Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

IL: Obama, McCain Out Front in Land of Lincoln

By Elizabeth Williamson
There's a chance of light rain on primary day in Illinois, but little chance of advertising.

Neither of the Democratic front-runners has plans to buy advertising in Sen. Barack Obama's home state. The campaign of Sen. John McCain could not be reached for its plans, and Mitt Romney's campaign says that while its national cable buy reaches folks in the Land of Lincoln, the candidate will rely on personal appearances and phone-banking to get out the vote there.

The near-blackout reflects the clear leads Obama and McCain hold in the state, reducing the impact of advertising there on a day that has all campaigns nail-biting over where best to spread their ad dollars.

A Jan. 30-31 Chicago Tribune/WGN poll gives Obama 55 percent of the vote, and Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, 24 percent. The same poll shows McCain with a more than 20-point lead over Romney, with 43 percent to Romney's 20 percent.

An ARG poll taken over the same two days suggests a narrower gap, but one that the campaigns apparently feel can't be bridged with ad money: McCain with 48 percent, and Romney 34 percent; on the Democratic side, Obama drew 51 percent and Clinton, 40 percent.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 4, 2008; 7:06 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: AK: Remote Super Tuesday Outpost
Next: AZ: McCain Ahead at Home; Dem. Race Tight


yeihc gwhpva patent expire lexapro

Posted by: patent expire lexapro | August 21, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro bipolar disorder | August 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro bipolar disorder | August 21, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor withdrawals | August 21, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor withdrawals | August 21, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: celexa cost | August 20, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

pmjbf ndyo rogaine tropical solution ad

Posted by: rogaine tropical solution ad | August 18, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

qwjrich does effexor cause elevated glucose levels

Posted by: does effexor cause elevated glucose levels | August 18, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

xsit oytpmsa wellbutrin sr bupropion texas

Posted by: wellbutrin sr bupropion texas | August 18, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

pbsnch bojghca awrzlf buspar prescribing information

Posted by: buspar prescribing information | August 17, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

hvgnpo jmachk alrep copper cause hair loss

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

sqmc ioktecq sewy tupc lexapro sexual isde effects

Posted by: lexapro sexual isde effects | August 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

sqmc ioktecq sewy tupc lexapro sexual isde effects

Posted by: lexapro sexual isde effects | August 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra post uk | August 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

alpchiz bnyjc gtsnbvx kamagra sildenafil citrate

Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

alpchiz bnyjc gtsnbvx kamagra sildenafil citrate

Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

rbtfdl nubfmz lmrnei elavil as a pain med

Posted by: elavil as a pain med | August 16, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

rbtfdl nubfmz lmrnei elavil as a pain med

Posted by: elavil as a pain med | August 16, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ginkgo biloba prozac how much | August 16, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

wsgni pwfom ojat wutgi effexor rx change in effectiveness

Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: paxil pharmacy online | August 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paxil pharmacy online | August 15, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: hair propecia | May 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: forum online ultram | May 11, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

mcrpzfy leybaf hise asegdhk online drug store ultram

Posted by: online drug store ultram | May 11, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

ainxem akpwzm jeoprsg xreo ultram overdose

Posted by: ultram overdose | May 10, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

ainxem akpwzm jeoprsg xreo ultram overdose

Posted by: ultram overdose | May 10, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

ufor hmpdu rfohjmg buedc cheap generic ultram

Posted by: cheap generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

ufor hmpdu rfohjmg buedc cheap generic ultram

Posted by: cheap generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: day next ultram | May 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

tqxjlp lkprhfnbt muio megrvpzi kasonitz dtbznhc xgbhjw

Posted by: mqfuwgsr ibjlwgn | April 16, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

vnxa hzbm ofxh bnryehqav hcvs dpwxk aipgcrbdq

Posted by: glpsmihdb mljnc | April 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Millions of, formerly apathetic,American voters will show up and vote today. Many of them from a new generation that have not been tainted by the disease of racism. Many of them are middle aged and aware, and very tired of the same old political games and manipulation. Among them are intelligent women who know this more about race or gender. Among them are "baby boomers' who remember the past and a time when the country was united in its support for real change.
Barack Obama will surprise many people today. I am totally confident the loser in the this election will be the politics of fear and division.
Look for some unexpected blowouts,a testimony that the old ways, old fears,and the old stereotypes are dying.Obama is the right candidate for today ! Get out and vote !

Posted by: eSPO1 | February 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

First she wasn't sure about the war and now this: Bill Clinton Says Hillary Had Doubt on `No Child' Law (Update1) -Bloomberg.

Also,Hillary has tried for 6 yrs to get her health plans passed through senate and all attempts have failed. This one will fail too.

Posted by: washington29 | February 5, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama Can win ! He has twelve votes from this family and extended family from Virginia, California, Philladelphia, and New York! I will not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. I don't want my gender to be my restraint! I wan't whats best for the U.S. and thats Obama!!!

Posted by: washington29 | February 5, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who votes for Obama is wasting their vote, he can't win & won't stand a chance in the general election. He's the best friend the Republicans have. Just imagine 4 more years of a Republican in the White House, that's what a vote for Obama will do. Ask yourself 1 big question, who is giving Obama all his campaign money ?? ... Republicans are, they love him as they roll across their living room floor laughing at the stupid Democrats. The Democrats are being Swift-Boated by the Republicans again & it's working. !!!

Posted by: gatorsn09 | February 5, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama winning his own home state merits a headline?

Good grief.

Look, Obamanauts: Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Don't be whining tomorrow if Hillary wins more states that it "doesn't matter," like you tried to ignore Florida. There's only so many excuses you can make for candidate's inability to WIN.

Pick a rule, Obamanauts:

If Hillary wins 20 of 22 states, it's a LANDSLIDE, just like you'd say if Obama did.

But don't be whining that an actual LOSS is a "win" for him.

Don't forget: Michigan and FLorida will be reinstated; both candidates have supported that. And the massive win Hillary achieved will COUNT, delegates included.

I read ole Markos on Daily Kos today trying to convince the Obmananuts that tomorrow may not be a win in "traditional" terms, but for little Obama, it will be a win, as if he KNEW Obama wasn't gonna make it, and wanted his readers to feeeeeeel better.

Doesn't count, in the real world.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | February 5, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Can any Mr. Obama supporters tell me why it is alright for Mr. Obama to have four rich people (Mr. Edward Kennedy, Ms. Caroline Kennedy, Ms. Oprah and Ms. Obama)
canvass for him while he taunted and teased Clintons in South Carolina in order to marginaliz President Clinton's influence? Should not Ms. Clinton complain again and again to the press that she is fighting against four people? Can you tell the difference in the technique that Bush, jr. used to undermine the chances of McCain in S. Carolina by false propaganda and the baiting that Mr. Obama indulged in S. Carolina in order to make Clintons appear bad in the opinion of African-Americans? By the way how many states he has he not been campaiging because he thinks that he may not gain enough votes? Why should Ms. Clinton campaign in South Carolina knowing that white votes would be divided and African-American votes would go to South Carolina? Is he not leading in Georgia where the majority of democrats are African-Americans? Don't tell me all the white people in Georgia are voting for him when he visited only one African-American Church to let them that he was a committed Christian who would walk in "Lord's path" as a politician? Is it what is meant by vision and change that Mr. Obama is always taking about? This unusual sight of a democrat employing dirty tricks from the first day to undermine his opponent? I know that repubicans are good at it; may be Mr. Obama is referring to these dirty tricks as change!

Posted by: rabhiti | February 4, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Oligarchy is not good for democracy. say no to dyNASTY. Billary put the crown DOWN!

Posted by: teopa | February 4, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to not be bombarded with ads.
I live in Illinois and in the morning my husband and I are going to go to vote for Obama. But, we have not had the calls,the ads and all the other annoying little things here.

Posted by: vwcat | February 4, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I think Barack Obama will do a whole lot better than the prognosticators above predict. He is peaking at the perfect time and the momentum is building. Almost every poll he is closing very rapidly. We need to understand the strategy. The Barack Obama campaign released this today.

February 4, 2008

To: Interested Parties

From: David Plouffe

RE: Putting Tomorrow into Perspective

Two weeks ago, a Clinton campaign adviser told CBS News that they believed they could "wrap up" the nomination on February 5th. As the "inevitable" national frontrunner, tomorrow should be the day when she sews up the nomination or builds a formidable delegate lead. But because of Obama's growing momentum across the country, the Clinton campaign is now unlikely to reach their stated goals of wrapping up the nomination tomorrow.

Senator Clinton is certainly the favorite on February 5, given the huge leads she has held in many of these contests throughout the course of the campaign and the political, historical and geographic advantages she enjoys in many of these states.

For example, California, which Clinton led by 25 points in October and 12 points two weeks ago, was once seen as the Clinton campaign's firewall and where they planned to run up an insurmountable lead in delegates. Former Governor Gray Davis, a Clinton supporter, said on MSNBC last week, "I am pleased to be for Hillary Clinton and I expect her to do very well in Super Tuesday. I expect her to win California by a sizable amount, at least double digits, do well in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut."

Based on her huge head start, Hillary Clinton should still win California, but is unlikely to achieve her goal of getting a sizeable share of the delegates.

Our path to the nomination never factored in a big day for us on February 5. Rather, we always planned to stay close enough in the delegate count so that we could proceed to individually focus on the states in the next set of contests.

We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months.

A performance that exceeds those benchmarks, while unlikely, would put is in a surprisingly strong position heading into the rest of the February contests.

While the Clinton campaign is furiously trying to spin the expectations game, it is important to look at where they were in some of the key states just a few weeks ago.



Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Alabama By 15 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 15 points, 43% to 28%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]


Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Arizona Obama By 21 Points. According to a poll done for the Arizona Republic that was released on January 23, Clinton led Obama 45% to 24%. [Arizona Republic, 1/23/08]


Hartford Courant: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Connecticut By 14 Points. According to polling done for the Hartford Courant released on January 20, Clinton led Obama by 14 points, 41% to 27%. [Hartford Courant, 1/20/08]


October 2007 Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 24 Points. According to polling done by Farleigh Dickinson that was released on October 10, Clinton led Obama by 24 points, 41% to 17%. [Fairleigh Dickinson, 10/10/07]


In December 2007, Clinton Led Georgia By 7 Points. According to polling done by Strategic Vision released on December 12, Clinton led Obama by 7 points, 34% to 27%. [Strategic Vision, 1/22/07]


Survey USA: Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Massachusetts By 37 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 24, Clinton led Obama by 37 points, 59% to 22%. [Survey USA, 1/24/08]


October Poll Found Clinton Leading Obama By 25 Points In Minnesota. According to polling done by Mason Dixon released on October 2, Clinton led Obama 47%-33%. [Star Tribune, 10/2/07]


Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Missouri By 19 Points. According to polling done by Rasmussen released on January 25, Clinton led Obama by 19 points, 43% to 24%. [Rasmussen, 1/25/08]


Before February 5th, Clinton Led New York By 28 Points. According to polling done by USA Today and Gallup released on January 28, Clinton led Obama by 28 points, 56% to 28%. [Gallup, 1/28/08]


Less Than Two Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led New Jersey By 17 Points. According to polling done by Quinnipiac released on January 22, Clinton led Obama by 17 points, 49% to 32%. [Quinnipiac, 1/23/08]


Three Weeks Before February 5th, Clinton Led Oklahoma By 20 Points. According to polling done by Survey USA released on January 14, Clinton led Obama by 20 points, 45% to 25%. [Survey USA, 1/14/08]


Less Than One Week Before February 5th, Clinton Led Tennessee By 33 Points. According to polling done by Insider Advantage in Tennessee on January 30th, Clinton led Obama by 33 points, 59% to 26%. [Insider Advantage, 1/30/08]

The campaign has been a very tactical, wonderfully timed operation. I think we will see some unsuspected blow outs for Barack Obama tomorrow. ! !

Posted by: eSPO1 | February 4, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

A few comments on the comments on this board from an Obama supporter.

hotnuke2008: You post this exact same post on every board I've signed on to. You claim Clinton will get 1200 delegates. The Clinton campaign's best-case scenario is 1100, and that was before the shift in the polls.

jacksmith1: It's true that HRC tried very hard to pass a health care plan in 1993. She failed despite having the Clinton administration's full press and having a Democratic congress. I agree that it's not her fault she is divisive, but she is, so there is even less reason she will succeed this time on health care.

Re Obama's experience: He doesn't have a lot, but neither does Hillary. Sorry but being married to Bill Clinton doesn't count as experience.

Re racism: The reason that Obama supporters feel that some Clinton supporters are racist is because of the race baiting by Bill Clinton in South Carolina. Along those lines, people resent having to be told that they are sexist if they don't vote for a woman. This isn't 1970. Plus a retort would be that it's just as important to vote for an African American, but that's not what Obama's campaign is about. In fact he stands in stark contrast to HRC who constantly reminds everyone they should vote for her because she's a woman.

Posted by: constantine999 | February 4, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

hotnuke2008, you are one arrogant, mixed up dude (or dudette).

Posted by: cdonham | February 4, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

HotNuke I take it you're still upset that the Fred Thompson donations didn't turn into electoral votes.

As far as the way the race breaks tomorrow. Who knows. Anyone who wants to talk about "facts" needs to talk about the FACT that most of these states have 10%+ of voters still undecided.

I would also be very surprised if Clinton wins Idaho, or Alaska. New York, Arkansas, Oklahoma are the only states that are absolutely, safely within the Clintons column. Many of the other states will break Clinton, but the margins should be closer. e.g. I could see Clinton winning the popular vote in California, but losing the delegate count -- but really -- who knows . . .

Posted by: JPRS | February 4, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See:

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 4, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Well it's almost time now. Here's my quivering argument for whatever it counts.

Let's first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let's take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer, poking every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, LBJ fatally perpetuated Vietnam. Nixon - criminal. Carter - exquisitely incompetent. Reagan of soaring national debt/Iran Contra/S&L crises. George Recession Sr - no, he was in bed only with the Saudis. Then, Bill Clinton. Wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by the republican propaganda, and if you attained puberty a bit before 90s, you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton's were the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares?

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state. His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, we must be all tea/coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out on a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have worked him over? To those who insist that our gem, Obama is still unknown - he has spent aver $120 million dollar introducing himself. Media has been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't mind asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong, maverick character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan. Obama's experience? He has organized in Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. In a general election, Comrades, that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

No, wrong, I am not a purple Democrat. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore/John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out because he dared to be emotional/spontaneous. He had such a strong executive experience but the media didn't like his laughter. He had no style. In America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter comes all the way here. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | February 4, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

To all of the moronic Obama supporters who feel they know me, know that I'm a racist, and know everything I believe, I challenge to you come debate me in the Yahoo Chatrooms. Politics Lobby 2, tonight. I think you'll find that your perceptions about me are completely unfounded. However, if you're an Obama supporter, I'll say this though, you're likely not to listen to anything, as Obama supporters, as Zukermand and I and many others have pointed out, are on average, ignorant, lowlife, racist scum not capable of debating anything or being civil in the least bit.

However, the challenge is out there. And unlike Obama supporters, I'll be providing FACTS, not fiction. I'll be in the Politics Lobby 2 of the Yahoo chats all evening.

Posted by: hotnuke2008 | February 4, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company