Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Survey That Raises Tough Questions

By Dan Balz
Democratic superdelegates watching the competition between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and wondering what to do ought to take a look at the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll. The survey, out Thursday morning, doesn't provide all the answers they're looking for but does raise all the right questions.

Much attention will no doubt focus on traditional measurements: the Democratic horserace -- Obama and Clinton are now tied at 45 percent each, compared with a Clinton lead of 47-43 percent two weeks ago -- and the general election match-ups showing Obama up 2 points over John McCain and McCain up 2 points over Clinton.

Much attention also will focus on the fallout from the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which shows both that Obama has been damaged at least a bit by his long association with the Chicago pastor and, perhaps more surprisingly to those addicted to cable news coverage of the campaign, that a sizable portion of the country has paid relatively little attention to the whole episode.

Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff, provided a more intimate tour of the findings, while offering the useful reminder to everyone following the race to remain focused on the big questions and the large forces at work, rather than the provocations from the last campaign conference call or brushfire on the campaign trail.

Has Obama weathered the Wright storm? Not entirely, Hart says. Although the initial reactions show now significant falloff in support, Obama will have the Wright controversy still clouding his candidacy, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee. As Hart put it, "I still think this is out ahead of the Obama campaign."

Hart described Obama's response to the uproar over Wright, particularly his speech on race delivered a week ago, as a down payment toward solving the problem. "I would not say it's behind him but it's a beginning introduction," Hart said. "He's going to see an awful lot of Jeremiah Wright by 527s throughout the rest of the campaign. For people who don't know, they need to be able to see Obama in a way they can relate to and feel comfortable about."

This may be Obama's single biggest challenge, in Hart's estimation. Obama is not a conventional candidate. He is biracial, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white American mother. He spent some of his early years in Indonesia. This is not the typical biography of presidential candidates.

Other questions in the survey underscore the work ahead for Obama, if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Just 50 percent of those surveyed said the Illinois senator has the background or a set of values they identify with. Hart noted, "That number will have to go up for him to be successful in the presidency."

Those Americans who watched the race speech were divided on their reaction. Thirty percent said they were reassured about Obama's thinking and beliefs about race while 28 percent said they were left with uncertainties. Eleven percent did not have a firm opinion either way. That left 31 percent who said they did not see the speech. "They're going to need more," Hart said.

What that adds up to is a large question mark about Obama's candidacy, which Hart reduces simply to: Is he safe? That is not unlike the question that confronted Ronald Reagan, for an entirely different set of reasons, in 1980. When Reagan successfully answered that question late in the campaign, a tight election became a landslide. Hart's hunch is that if Obama successfully answers that question as the Democratic nominee, what now looks like a close election may not be -- but that depends on what happens between now and then.

The NBC-Wall Street Journal survey raises big questions about Clinton and McCain as well, Hart said. For Clinton it is one that has trailed her throughout the campaign: Is she likable and trustworthy?

Clinton is well liked by Democrats, but among independents, she has considerable work to do. Overall, her positive rating in the new poll is 37 percent, her negative rating 48 percent. Hart said that is the lowest she's recorded in an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll since early 2001, just after the bad publicity over the pardons handed out by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as they were leaving the White House.

Among independents, her ratings are 24 percent positive and 56 percent negative. In contrast, Obama's ratings among independents are 49 percent positive and 29 percent negative. On the question of whether she has the kind of background or values people identify with, 73 percent of Democrats, but just 32 percent of independents, say yes.

Hart said only a small portion of that negative rating stems from the recent publicity given to her exaggerations about a trip to Bosnia during her husband's presidency. She claimed to have dodged sniper fire upon arrival; video from the trip shows her receiving a warm and peaceful greeting.

Instead, Hart's belief is that some of the negativity comes from the focus on her campaign of late -- what he called the "I deserve it" air emanating from those around her -- in contrast to the "fighting Hillary" who won the popular vote in the Ohio and Texas primaries. Her weakness among independents creates big problems for Clinton in a general election against McCain.

McCain's challenge is to demonstrate that his administration would not be an extension of President Bush's. McCain has set out to show that -- as his foreign policy speech in California on Wednesday demonstrated. But the public has not come to a conclusion on that question.

Hart also believes the Clinton-Obama competition already is doing damage to the Democratic Party. Already a quarter of Clinton primary voters say they would back McCain over Obama in a general election and a similar percentage of Clinton voters say they would support McCain against Obama. The longer the race goes on, Hart warned, the more that number will grow. That doesn't mean those voters won't come home in the fall, but it will take some real effort on the part of the eventual nominee.

Between now and the end of the primaries, superdelegates will be watching the two candidates closely, not just to see who wins, but to weigh which one appears more likely to successfully answer the questions voters still have about them. The more Clinton and Obama and their advisers get back to real campaigning, rather than sniping about superdelegates or the latest flap from some distant precinct, the more good they're likely to do themselves and their party.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 27, 2008; 5:50 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Economic Call at 3 a.m.?
Next: McCain Democrats? Putting a Survey in Historical Context

Comments

mbshults.....your link to realpolitics shows that Obama and McCain split 3 polls apeice.
But if you look back to superduper tuesday what you see is a different story. McCain is the leader in most polls.
But this early in the game it really dosen't matter anyway.

But something that needs to be pointed out here is this....past elections do show that most disgruntled voters return to the fold by November.
The thing is, this isn't going to be a typical election. First this is the first one that will probably go to the convention(since neither can win outright at this point)since 1980. Second, you have a possibility that the first Black candidate could be elected President and the first woman who could possibly be President. This is historic.
The problem is, they are getting nastier and nastier the longer this goes on. McCain clinched in Feb. and will have 7 months to get his non supporters to come over to his side and it's already showing in the polls that the Republicans ARE getting behind him. But the Democrats could have a real problem, if this ends in June, then past history should play out, if it ends in July, it still may not be a disaster, but if this contest ends later than mid-July or at the convention, it will be a disaster for the nominee. Because of the possible historic aspect of this race, each candidates supporters are very invested in their person. If Obama loses, Hillary will be lucky to get 70% of the black vote, because blacks won't have the usual 5 or 6 months to get over their anger, instead(unlike 2000/2004 when large groups said they wouldn't support the party nominee, the nominee's clinched early enough for their main rivels supporters to get over their anger and reluctantly return to the fold) they will only have 2 months, this could mean a large segment just won't be ready to support Hillary and just stay home. If Hillary loses, then a large segment of middle class white women will either sit out or go to McCain for the same reason. But what could be the real clincher is that Hillary's biggest groups after women are white, blue collar males and Hispanics. White blue collar males make up about 24% of Hillary's vote and in the Ohio primary when CBS did exit interviews live a lot of white, blue collar male Hillary voters said they could NEVER vote for a black candidate. And this is the group that will go to McCain. That would be what McCain needs to keep Ohio and add Pa. to his total. Then you have his popularity with Hispanics and Obama could lose 45% of the Hispanic vote.

If you are honest with yourself, then you will look at those state by state polls. The reason they keep doing Mo. is because it's a real bellweather state and McCain has been beating Obama's butt there but Hillary is only down a couple points. Also, McCain beats Obama in Pa., Ohio, Fl., New Jersey and ties him in Mass. No Democrat can win if they lose Ohio, Fl. and Mass.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 30, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

mbshults.....your link to realpolitics shows that Obama and McCain split 3 polls apeice.
But if you look back to superduper tuesday what you see is a different story. McCain is the leader in most polls.
But this early in the game it really dosen't matter anyway.

But something that needs to be pointed out here is this....past elections do show that most disgruntled voters return to the fold by November.
The thing is, this isn't going to be a typical election. First this is the first one that will probably go to the convention(since neither can win outright at this point)since 1980. Second, you have a possibility that the first Black candidate could be elected President and the first woman who could possibly be President. This is historic.
The problem is, they are getting nastier and nastier the longer this goes on. McCain clinched in Feb. and will have 7 months to get his non supporters to come over to his side and it's already showing in the polls that the Republicans ARE getting behind him. But the Democrats could have a real problem, if this ends in June, then past history should play out, if it ends in July, it still may not be a disaster, but if this contest ends later than mid-July or at the convention, it will be a disaster for the nominee. Because of the possible historic aspect of this race, each candidates supporters are very invested in their person. If Obama loses, Hillary will be lucky to get 70% of the black vote, because blacks won't have the usual 5 or 6 months to get over their anger, instead(unlike 2000/2004 when large groups said they wouldn't support the party nominee, the nominee's clinched early enough for their main rivels supporters to get over their anger and reluctantly return to the fold) they will only have 2 months, this could mean a large segment just won't be ready to support Hillary and just stay home. If Hillary loses, then a large segment of middle class white women will either sit out or go to McCain for the same reason. But what could be the real clincher is that Hillary's biggest groups after women are white, blue collar males and Hispanics. White blue collar males make up about 24% of Hillary's vote and in the Ohio primary when CBS did exit interviews live a lot of white, blue collar male Hillary voters said they could NEVER vote for a black candidate. And this is the group that will go to McCain. That would be what McCain needs to keep Ohio and add Pa. to his total. Then you have his popularity with Hispanics and Obama could lose 45% of the Hispanic vote.

If you are honest with yourself, then you will look at those state by state polls. The reason they keep doing Mo. is because it's a real bellweather state and McCain has been beating Obama's butt there but Hillary is only down a couple points. Also, McCain beats Obama in Pa., Ohio, Fl., New Jersey and ties him in Mass. No Democrat can win if they lose Ohio, Fl. and Mass.

Posted by: joshuahaught | March 30, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that Clinton supporters post the same thing again and again? Is it that they don't know how to use a computer or they think that if they post the same thing over and over someone might pay attention?

Posted by: wly34 | March 29, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

WHAT REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT BELIEVES
News Type: Opinion -- Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:26 PM EDT
us-news, election, obama, clinton, race, wright
dugan49
When Jeremiah Wright got into a spitting contest with right wing TV host Sean Hannity last year, he at one point refused to answer Hannity's badgering questions and kept asking Hannity "Have you read James Cone, what do you know about black theology? Have you read Cone? Have you read Cone?Have you read Cone?"
James Cone is one of he founders, some say the founder, of Black Liberation Theology. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's ministry, his beliefs about America, and about life itself are formed by his attraction to and acceptance of the writings of James Cone.
Let's look at some quotes from James Cone.
____________________
"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people."
"All white men are responsible for white oppression. "
"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'"
"Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement."
"Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it." (2004)
" Jesus Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants."
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."
"The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. "

Posted by: theplanner | March 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

WHAT REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT BELIEVES:
News Type: Opinion -- Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:26 PM EDT
us-news, election, obama, clinton, race, wright
dugan49
When Jeremiah Wright got into a spitting contest with right wing TV host Sean Hannity last year, he at one point refused to answer Hannity's badgering questions and kept asking Hannity "Have you read James Cone, what do you know about black theology? Have you read Cone? Have you read Cone?Have you read Cone?"
James Cone is one of he founders, some say the founder, of Black Liberation Theology. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's ministry, his beliefs about America, and about life itself are formed by his attraction to and acceptance of the writings of James Cone.
Let's look at some quotes from James Cone.
____________________
"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people."
"All white men are responsible for white oppression. "
"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'"
"Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement."
"Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it." (2004)
" Jesus Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants."
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."
"The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
"What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. "

Posted by: theplanner | March 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

So the Wal-Mart crowd is hung up on racial differences?
Don't they realize that this is not the 19th Century? Such bigotry was made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment and th Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5.

Rev. Wright spoke from a murky well of bitterness and cruel experience. Senator Obama has clearly stated the he does NOT share his FORMER pastor's extreme and inflamatory sentiments.

Personally I've known a lot of institutionalised discrimination. The constant KKK-style of bigot-babble can twist people's thoughts so that they no longer believe in tolerance.
Discrimination because of skin color is just plain wrong. In 2008 the United States of America can truly begin to create "a more perfect union".

Posted by: luise1 | March 29, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA ADS:
From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa. -- The Clinton campaign today accused the Obama campaign of "false advertising," claiming that a recent ad Obama released in Pennsylvania was disngenous because Obama has been the recipient of more than $200,000 from the oil and gas industry.
In the ad, Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more."
Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.
Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site.
Robert Cavnar, listed as a bundler who has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the campaign, is the chairman and CEO of Mission Resources Corp., a Houston-based firm. George Kaiser, also listed in the same $50,000 to $100,000 category, is the CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company.
"It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. "Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors."
http://tinyurl.com/2on6dr

Posted by: theplanner | March 29, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama, if God forbid he gets the nomination, cannot win in the general due to his continued relationship with the raving lunatic aka Reverend Wright. Why did Obama continue to participate in a congregation that was so racist and anti-American? He obviously did not disagree with the hate expressed by Wright and the congregation that much or he could not have continued there.

If you doubt that, ask yourself if you could have continued to participate in any group that would utter such contempt for a group of people and the country as a whole. I know I could not. Frankly I would not want to associate in any way with someone that could condone this type of behavior much less see them elected as President of the United States! And condone it he did by continuing to participate for 20 years - and even further condoning it today in his speech by refusing to denounce Wright.

I find Wright's behavior despicable and Obama's complicity just as disturbing. For a candidate that runs on the promise of unity and sound judgment, his behavior regarding Wright shows neither.

Posted by: SusanL | March 28, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Barack fills up college arenas to the max including the floor areas, 10-15k per appearance, Billary(both of them) get the high school gyms, that will be indicative of the turnout nationwide in November
nuff said

Posted by: meeksmen | March 28, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "His speech was nothing more than a lecture on "white guilt" and "moral equivalence."

Intellectually, it failed miserably.

And I for one, see through his "negative transference" attempt.

Hey Barack, nice try but no cigar."

Hmmm, the review that I read said his speech would be studied in schools for years to come.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

From today's news:

"Senator Bob Casey, a champion of the working-class Catholic voters at the core of Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania coalition, bypassed Clinton to endorse Barack Obama today, the latest swipe between two warring dynasties whose battles have defined the Democratic party's search for a modern identity."

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

You are barking up the wrong tree, Jake.
Talk to the Democratic Majority Leader.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Quote: He still lost both States."


Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 01:40 PM

Could that be because he was not on the ballot in Michigan. And ask the people of Florida. The ads were stopped.

You are beginning to look like one of the rabid Clinton supporters come what may. Hilarious. The more that you post, the more ridiculous your posts become. Read some of the above comments.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Get serious, Jake. You are a hoot.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Uncommited" does not equal "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and his ads did run in Florida BEFORE that primary. He still lost both States.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Reid also weighed in on the controversy over Michigan and Florida, states whose Democratic convention delegates were stripped when they scheduled primaries before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, without permission from the DNC.

The DNC authorized only Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to hold nominating contests before that date. Those four states teamed up to demand successfully that the Democratic candidates not campaign in the two renegade states.

The punishment was intended to be symbolic, on the assumption that a nominee would be decided early and delegate counts wouldn't matter.

That has turned out to be a bad assumption. Now Hillary Clinton, who won both states and trails in the delegate count, says Michigan and Florida shouldn't be left out, even though Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

Both states came to the conclusion last week they couldn't hold new primaries.

"Michigan and Florida wouldn't play by the rules," Reid said. "They're not my rules. They're not the caucus' rules. They're DNC rules. They broke the rules."

Adding delegates for those states, he noted, would alter the number of delegates needed to get the nomination, currently 2,025. It wasn't crystal clear, but Reid seemed to suggest that delegations from those states should get to attend the convention, but not vote.

"Michigan and Florida delegates are going to be seated. They're going to be a part of the convention," he said. "It's a question of whether anything can be worked out to change this prior to the 2,025.

"They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."

And now my words.
For the nuts who think that Florida and Michigan should be counted. The democratic party would be a laughing stock. Apparently you didn't know:

Michigan and Florida cannot be counted as they now stand. The candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Obama didn't.
All the major candidates removed themselves from the ballot in Michigan as agreed, except Sen. Clinton. Obama wasn't even on the ballot, but yet "uncommited" took 37% of the ballot.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

You fail to take this into account. Clinton is toast:

While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the terrible record of the Republicans for the past 8 years . There is still time to unite the Party to have Obama AND Hillary on the same ticket . There is no alternative . McCain will win if Democrats are not united . Right now , it is all adding up to a re-election of Bush through McCain...
The people of this Nation KNOW what is wrong, and KNOW they'll have to foot the bill, but they want EVERYONE to participate , including those that earn $10,000 per year , or $ 1,000,000,000 . It will take courage for candidates to put their Nation ahead of their personal ambitions , for real ideas about taxation to be talked about , for social programs and failed foreign policies to be debated between the parties in this campaign .
Obama spoke to the people of America as if they were adults when he spoke of Rev. Wright's message and style .
Clinton spoke to the people of this Country as if they were adults when she spoke of a universal 10% tax on all incomes to create national healthcare.
We need candidates to tell us the Truth to win in November . Our backs are to the wall now, and without unity , Bush(mccain) will get re-elected . Thank You...

Posted by: danielwwargo2002yahoocom | March 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

How far have we come? After the Civil Rights Act, we lost the south. The South will not swing back in this election and now I think we will lose the industrial Midwest. Racial attitudes may not be an issue with the Starbucks crowd but it is still an issue within the Walmart crowd.

Posted by: alrascal11 | March 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Obama and Clinton are now tied at 45 percent each, compared with a Clinton lead of 4743 percent two weeks ago"

Wow, a 4743% lead? That sounds like a Hillary-esc truth embellishment. Would you like to correct the record? :)

Posted by: dbishop1 | March 28, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton began her negative campaign way before Iowa and she is continuing to this day with her lies and deceptions. She won't hesitate to cross any line for more money and more power, even if this means crossing her own party.

Hillary understands very well that she will not win the nomination and she is playing for 2012 by making sure that the democrats will lose in 2008. Insiders in her campaign admit that the chances for her to win the nomination are slim to none: see the articles

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=301838

STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Let's hope that the superdelegates will put an end to the campaign of this kamikaze who believes in ressurection; after all, she is supposed to be Jesus or one of his associates if Bill Richardson is Judas.

Vote Obama or McCain rather than for this power and money driven heartless #$@%! who wears faith and patriotism on her sleeves.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 28, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

YAWN!!! Another poll. Listen the Democratic Presidential Nomination is heated and the height of it's slideshow. Polls are just snapshots into people's current sentiment. We are seven months away from a general election. The economy sucks, and the Iraq War is quickly going to hell-in-a-hand-basket. It is way too early to be polling Democrats about not supporting their candidate. But don't be fooled. Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans will rally behind Obama with the help of the Clinton's appeal and the disatrous Bush polices.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 28, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic party will lose a lot more then 24 mill from the big donors if they mess with this race! I know there will be a much larger percent then 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters who even now are not giving a penny to the DNC until those Florida & Michigan delegates are seated. They end this campaign early and they will have a mass exit by over half of there party! We just might become a 3 party nation over this! It is that serious! Hillary Clinton was to be this election year party nominee and everyone knew it. If this is not run in a way in which every single Democrat who wants a voice & vote and a delegate at the convention to choose this years nominee you will see most Florida and Michigan and Hillary supporters not be there with either money or votes! How many Obama supporters are only Obama supporters and not other Democratic interest supporters? How many Hillary Clinton supporters also support all other Democratic Party interest? Her supporter show up at the voting booth and vote straight Democratic tickets year in and year out. Can you say that about Obama's supporters? We need of Mayors, State leaders, US Senate, US House of Representatives not just the White House. You sure you can afford the cost of a Obama nomination?

Posted by: snags85 | March 27, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Good night, mbshults. As I stated, if you ever find any personal attacks (i.e. calling someone a "bent, twisted and biased hack") that I've leveled against anyone posting HERE, let me know. As for my alleged "biases" I think you are mistaken. If someone claimed that McCain was "consistently" ahead of Obama, I would challenge that false claim as well.

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

You consistently attack Obama. On a personal level. If you are attacking him for his name or for his family history that gave him that name then it is a purely personal attack. It is not about issues or anything else.

You cannot squirm out of this one. The polls completely back me up and there is no fuzziness. More polls show Obama ahead of McCain, period. Your own ignoring or contradicting this article's reference of a poll is just not credible. Did you see the blue line showing consistently ahead or are you just looking for some shred of support for your own bias, I think it is the latter.

Confront your own biases JakeD. What cause this problem for you on Obama? Is it because he is just different from you? Do you feel somewhat threatened by what you don't understand? Is it inconceivable that there is such thing as an intelligent, articulate black man in your reality? What is it cause you come across as a bigot.

Good night all!

Posted by: mbshults | March 27, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Thanks cal0kie!

I was there for Desert Shield and was very disturbed by what I saw in some of the places there. When we off-loaded our ships I found out that the port officials expected and demanded bribes. It was a big issue and not something the merchant marine would go for in anyway.

I thought to myself how corrupt is that sort of thing, but then I came back home and took PoliSci 101. Boy that was an education! I found out that our whole political system is corrupt and run by who can give the most bribes to politicians.

I am voting for Barack and one of the main reasons is that he takes no money from lobbyists. I pay him $50 a month like so many out there. He will owe us the American people for his Presidency. I like that idea. It is the way it should be and not owing it the richest companies and then paying them off with no bid contracts. I revolted by the current politics in American and greatly saddened that Hillary is more of a Corporate candidate than either McCain or Obama. Even though McCain, for all his talk, is also a sellout.

It is time "We the People" took back our government. It is supposed to for and by us. A government for and by the People. Not one for and by the Rich People to make them even richer!

GO Obama!!!!

Posted by: mbshults | March 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

mbshults:

What part of "5 of 8 polls show Obama ahead of McCain" do you not understand? If 3 of 8 polls show McCain ahead of Obama, or even just the 1 Rassmussen poll, then what you said earlier ("Obama has consistently been ahead when paired up against McCain") is just not accurate. You can argue outliers, flaws in sampling, etc., but this is not FUZZY math here.

Also, please post a single "personal attack" I have made against anyone posting here. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

and you too mbshults!

Posted by: cal0kie | March 27, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You are really biased. Your whole HUSSEIN bit seems a bit desperate in its attempt to bash Obama.

Look at the below polling 5 of 8 polls show Obama ahead of McCain. These are current polls showed in the first table. Then look at the table below. At the blue line which is Obama. It shows him as ahead most of the time over the past few months.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

SEE, I GOT PROOF FOR WHAT I AM SAYING!

Back up your punditry you bent, twisted and biased hack! Let us see your numbers!

I see that people have stopped responding for the most part to you because they see you are so completely warped. You just use this forum to vent your own distorted perspectives through personal attacks. PATHETIC!

Posted by: mbshults | March 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

pedraza1: Thank you for your service to the country and I agree with your comments as.

Posted by: cal0kie | March 27, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

therookie:

Actually, RealClearPolitics DOES provide tallies with caucus estimates (not incl. FL & MI -- but obviously, plenty of Democrats "like" her in those States as well):

Hillary DIANE Clinton 12,858,238

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

This analysis ignores some interesting, and important, differences in these results by race. Interested readers should take a look at the full survey results: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20080326-poll.pdf

Posted by: CarolBG | March 27, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

pedraza1:

I am also a Vet and fought in Desert Storm and think Obama is the guy. The whole debate on Commander in Chief is just ridiculous. If you are in a war it is because you lost. War is for losers. I know there are quotes out there on this. Diplomacy is an art lost in the error of the "W". McCain is pro-war. It really is a shame because I like him. I wish he wasn't so much of a hawk and so tied to courting Bush's conservative cronies.

Posted by: mbshults | March 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

therookie: Well said. Personally, I'm beginning to wonder what I ever saw in Hillary, who I used to have fairly high regard for. I'd still prefer her to McCain, but her campaign's recent attempts at kneecapping Obama and the stigma of being a Clinton add up to bad news for Democrats in a general election simulation.

I think that the Republicans, for all the 527s they're likely to launch at Obama should he become the nominee, are really not going to know quite how to deal with him in the end. We have not seen a naturally gifted politician of this caliber in decades.

Posted by: stee1962 | March 27, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to mbshults: Barack HUSSEIN Obama has NOT "consistently" been ahead when paired up against John SIDNEY McCain -- see, e.g. Rassmussen poll -- I am not the one IGNORING poll data here.

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

therookie:

You have not seen ANY evidence that Democrats like Clinton?! How about the 12,380,344 votes she's received so far?

randymk1:

Which candidate's supporters do you think will more likely vote for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination?

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse


The day is coming when Hillary will be straight-jacketed and led away to a mental hospital.

Her interview on fixed noise today is really alarming.

She looks crazed and beyond desperate, and yet all she has to do is to seek medical/psychiatric help, ther ARE ways to treat whatever it is she has.


Posted by: skyriak | March 27, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You should give this poll credit. Don't just listen to that which says what you want to hear. You have been pretty anti-Obama and probably want to hear that he loses in a pairup. Hearing only what you want is the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq. Obama has consistently been ahead when paired up against McCain.

Some of the "experts" have been so completely wrong of the swing vote issue. Like CNN Schneider. I have read a lot saying that Hillary's voters are more likely than Barack's to vote for McCain. What this completely ignores is the most of the Obama supporters will just stay home if he isn't the nominee. The huge upswell of new democratic and black voters will not be there. Hillary will have to win with just old catholic women.

These questions that are raised don't really address who is going to win and why. The reason one candidate is going to win in the general election will all depend on voter turnout. That is it pure and simple.

Pundits improvise with period polemic to no avail for all of their sophisticated wording. The winner will the one that gets out the most votes.

McCain will be at a disadvantage because he doesn't excite the conservative base. He will depend on moderates and independents. Completely reversed from previous elections, but really the only republican shot at winning.

The thing is that Obama has the most chance of competing against him for several reasons. Female Dems will vote for him in that match up. He is just plain easier on their eyes and has the same policy positions as Hillary. He will get more of the male vote. A lot of males don't like Hillary and would vote McCain. And he can compete for the Independents. While McCain talks good about their issues, campaign finance reform, he doesn't walk his talk with lobbyists running his campaign while Obama doesn't take any of their money. All his funding is from small donors. Lastly and MOST importantly, Hillary will get the vote out for Republicans better than McCain ever could. The Against Hillary vote would be a spectacle of Republican solidarity.

There are many more reasons, but JakeD and others... Obama is really the only likely chance for Dems against McCain.

Posted by: mbshults | March 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentlemen it is without question that Barack Obama will be the Democratic party nominee. He won more votes, more pledged delegates, more states. You cannot simply move the goaI posts any longer just ask Bobby Bowden or Nancy Pelosi. I for one appreciate the tempering Senator Obama has received from Billary's "kitchen sink, Tonya Harding" strategies. Senator Obama will be stronger for having risen above her divisiveness and our candidate will thus be prepared for the Karl Roves and their fear be afraid be very afraid techniques. The Democrats lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and of course the White House. Do we really want more of those results for our country?

John McCain a.k.a. Senator "McWar" cannot create more make believe boogeymen; the American people are now on to that b.s..

I fought in Iraq in the All Americans 82nd Airborne and join the now legions of my comrades opposed to the war which has cost 4000+ of my comrades in arms their lives and maimed another 25,000+. How much does a trillion and counting cost each American family? I ask any citizen who doubts the price of this war to visit the nearest Veterans hospital to them. The one I visit for therapy has a plaque on it that states The price of freedom is clearly evident here. The price for Iraq is way too high for a war which we should not be in. No WMD, No ties to Al Qaeda Etc. Etc. I pray that our country is really prepared to show courage and turn the page away from the dismal George W. cowboy with no guts or sense years and put our great nation on a better path.

Vote Barack Obama America!

Posted by: pedraza1 | March 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

With so many "accidents" happening to the friends, supporters, officials, etc... surrounding the Clintons in the 90's,would Obama really risk choosing Hillary as his vice president?

Posted by: johninfresno | March 27, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been "smoked out."

It really doesn't matter what he says concerning race or anything else for that matter ... He can go live with his "old uncle."

His speech was nothing more than a lecture on "white guilt" and "moral equivalence."

Intellectually, it failed miserably.

And I for one, see through his "negative transference" attempt.

Hey Barack, nice try but no cigar.

Posted by: randymk1 | March 27, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's obvious who the favorite is for this writer. I have not seen any evidence that Democrats like Clinton. Quite the opposite actually, and from her state of New York she has been boiled as a liar and scandal ridden. Here is just one excerpt:

Clinton defector and Hollywood mogul David Geffen explained his exodus from the Clinton Camp last year, saying they lie "with such ease, it's troubling."

This from a guy who's in the acting business.

Yet for some reason, we in the press are the biggest suckers in the world when it comes to the Clintons.

Given her performance, there is no reason Hillary Clinton should still be in contention for the Democratic nomination.

But with truth a mere pawn in a giant political swindle, the Clintons repackage reality every day.

If she's losing in the contest for delegates, simply rewrite reality and say the game is all about superdelegates.

If she begins losing in that contest, too, simply rewrite reality one more time. Tell people the contest is actually all about Electoral College votes.

Already in this campaign, the Clintons have thrown overboard old friends and the Democratic Party.

Why should the truth suddenly get special treatment?

Posted by: therookie | March 27, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Time Magazine is asking the inevitable question: Is Al Gore the Answer? - I think not, here's why:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/time-magazine-is-al-gore-the-answer/

Posted by: old_europe | March 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The Rassmussen poll has McCain up over either Dem by healthy percentages nationally, and even in Missouri (although I don't know why that one State was singled-out).

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company