALL the ORIGIANAL ideas and programs and has the strength to do it ...and
she is a known entity...the rnc will destroy obama the day AFTER the nomination ....
literally...or they may just play like a cat with a ball of yarn for a while
Posted by: appalachian blue | April 8, 2008 8:00 PM
Reading reasonable posts, I am proud.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:51 PM
We are mad as hell, and not going to take anymore....
Posted by: max | April 8, 2008 7:49 PM
I thought it was weird myself...
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:49 PM
My brother, gbooksdc!!!
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:48 PM
Seriously, though, what matters in the context of these comments is not who you are or what you are but the soundness of your ideas. Once, argument was a search to divine the truth, to reach consensus on what is in fact true. Now, it's just a means to pass the time. Methinks if the debate was, does 2+2=4?, 45% would (a) argue it does not (b) reject any set of facts proving same and (c) ascribe inadequate intelligence and low morals to those members of the opposing side (while giving cyber fist-bumps to fellow non-believers). We really shouldn't choose our leaders with the same amount of deliberation that goes into your average sports talk phone call (though that would explain the last few elections).
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:47 PM
Perhaps, Maria, you should take your Prozac and calm down.
Support who you want, don't but presume that I am desperate because I support Clinton. I assure you I'm not. I'm well aware that her chances are bleak, but like your guy says, I can always hope.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:46 PM
Hill Yeah!:
Have a good evening as well (although I am registered Independent, not GOP ; )
Maria:
You'll excuse me for ignoring "personal attacks" from you, I hope.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:44 PM
"Idiots" are people who post things like this:
"Your mother sounds like a nice lady -- did you know that his middle name was Hussein -- if not, you should thank her for giving you little known information."
Seriously, WTF is that about? Maybe Jake needs to explain why this WELL known "information" would mean anything to anyone?
OH MY GOSH, "Hussein" is sooo scary. Please.
Perhaps "Hill Yeah!" needs to understand that when you align yourself with Rush Limbaugh fans like JakeD in an effort to make the case for Clinton you start to look desperate.
Posted by: Maria | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Oh, no! PA is going into an Obama coma! Democrats better wakeup and realize he will not win in November. It is either Hillary or President McCain. And the polls I saw today show it. Obama brings no vision or experience to the table. His interview last week was pathetic. This Edwards supporter finds Hillary bright, wise, visionary and tough. She's ready to do the job and will be the hardest working president in history. Heard this week from reliable sources that Hillary will prevail in the end. She is the only hope for the Democratic Party right now!
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
JakeD --
My brother!
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Whatever, JakeD, in the end you are still a Republican who has to somehow denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's how ya'll roll, Jake. Have a good evening. I'm outta here!
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
I approved of the above message. I just forgot to sign it...
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:39 PM
gbooksdc:
How did she "trash Wright". All she said was "he wouldn't have been my pastor", when asked how she felt about his remarks.
I guess you think her MLK/LBJ remark was racist too?
How about Bill's "fairytale" comment?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:00 PM
__________________________________________
You're being glib. She knew how her comments would be received, just like she knew what her comments vis-a-vis LBJ and MLK would be taken by whites and blacks. (Although I will give Bill a pass for the fairytale bit, since in context, it was a fair statement, though I think he DID know what the soundbite would be before he uttered it.)
She attacked a prominent member of the black clergy. She sided with those who demonized him for his remarks (and whatever happened to freedom of expression, for God's sake? Why are you charged with approving of someone whom you are merely listening to? I've read Hitler's speeches, I listen to speakers of every differing POV I can get to -- long as they're not boring. Challenge MY ideas, that's the only way I'll know they're valid. I digress.) and she did it to deflect attention from her lies regarding sniper fire. She will not be welcome in many, many black churches, and she will be booed by some in churches in which she does appear. Do you think her MLK speeches were by accident? No, it's to repair some of the bridges burned by her repudiation of Wright. One way to tell a bigot: they tell you how much they admired a black man who's conveniently dead (Richard Cohen, how are you!).
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:39 PM
To Hillary and her well-meaning supporters:
Sorry, but your candidate is a puppet for the corporate goons and wall street thieves. Shame on her and her dumass husband, Mr. Had-to-ruin-it-for-everyone-by--weakening-Gore-because-I-have-always-gotten-away-with-it-screwing-around Bill Clinton
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:38 PM
Hill Yeah!
No need to bother -- I hope that many more women refuse to vote as you predict -- but, your "demand" (or "Call for Unity") to Obama was clear as a bell.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:36 PM
CAMERA ZOOMS IN.... (on Michelle Obama)
ARRRGGHHHHHHHHH
Posted by: GS | April 8, 2008 7:34 PM
Hillary supporters are just afraid of a black president! Silent racism in the heart of the democratic party
Obama or who care
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
gbooksdc:
Thank you for your response -- that's exactly how I see it going down -- for all you know, however, I am black too ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
We have already experienced nearly 20 years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush Era. Adding yet another 8 years of corporations,lobbyists, and the wealthy calling the shots in Washington will not help the middle class of America. There have been many powerful white men and white women living in the White House. Time has come for something new, something unbeholding to the rich and powerful. The fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence and of Dr. King's Dream. It is time for President Obama.
Posted by: A.Lincoln | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
I can imagine seeing Obama in the White House... (camera pans left)
But the very glimpse of Michelle Obama is indeed scary!
Posted by: GS | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
I'm not going to bother, JakeD. I hope you're not implying that I'm a racist just because I've pointed out the obvious. Like I said, we must wait to see how much damage Wright has done to Obama.
Also, this isn't only about black folks not voting for Hillary. Many, many women will never vote for Obama. I'd go so far as to say probably many more than there are black voters.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
I can just see you in a couple months: "The Denver police had no choice but to keep order and prevent violence from these extremists!!"
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
Operation Chaos will give Clinton the points she needs...
Posted by: Dwight | April 8, 2008 7:30 PM
To Hillary supporters I say when did you exactly sold your soul to the corporations?
Clinton in bed with Military Industrial Complex
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:29 PM
JakeD:
FWIW, I'm black. And my take is many stay home, those that show up vote for Hillary. (Keep in mind that, since blacks died to obtain voting rights, black people like to think they have a sacred duty to vote.)
Blacks like to think Republicans are racist (although the few GOP PA whites I know are all crossing over to vote for Obama, and not out of any underhanded motives). Matter of fact, in my experience white Republicans, as opposed to white Dems, are often much more fair-minded, no matter how politically conservative they may be. White Dems often have the arrogance of presuming they know best for blacks (e.g., svreader supposedly marching with King, then expressing regrets because blacks didn't "deserve" it).
These comment boards over the past few weeks should put the "white Dems aren't racist" myth to death. They're as racist as white Repubs, no more, no less.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:28 PM
Have you read "Letter from Birmingham Jail" yet? That offers a much more eloquent answer than I can muster.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:27 PM
I sound like 8 white Alabama clergymen? Why?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:26 PM
Well Maria,
How nice and Obamalike of you to just show up here and call us all idiots. Why don't you have a nice day:)
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:24 PM
Hill Yeah!:
Many first time participants / Obama supporters will feel put out if she's the nominee (I think one, above, used a "skunk" analogy). You have to realize that's not Barack HUSSEIN Obama's fault. I'm sorry, but you sound too much like those 8 white Alamaba clergymen.
maria:
I am not "afraid" of a candidate with that middle name either. So, who are you calling an "idiot" madam?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:24 PM
JakeD, you sound more like a member of the Xenophobic Redneck High School Drop-out Party.
I love how all the insane Repubicans and Hillary fans here just ignored the eloquent comments Iraq War Vet Paul Hernandez made in his support of Senator Obama.
Here is someone who put his life on the line in Bush's War and he is not "afraid" of a candidate with Hussein as his middle name.
Grow up, idiots.
Posted by: maria | April 8, 2008 7:20 PM
JakeD,
I don't see how she would be "stealing" the nomination if the DNC and superdelegates decide, based on the outcome of the remaining contests, that Obama has been too damaged by the Wright story to compete in the general. Why would they put a candidate up that they know is unelectable?
If this happened, he is the only one who could soothe ruffled feathers, by admitting the inevitable and asking his supporters to back Clinton.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:19 PM
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:15 PM
Bottom line, Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 16% on election day. Obama will also lose Indiana by 8%. North Carolina is still toss-up for Obama. He has secured as usual 3/4 of black votes but white votes are still-up-for grab in North Carolina. Even At this late stage, substantial voters are still undecided in North Carolina which is definitely not good news for Obama. Late voters are favorable to Clinton than Obama in many primaries.
We have not seen any Bradley effect on all these election results to date, except one primary state. Will we see Wright-wrong effect in coming three primaries? Stay tuned!
Posted by: YesWeCanForFree | April 8, 2008 7:14 PM
That Letter was a response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen on April 12, 1963 titled "A Call For Unity". They agreed that social injustices existed but expressed the belief that the battle against racial segregation should be fought solely in the courts and not taken to the streets. King responded that, without forceful, direct actions such as his, true civil rights could never be achieved. As he put it, "This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'" He asserted not only that civil disobedience is justified in the face of unjust laws, but also that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
The letter also includes the frequently quoted statement that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," as well as the words of Thurgood Marshall quoted by King: "[J]ustice too long delayed is justice denied."
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!!!
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:13 PM
I think what's most important, is that we have more people whom would turnout for this important process period. Both candidates have a certain amount of people whom refuse to vote for either of them. Race is of absolutely no value to me. I just need to know how many PEOPLE (period) did or did not agree with either candidate. If more people choose to be progressive, then I know there was a larger group (diverse of course) whom chose to move forward. That is my primary concern.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:11 PM
Hill Yeah!:
Why would it be up to HIM to "assuage" anyone upset by YOUR candidate stealing the nomination? Perhaps you need to read MLK Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail"?
Obama2008:
I heard you the first time. You don't mind if I continue the discussion with someone who will discuss it, right?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:11 PM
JakeD:
I hate to participate in the divisive ideal of racism. It is already known that there are African Americans whom very well support Hillary, as there are those supporting Obama. It is no different than any other "group." I simply don't see any importance to that information. There are various groups of people whom would be upset IF Hillary "steals" the nomination.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:08 PM
JakeD,
We just need to all calm down and let the rest of the states vote. No one has voted since the Rev Wright issue came about. If it turns out that it has damaged his chances, he cannot be the nominee no matter how many votes he's gotten so far. In that case, it will be up to him to assuage the anger of black people.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:07 PM
Hey, to the angry black person who left the long post without a name. Are you blaming Hillary Clinton for Reverend Wright? How stupidly absurd! Your post is also full of racist inuendos.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:04 PM
Hill Yeah!:
Don't you realize that there will be SOME point in time where she cannot gain the nomination without completely turning off too many Obama supporters she needs to win in November?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:04 PM
Can't wait to take down McCain the straw man! Too bad its not Bush!
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 7:01 PM
gbooksdc:
How did she "trash Wright". All she said was "he wouldn't have been my pastor", when asked how she felt about his remarks.
I guess you think her MLK/LBJ remark was racist too?
How about Bill's "fairytale" comment?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:00 PM
Will ANY African-American Obama supporter please answer my question?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM
gbooksdc:
Unfortunately, Obama08 declined to answer my question ...
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:58 PM
Anonymous at 6:53 PM:
That's exactly my point above. How many African-American Obama supporters will vote for her in November after she steals the nomination?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:56 PM
Thevail,
What is your point about the Columbia Trade Agreement? He said "if the right formula is reached". Even Nancy Pelosi has said it could be passed if it had the proper protections for American workers, labor and the environment.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Elisabeth:
Trust me. The war is one of my most important issues with this country. I've been following Obama with this key issue.
Send me the information you have, and I'll look up clips of multiple debates where he and Hillary discussed their foreign ideals and on the war, as well as send you a link to see where he stands. I've watched him debate, and even outside of debates talking to the people, I keep hearing consistent. So again, it seems we may have a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Give me a link of your evidence. I'm trying to find it so that I may review and make my own judgment. I have to have facts.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Condi Rice...qualified woman...have you ever seen her testify before Congress. Wasn't it her watch as NSA that 911 occurred. Man, she has F'd up time and time again...with lies, distortions, and plain inexperience in her position. She has never stood out or shown any unique skills. That's all you've got?
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Obama2008:
How many African-Americans do you think will vote for her, though, if she manages to steal the nomination? Did you see my post to you about "experience" needed to be President?
_______________________________
You're touching on a point I made earlier. It's virtually impossible for Hillary to be nominated without doing so in a way in which it will look like she cheated her way into the nomination. Obama's got the most states locked up but leave that aside; it's unlikely she'll beat him in total votes cast or total elected delegates. If the supers counteract Obama's primary edge, many people -- not just blacks -- will be d@mn mad. And they'll stay home (blacks) or vote for Nader (progressives). ESPECIALLY after HRC tacks to the center in the general.
I think most black Dems would support HRC if she was the nominee, if only b/c blacks are so reflexively Democrat. But how can she enter a black church after trashing Wright? (She likes MLK, so what, he's dead, throw out some names of blacks who are alive.) She names a black running mate, so what? It won't be Obama (he'd be stupid to take it). She'll take 85% of a MUCH smaller base.
But it won't happen, because most of those supers are running for something in 08, too, and they need that base to be as big as possible. The supers don't go for Hillary unless it is in their interest to do so, their interest is getting reelected, and I can't see any way HRC at the top of the tickets turns out more votes than Obama. Even if they vote for McCain, those bodies will be there to vote Dem on the rest of the ticket.
People may not like Obama, but Hillary makes people MAD.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 6:54 PM
Hill Yeah!:
I am actually registered Independent, but I would even support John SIDNEY McCain picking Dianne EMIEL Feinstein as his running mate -- anything he thinks could get California in play -- especially against Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:53 PM
RACE IS A FACTOR and skunks don't leave on their own:
Of course, we knew it all the time. Race is a factor, in this election, just as it is in America, in general. And, it will continue to haunt us (we Americans), until we circle it, surround it and cut its head off.
We applaud Barack Obama's valiant attempt to keep it out of the campaign. We applaud him, even more, for his realizing that it is time for us (we Americans) to fess up. It's time to recognize that those who "whisper about" it are right on track.
Now, what are we gonna do about it? Now, that the skunk has been thrown into the room, what are we gonna do? Will we leave the skunk in the room, and imagine it gone? It will not leave of its own volition, you can be sure of that. We could all leave the room, and leave it to the skunk. Or some of us can stay in the room with the skunk and tough it out. But, for some of us, who've dealt with the skunk all our lives we know what to do. We're gonna all get rid of the skunk together, or ya'll will have to deal with the skunk, by yourselves.
The skunk is what causes all this "code language" that The Clintons have been using and that the Media is now picking up on. "He can't win." That's code for White folk won't vote for the "N-word" in November. Having "two patriotic people in the race", means "This thing ought to be between two WHITE Americans."
We ain't complaining, not yet, we're just 'splaining. See we've been facing this kind of stuff for all our life. We're used to having to work twice as hard to get half as much. We're used to having to watch our back, less our "friends" stab us in that back. We're used to not being a part of the Republican Party mainstream. We expect that from them. We just don't expect it from our friends-you know the ones who "Praise Martin", but won't fully participate in the practice of accepting people based upon their character, rather than the color of their skin.
This latest development has caught us totally unawares. We'd been lulled into a relative state of tranquility. We have this magnificent candidate, who's highly qualified, articulate, good-looking, well-married, and blessed with All-American type kids, who's won state after state in the primaries; won the greater number of delegates; raised pots full of money. So, why hasn't the second place candidate dropped out. Why hasn't she been escorted to the sidelines?
Well, she's White-stupid.... And, "He can't win."
One of the newspapers said "Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen."
"The figures shed some light on race's effect on a competition that moves to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, which has a slightly greater proportion of whites than average. The numbers also underscore the challenge Obama could face in the general election, when whites will comprise a larger share of voters and tend to be more conservative than those participating in the Democratic primaries."
There you have it in a nutshell. We've been told, in a "coded" fashion, by The Clintons. And, the news media has substantiated it in their polls. So, what's left, for Black folk- It's really very simple. Now, that we've been told that "Barack Obama is too Black to win in November. Therefore we're gonna have to keep the White candidate in the race, to ultimately replace him. We've gotta win in November."
As we leave the room, to the skunks an skunk-lovers, we'll leave them to figure out how to beat the Republicans, WITHOUT the Black vote. Hey, surely you don't expect us to support your ticket, after you've chosen a skunk over us.......
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:53 PM
bjbprice:
Perhaps some of the "invective" is our response in honest disagreement with your opinion that the "current president has really made a horrible mess to be cleaned up." I already posted my "test" for President, above.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
All the Clinton supporters would rather see the U.S go down in flames them to vote for Obama.The blue collar voters probably do not really understand what NAFTA has and will continue to do to PA and the rest of the country.and if they do. they don't care as long as a man of color is not POTUS.I do feel for the young marrieds who have chidren or want to have children, understand this,there will be no good jobs left to pay a decent wage. So go ahead vote for Hillary, one day you will curse her as people curse the present POTUS.
Posted by: The End is near | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
JakeD:
I know you are a Republican, so you would never support Hillary, but I'm glad you would support Condi. At least you're not sexist like so many men have shown themselves to be during this election.
It has been really eye-opening to say the least. I've lost a lot of respect for journalists and pundits that I used to admire.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
After scanning many of these comments, I believe that I can clearly state that people are quite passionate about their candidates. That is healthy for the body politic. The amount of invective is extraordinary, but understandable, since many writers may be new to the democratic election process. There is also a great deal of mis- and dis- information. We need to focus on the policies that we seek via our candidates. Our current president has really made a horrible mess to be cleaned up. What are we going to do about it? Let's use our passions to generate ideas that will resolve our problems! Let's share these ideas with our candidates and see whether or not they will listen to what we say, right now! That is a good test for leadership.
Posted by: bjbprice | April 8, 2008 6:48 PM
My heros aren't the spoiled sons of Admirals, don't sign up with the Keating Five and vote against the MLK Holiday...they also avoid stingers and keep their war experience as a quite matter and not a qualification for President that they love to share with the world and make little cheesy commercials about. My family were sailors and grunts and died for this country...and...so...you are who you are...heroic pictures with music won't change that.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:48 PM
From politico.com
A reader in Latin America turned up a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (reprinted (.doc) by the Bogota government) that quotes Bill Clinton offering unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia.
The article is in Spanish, so what follows is a translation of a translation, but the gist is unmistakable:
"We need your help to expedite the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU is very important to give a clear signal of what the relations between the two countries should be," President Alvaro Uribe said yesterday to the former president of the EU Bill Clinton, during Expogestion 2005.
"I will raise your point when you return to the United States," Clinton replied. "I am in favor of the free trade agreement and it is my hope that we will find the right formula to reach the agreement."
The story also reports that Clinton received a two-minute standing ovation after "applauding Colombia's perserverence for the progress made in the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the United States."
There is, of course, a little wiggle room here, and the question of what's the right formula. In any case, it will be hard to demote Bill Clinton from his role as chief strategist.
UPDATE: More from Clinton in Colombia in 2005 here, with him regretting the loss of momentum for Andean trade, and saying the failure to reach agreement would be a "mistake."
UPDATE: A Clinton spokesman notes Bill has publicly backed free trade with Colombia since 2000.
Spanish after the jump.
Here's the applause, then the exchange, in Spanish:
Clinton elogió la labor del gobierno colombiano en su lucha contra la pobreza y contra el narcotráfico y aplaudió su perseverancia por los avances logrados en las negociaciones de un Tratado de Libre Comercio con los Estados Unidos (TLC).
Esos elogios motivaron los aplausos del público que por más de dos minutos hacían sonar fuetemente las palmas de sus manos, cada vez con mayor intensidad.
"Necesitamos su ayuda para agilizar la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) con E.U. Es de gran importancia para dar una señal clara de lo que deben ser las relaciones entre los dos países", le dijo ayer el presidente Álvaro Uribe, al ex presidente de los E.U. Bill Clinton, durante Expogestion 2005.
"Voy a plantear su punto cuando regrese a E.U.", le respondió Clinton. "Estoy a favor del TLC y tengo la esperanza de que vamos a encontrar la fórmula para que se logre el acuerdo", añadió.
Posted by: Thevail | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
Joe:
And, that didn't work out so good for either Kennedy or Carter, remember?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
Joe:
Hillary will not quit as long as we support her. She has shown herself to be the strongest of the three candidates by far. I hope her tenacity pays off in the end.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
I think losing Sean Penn from her campaign might have really hurt Hillary. Sean Penn is totally baditudinous. Check it out:
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/02/SeanPenn.jpg
What?
Oh.
Never mind ...
Posted by: pressF1 | April 8, 2008 6:46 PM
Hill Yeah!:
There are, no doubt, some highly-qualified females out there who I would not mind being President some day (or even VP this time around). Condi Rice, for instance ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:46 PM
It is hilarious to listen to those who keep telling her to drop out. Ted Kennedy (the expert at dividing the Democrats) was behind by 1,000 delegates at this point in the election when he ran against SITTING PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter. He took it all the way to the convention.
Don't Quit.
Posted by: Joe | April 8, 2008 6:45 PM
JakeD:
I try to exclude myself from participating in the divisive racism ideals. I prefer to see people as a general group, as one human race. To answer your question, it is true that there are African Americans whom are already in Hillary's corner. There are African Americans who simply don't feel as though Obama is their #1 preference. I cannot classify the entire group's opinions based on their race. I believe they'll vote as individuals, based on who they prefer to help change some of the woes of this country.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:43 PM
JakeD,
I've finally come around. It was inevitable that at some point, my koolaid injection would wear off. I now support Hillary Rodham Clinton wholeheartedly.
The whole experience is so liberating in a strangely sanguine way. I'm off to make another donation. I just can't stop loving that Hillary!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM
It's not John McCain I have a problem with, it's the Liberty U/Patrick Henry College nut-job cabal that staffs the mid-level patronage positions when the GOP holds power.
Hillary Clinton is loathed -- and she came by it honestly. If her treatment by now has mutated into unfairness, well, after the Travel Office episode, she had it coming. If she is now reflexively regarded as lying, well, if she hadn't lied over and over and over for the better part of 20 years, maybe we'd cede her some initial credibility now. But for someone who claims to be experienced in fighting Republicans -- as if that's the direction we want for the next four years, more partisan combat signifying nothing -- she sure showed a lack of spine in caving on George Bush's war.
BTW, has anybody seen any of the names of the poor unfortunates who froze to death in Rezko's slums? Yet? And what happens when Rezko gets off after the jury says, you cannot believe a guy who by his own admission "would meet in hotels once or twice a month to take cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, ecstasy and other powerful drugs at all-day sessions," spending $100K/year on same?
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM
Very few men have become President without substantial FEDERAL government experience (mainly Governors in that category), even JFK....
No women have become President.. It's about time....
HILLARY '08
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM
meldupree:
You "love" her so much that you posted, above, that "she has become an albatross around the Democratic Party's neck"? Bird watcher, huh?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:38 PM
Poll? Has anybody learned the lesson yet?
Posted by: G.Y | April 8, 2008 6:37 PM
I'm so in love with Hillary that I'm going to hillaryclinton.com and make a donation. Who wants to come with me?
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 6:35 PM
Obama2008:
How many African-Americans do you think will vote for her, though, if she manages to steal the nomination? Did you see my post to you about "experience" needed to be President?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:33 PM
Let me say this again:
McLame the great war hero was beat by Little Bush.
What makes you think Obama would be easier to beat?
Mccain is going to do the same as Hillary and fail just as bad. Obama will keep building support, while McCain runs his mouth and shoots himself in the foot.
Once Hillary's out, Obama will lock in the female vote and carry the day in November. It all about strategy and Obama knows it. McCain is still looking for his tactical advantage...just like in nam.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:32 PM
From the Huffington Post:
Finally relenting to the horrendous pressure from us, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, the Obama campaign and his evil minions, the DNC, Nancy Pelosi and Osama bin Laden, Hillary Clinton has just announced she is dropping out of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nominee.
Psyche!
Posted by: Ariana Huffs a Ton of Crap | April 8, 2008 6:31 PM
JakeD:
I want both candidates to work fairly for the nomination, and let either one win it fair and square. Things have gotten nasty lately, and I am definitely not blind to the fact. In my opinion, it's not about the candidates because, they're just people. What matters most to me is, what's going on in this country and what I feel needs to be fixed, changed, or worked on. That is the sole reason why I am voting. Both candidates, honestly speaking, are taking similar stances on the issues which I feel are important. I would be disappointed if Obama honestly earned it, and the nomination was given to Hillary, yes I would; I would be disappointed for the same reason that I was disappointed in 2000 when Gore clearly won, and the nomination was handed to Bush. Obviously that's not right. I say this without bias, looking at the picture. However, in November, based on what I feel needs to happen with this country within the next few years, I will ultimately vote based on that. If Hillary is the nominee, yes I will vote for her.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Thank you, Jaye.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Obama2008 (6:22 PM) You didn´t listen! Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) at the end really asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough"!
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
If Obama is the candidate, Pennsylvania will be a red state votin for McCain - no question about it. In fact, I would think that nearly the entire US will become red states over it. I for one will vote McCain if Obama is the candidate.
Posted by: Jaye | April 8, 2008 6:26 PM
She's_Cleva:
Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be sworn in on as President on January 20, 2009.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:25 PM
If people think Bill is a bully, wait till they get a taste of McCain. He talks down to people, unless he is campaigning. Its a fact. I worked closely with his staff and others that worked with him. He thinks very highly of his own opinion and does not hesitate to lecture. Not very effective with children or adults.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:25 PM
Redline:
That's right -- don't worry too much about it -- we do have another chance to elect him, this November.
John SIDNEY McCain -- the American President Americans Are Waiting For
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:24 PM
Texas Democrat wrote:
[Polls? The polls said the same thing in Ohio and it was not the facts. And neither is this ridiculous poll.]
Hmmm...conveniently left out what the Polls said about Clinton versus what happened/is happening in TEXAS aren't we?
Well that's true -THOSE polls definitely turned ridiculous didn't they? HA! If anyone has insulted voters' intelligence - it's the Clintonistas!
That's right - Dems need to AND WILL win in November.
Everyone should just get over it and, if you really are a dem - pull yourself together and get on board with the progress!
Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States! woo hoo!
Posted by: She's_Cleva | April 8, 2008 6:23 PM
Elisabeth:
I think you and I received different information. The information I received from Obama, is that he will "be as careful getting us out, as our current leadership was careless getting us in." He proposes to bring our military home from Iraq, but also working with representatives of Iraq to help them take more responsibility for their own security. He doesn't want to leave just leave Iraq. He wants to help Iraq at the same time bringing our people home. That is a plan that needs to happen. That's what I would like our brilliant people in office to do, those masterminds of the country; they need to construct a miraculous plan to do just that, in my opinion. I support that idea. This war is one of the main reasons why I personally cannot support McCain though I definitely respect McCain for his military experience. This war was illegit to begin with, and it has cost us to go - 4,000+ individuals of our Defense. Is it the right thing to do, knowing that fact, to just continue down that same line of action?? Crucial family members have been lost, and for what kind of war again? Illegit. I cannot see how it'd be the right thing to do. I think it's time for a different plan.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:22 PM
This is reality:
You had a chance to elect McCain in 2000...you picked Bush.
You had a chance to elect Hillary in 2008...we picked Obama.
You'll have another chance to vote for McCain in 2008.
We'll have another chance to vote for Obama in 2008.
May the best man win...and he will.
McCain is not known for being calm, thoughtful, or diplomatic. We've already had 8 years of that. Frankly, I like a guy that thinks and looks before he shoots. McCain doesn't even know who he wants to shoot...shiite...sunni...Iraqi...Iranian...just get him a gun.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:19 PM
I certainly hope she does not pull out of the race, regardless of what happens in PA.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:18 PM
After thinking about it some, definitely Hillary will have to quit if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by double digits. For whatever reason, whatever hard feelings I had about the primary are starting to dissappear and I'm getting used to the idea of President Obama. Definitely has a nice ring to it in comparison to President McCain.....
Posted by: DCDave | April 8, 2008 6:16 PM
Obama2008:
I have no idea why the nametags are not working any more. I responded to your post above re: "experience" -- keep in mind that none of that is formally required in the Constitution -- which is the distinction I'm making between "experience" and "qualification" : )
Will YOU vote for Clinton in November if she steals the nomination away?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:14 PM
allentown:
Congrats for getting out there in the trenches. Keep in mind, though, that she doesn't even have to win in Pennsylvania to prevent you guy from reaching the number needed to secure the nomination. At this point, it's come down to seating the deleagtes from Florida and Michigan, as well as the super-delegates. Will you vote for her in November if she steals the nomination away?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:12 PM
JakeD:
The only post that I've made without a name tag appearing, is the response I typed to you. The rest of the posts without names are not my posts.
I'm used to my name tag automatically appearing when I submit. I'll just have to keep typing it in for now, or copy/paste.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:09 PM
For some reason over 50% of the nation have an unfavorable view of Hillary, and that is putting it mildly for how many feel about her. She represents the same corruption and self dealing in Washington DC we are all disgusted with. The sooner we can get rid of her, and the sooner she catches on, the better off we will all be.
Posted by: bastanow | April 8, 2008 6:09 PM
Very few men have become President without substantial FEDERAL government experience (mainly Governors in that category), even JFK had problems when it came to "experience" and he had TWICE as much time in D.C. as Obama, in addition to that little PT-109 episode ; )
Running a EXECUTIVE branch, on the State level, or some other BIG organization (like an Army or business) probably is the best indicator of Presidential experience. Of course, there's always "on-the-job" training with a position as unique as President -- unless we re-elect Jimmy Carter or Bush41 -- that's what I'm talking about re: "experience".
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough". The is one of the most stupid question that I have ever heard! If USA should leave Irak now it would have been chaos in the country and maybe the whole Middle East within only a couple of months. This man is really naive. He also seems to be accepting to hand over the power to Iran..... Hillary Clinton has always been talking about leaving Irak in a responsible way. That`s a realistic vision.
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:07 PM
Wie gehts miene Deutcher Freund? Bitte entshuldigen meine Amerikanisher Brudern. Wie liebe Dich!
How's that for diplomacy?
Posted by: Obama Who? | April 8, 2008 6:06 PM
Chuck gets the nod!! You definitely told it the way it needed to be told. We'll see how much of that information was taken into consideration.
To the reasonable foreigners: You also get the nod. It is a pleasure to know your views.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:05 PM
After doing door-to-door for Obama over the weekend, it still seems like Clinton is ahead around here. I think she ends up winning by about 9%. To the Clinton supporters who ask how that can be considered a loss -- PA is her best demographic matchup and she is far enough behind that she needs to win by at least twice that margin to meaningfully eat away at the Obama lead.
Strange how the Clinton supporters call the Obama supporters cultist A-holes etc, while bemoaning vile attacks by Obama supporters. Looking through this thread, it seems about the vilest thing Obama supporters are saying is that Hillary has already lost, which is basically true.
Posted by: allentown | April 8, 2008 6:04 PM
Obama2008:
Is that you posting "Anonymously"?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:03 PM
I'm not used to having to type my name tag.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:03 PM
Redline:
I expect him to beat Obama by getting the women and racists to vote for him ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:02 PM
JakeD:
I am indeed interested in your comments. I find that it helps to gain some knowledge and insight talking to others. However, I still do not understand that some particular level of experience which some talk about (is this time served compared to Hillary and McCain that people are referring to?), is not mentioned under the "Qualifications." I would think that I should be able to find a straight forward list of experience needed for the presidential position. I am really trying to find some more information that clarifies that, but so far I haven't found information on that yet. So, we have indeed established that Obama qualifies like the rest.
I do believe that McCain is qualified as well. However, I respectfully disagree with the fact that he should be next. I honestly don't think that he is the president that The American People need during these next few years. I respect your view though. At the least, I don't have to skim through your posts as I do some others.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:01 PM
Max Hedroom:
By insulting the German poster (who has every right to express his opinion here), you've brought dishonor and shame to us all.
This is supposed to be an open, democratic country, and the commenter did nothing but share his views, and did not insult anyone. You owe him an apology, but you need empathy and class to do this.
Deep thought of the day: I think if another country had tens of thousands of troops stationed in my country (as we do in Germany) I might take quite an interest in who the next leader of that country will be.
Posted by: chuck | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
I meant to say
Remember Hillary Clinton dumped $25M on the Iowa caucus (party platters, snow shovels when it did not snow, etc.) only to place third after Obama and Edwards. Yeah, Hillary knows votes cannot be bought!
That's why she's going to win. Obama can't buy all those PA votes. He's mad about it too. Guess that's why his campaign spokesman is going around calling African American children "monkeys"
NO WE CAN'T
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
Just who says what they mean? Check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642
Posted by: Invictusplc | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
chuck:
Relevant experience is not limited to just "years spent in Washington" (although he is no General either ; )
Bill:
Your mother sounds like a nice lady -- did you know that his middle name was Hussein -- if not, you should thank her for giving you little known information.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
If McCain is so great, why did he lose to Bush 8 years ago. If he couldn't beat Little Bush, how do you expect him to beat Obama?
It wasn't dirty tricks...its his record, knowledge and personality.
He is still referring to Al Qaeda as Shiite. He did it again today at the hearing...dude is old, worn out, and out of touch.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:58 PM
After spending most of my growing years in Pennsylvania, I moved away. There is a reason for that.
My mom (in PA) is voting for Hillary because Hillary is a woman and then called me sexist after she found I am voting for Obama (in Oregon). She asked me if I knew his middle name was Hussein (that's Muslim you know). These are the type of people that will be voting in PA.
As far as the polling, it's all spin. Hillary wants to make it look like it will be close and the beat the spread. Obama wants it to look like a rout and to the same.
Posted by: Bill | April 8, 2008 5:56 PM
I'll take good judgment (Obama, for example knowing enough to oppose this idiotic war from the beginning) over years spent in Washington (Hillary) any day of the week.
Posted by: chuck | April 8, 2008 5:55 PM
Remember Hillary Clinton dumped $25M on the Iowa caucus (party platters, snow shovels when it did not snow, etc.) only to place third after Obama and Edwards. Yeah, Hillary knows votes cannot be bought!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:54 PM
I'm an Obama supporter who's not feeling too good about the upcoming contests. I think the Wright thing has done more damage than even I want to admit. The media and all the national polsters are trying to put a different spin on it, but something just don't feel the same. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Obamarama | April 8, 2008 5:52 PM
mruth:
How many African-American Obama supporters do you think will vote for her after she steals the nomination? They won't just be slightly sad for a few weeks.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 5:45 PM
LOL -- is Barack HUSSEIN a "Nazi" in addition to a undercover Muslim agent?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:44 PM
I am an Obama supporter. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will be sad for a few weeks, but I will vote for her in the general election. I'm not sure I will contribute money to her campaign (she and Bill seem to have enough as it is), but I will vote for her in November.
We need to be mature about voting. We are members of the oldest modern (post-18th-century) democracy in the world.
Posted by: mruth | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
My fellow Americans, compared to Senators McCain and Clinton, I have superior wisdom and judgment.
That is why I chose Trinity United and the Reverend Wright. You see, I knew that someday, I would have to vindicate him for his racist and anti-American views and out my racist grandmother as well. I sat there all those years and said nothing because I was waiting for just the right moment. It took 20 years, but it was so worth it. I'm so magnificent!
Posted by: Sen Barack Obama | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
Obama2008:
No doubt he "qualifies" for the position -- so do I -- what neither of us have is the experience needed to become President.
John SIDNEY McCain -- the American President Americans Are Waiting For
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
Why are all these Germans on here plugging for Obama? Is he a Nazi too?
Posted by: What The? | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Depends which polls you look at...Survey USA poll has Clinton up by 18.
Posted by: Joe | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Every president has learned presidential duties once becoming president, and therefore bearing the presidential burdens.
I do not think that any candidate running would be legit to run if they didn't qualify for the position.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/usgov.shtm
Qualifications for President
Natural born citizen; at least 35 years of age; a resident within the United States for 14 years before election
Presidential Functions
*The Nation's Chief Executive and Chief of State;
*enforces federal laws;
*appoints and can remove high federal officials and U.S. diplomats;
*commands the armed forces; conducts foreign affairs;
*may recommend legislation to the Congress;
*signs legislation passed by both houses of the Congress into law;
*may veto legislation;
*may call Congress into special session
Obama, like all other candidates, does indeed qualify for the position. He is educated, has experience, and he also has needed wisdom. Wisdom and education work together as a powerful force, and helpful too. I applaud those characteristics.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Obama Who? Sounds like Vijay Singh when his caddy wore a cap reading "Tiger Who?" before Tiger summarily kicked his arse! So while Hillary may squeak by in PA, Hillary the Inevitable will get beaten for the nomination. It is that simple.
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:34 PM
Rush Limbaugh has wisely commanded that we not attack Hillary due to Operation Chaos.
Hillary should stay in till the bitter end, trashing Obama not only to the Convention but in the Convention.
Posted by: JaxMax | April 8, 2008 5:34 PM
From the Huffington Post:
Hillary spreads AIDS all over Africa.
Bill rapes all the women in Saudi Arabia while negotiating a shady deal.
Hillary vows to eat all American babies within her first 100 days.
Bill has cooties.
Yawn!!!!
Posted by: Ariana Huffs a Ton | April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
FOREIGNER's are also interested as
THEY DON't WANT YOU TO BE LIKE THOSE EVANGELICALS WHO VOTE FOR $4 OR $6 GAS AND EAT IRAQI/NAVY BLOOD SOAKED BREADS.
AMERICA IS WORLD LEADER.
YOU ASKING THAT QUESTION IS SAME AS CHELSEY TELLING YOU "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"
Posted by: kg | April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
OBAMA IS A FREELANCER!!!!!!!!
HE'S GOT NOOOOOOO EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!
REV. WRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
REZKO AND OTHER SCANDALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
SEIZE THE DAY FEMI-NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA IS BBBBLLLLAAAACCCCKKKK!!!!!!!!
WAPO IS LYING!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:32 PM
The Hillary camp is still set up on the river bank. The rest of us know the levy has already broken and we're waiting for them on higher ground.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM
OBAMA IS A FREELANCER!!!!!!!!
HE'S GOT NOOOOOOO EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!
REV. WRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
REZKO AND OTHER SCANDALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
SEIZE THE DAY FEMI-NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA IS BBBBLLLLAAAACCCCKKKK!!!!!!!!
WAPO IS LYING!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM
Well, I don't put a whole lot of stock in polls...but I do hope Pennsylvanians are smarter than Ohioans. How they could vote for a candidate that 47% of the country says they will never support in a general election is beyond me. Why hitch yourself to a loser?
The best bet the Democrats have is to make Obama the candidate. But even that chance dwindles more each day as Hillary continues to tear apart the party for her own selfish greed for power.
Posted by: noozdude | April 8, 2008 5:30 PM
maxiepad,
As a foreigner, I just do not understand why the American people would want to vote for a Clinton to represent the face of America in the world today.
_____________
As an American, I'm very happy to have Hillary Clinton represent the face of America and Barack Obama represent it's *ss!
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 5:30 PM
From The Huffington Post: "Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America."
She can fire Penn but she can't fire Bill... Now, Hillary lie, oops, I mean tell me again how you have always opposed NAFTA and believe that free trade hurts the American working class like the people of Pennsylvania.
Posted by: BD | April 8, 2008 5:29 PM
Susan, words matter, especially for the Clintons who made $109M over eight years for speaking and writing words. Yeah, they donated 10% of their money - to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation!
Rezko: there is nothing there. Patrick Fitzgerald the prosecutor (think Enron) is trying the Rezko case and believe it, if there was something, it would be out by now. Nada!
Experience? No one has validated Hillary's thirty-five years of such with any truth; in fact Hillary can't validate her own experience with any truth (i.e., Bosnia, Kosovo, Northen Ireland peace accords, the pregnant Ohio woman story, healthcare reform, etc). So yeah, words matter indeed!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:29 PM
Anyway you cut-it, Hillary has a tough one ahead for her, as these Internet Stats and analysis further show as well;
Posted by: Dave |
-------------------------------------------
Haven't we faces this before. Ohio, Mass, Texas, NH. and Cal. The night before the NH and Cal. he was supposed to be winning. Guess what.
Posted by: Chief | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
As an American and middle-aged feminist Hillary supporter,
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY A FOREIGNER WOULD BE ON THE WASHINGTON POST, DISCUSSING OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO BACK TO GERMANY, MAXD, WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED OVER HERE!!!!
I didn't chime in over there for Angela Merckel, though I secretly wanted to.
Posted by: max headroom | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Lokks like Washington Post is afreid of Hillary Clinton. Don't worry, because you will always fing some polls that suits you.Even if Obama is leading, you can easely it is because of the cold weather or because of Obamas black shoes. you will always find an excuse. But at the end (of Clinton), after the NC voting, she will be pressed hard to leave.
Although the doen't like to go. the pressure of her friends will be to high.
That will be the long expected end of the era and it will be good for America.
Many Germans think this way.
Posted by: sieweke | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Okay...just take a close look at Hillary lately...she's defeated and its showing...her hair has gotten as flat as her campaign. Obama's lookin' awake, aware, calm, and sharp...people notice that crap.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Obama's raised a gazillion dollars and is trying to smother PA with his ads but Hillary is still going to cream him on April 22! You can't buy votes, meldumbree.
Posted by: Obama Who? | April 8, 2008 5:26 PM
As a foreigner, I just do not understand why the American people would want to vote for a Clinton to represent the face of America in the world today.
The world has had enough of these American stupidity. It is sickening.
Posted by: maxd | April 8, 2008 5:24 PM
OBAMA IS A FREELANCER!!!!!!!!
HE'S GOT NOOOOOOO EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!
REV. WRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
REZKO AND OTHER SCANDALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
SEIZE THE DAY FEMI-NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA IS BBBBLLLLAAAACCCCKKKK!!!!!!!!
WAPO IS LYING!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:24 PM
Obama's pickin' up Superdelegates like the leaves of fall...more and more everyday.
What's Hillary been doin'...throwin' gutter balls...preceeded by big talk and empty challenges.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:23 PM
"I think Obama has operated a lame campaign here - bowling being the only memorable event. Gutter ball! He may not score a 37 in the primary. :P"
Posted by: j9 | April 8, 2008 4:03 PM
_______________________
let's examine the numbers for a moment: Hillary Clinton raises $20M to Obama's $40M last month. The month before, Obama raised an astonishing $55M to Hillary's $35M. Now Hillary owes nearly $10,000,000.00 in campaign debt to Obama's $625,000. Hillary's campaign has stiffed vendors (little people) and failed to pay the health insurance premiums for her workers; no such reports about the Obama camp doing this. Obama has brougth more people to the poltical process without using PAC or special interest money. Hillary seems unable to stay on message for all the infighting by her senior staffers. Now tell us all how is Obama running a lame campaign again?
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Hey Barry, it's time to come home now and get your spanking for calling me a racist. Leave that nice little Hillary alone. She's got a lot of work to do choosing a Vice President. You sure have been mean to her, but she promised me that she would let you back in the Senate if you promise to leave that church. Come on home now!
Posted by: Obama's Grandma | April 8, 2008 5:21 PM
QUOTE:
"There's another poll (SUSA) that shows her up by 18. Why not give a headline to that one? Oh, that's right, the Post prefers it when she's in distress"
--POSTED BY Joe
Posted by: Whatever, Joanne | April 8, 2008 5:20 PM
Redline:
What's not to love?
Posted by: joe | April 8, 2008 5:19 PM
When PA discovers their white knight of change Obama , is mixed up in the same type of corrupt activities as many republican senators have been involved, his surge will dwindle. The corporate news media has squashed any mention of the Rezko corruption trial and his close ties of over 17 years with Barrack Obama, and the shady land deal they entered into. He is supposed to be this squeaky clean champion of change but it turns out its just words....and Obama said words matter. On you tube his words said when elected in 2004 after elected (sworn in Jan 2005) to US senate he would not run in 2008 because he didn't have enough experience...and he just wouldn't do that...Words matter
Posted by: Susan | April 8, 2008 5:19 PM
Clinton supporters...Obama still loves ya!
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:18 PM
There's another poll (SUSA) that shows her up by 18. Why not give a headline to that one? Oh, that's right, the Post prefers it when she's in distress.
Posted by: joe | April 8, 2008 5:17 PM
The White House, Sugar-Buns.
Posted by: More Like Obama Where? | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Gws - you make some really good points. I still think Obama would make the best overall choice. It's just that I'm still a bit hung up on the Rev. Wright thing. Not so much about Wright himself (though I did watch the controversial quotes "in context" and they didn't sound any better to me), but about Obama's seeming inability to anticipate the brouhaha and react in a timely manner. Yes, he gave an excellent speech in response, but why the four day wait, during which this festered into a lasting wound? Why wasn't that speech already written and ready to go before this news broke? It's not like the statements were hard to find - they were on a DVD released by Wright's own church! Seeing how lax Obama was in protecting his own interest really makes me wonder how he's going to protect mine. That said, so far it's the only real slipup I can pin on him. All the other things you said about uniting the country and hopefully the world behind us is right on. He's no sex maniac and he's no peanut farmer, he still might be the Goldilocks candidate to beat McCain in November.
Posted by: treetopflyer | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Get used to it:
"President Obama?"
"Yes?"
"The former Senator from NY is on the phone."
"Again?"
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:15 PM
Nice work, CherriePicker.
Nicely served Poll Facial, still dripping off YouLie's grill.
Truth hurts, don

"Obama2008 (6:22 PM) You didn´t listen! Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) at the end really asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough"!
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Funny you mention that Elisabeth,, I was watching with a repub buddy of mine who also thought it was a dumb question.
I disagree, what the Sen. was speaking to (he started by explaining that it was a rhetorical question) was the frustration in congress that we're constantly moving the bar in Iraq, as to what will be considered a "success".
He was trying to pin down some sort of "acceptable" level of violence, at which point we can suspend daily combat patrols, and redefine our mission in a sensible way.
If our policy is to keep this war going until Iraq is at peace, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to stay until radical islamist groups can't recover upon our exit, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to keep the country occupied till people stop shooting at us, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to support the Iraqis till they've got enough troops to maintain the current level of violence, (with less direct involvement of U.S. forces)
then we might just get to leave.
It isn't pretty, but face it, Iraq is going to be a violent, unstable place, for a long time.
They might need to have their own war, without our meddling, we did back in the 1800's, it wasn't pretty, but it did have an end, where whats going on now has none in sight.