The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Pollster

Clinton Keeps Her Pa. Lead

By Jon Cohen
Hillary Clinton holds a nine-point lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But it is the survey's general election numbers from three key swing states that may do more to bolster the New York senator's campaign.

In hypothetical match-ups with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Clinton outperformed Barack Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In each of these states, Clinton is propelled by solid support among female voters, and Democrats -- particularly white Democrats -- in all three are less likely to defect to McCain with Clinton atop the Democratic ticket.

Overall, Clinton is up nine points over McCain in Ohio, while Obama runs about evenly with the Arizona senator. Clinton also has a more sizable edge in Pennsylvania and is competitive in Florida, a state where McCain is up nine points on Obama in the new poll.

Polling about November in the midst of a hotly contested primary contest is a perilous enterprise, but a Clinton campaign eager to sway superdelegates is sure to latch onto the new data. And the crosstabs do reveal some early obstacles for Obama.

About one in five Democrats in each of these three states said he or she would support McCain if Obama were the Democratic nominee; that is about double the proportion who would vote for the Republican against Clinton. And Clinton outpaces Obama among white women by double-digits in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alike.

There are other new polls of varying quality causing ripples today. Here is one place to go to help sort the good and the bad: "5 Tips for Decoding Those Election Polls."

Posted at 2:17 PM ET on Apr 2, 2008  | Category:  The Pollster
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Persistent Picture-Seeker Irks Obama | Next: Clinton Unveils New 3 a.m. Ad


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



the Obamanicas freak out quite horrible at the #s huh? Operation Chaos my ass....truth is people are seeing all of OBAMA'S LIES: 1)his anti-american ways refusing to wear the american pin 2) his wife who said "for the first time I feel proud to be an American" (what? affirmative action got you in College...you should be proud America gave you a job to make big bucks you ungrateful woman) 3)his ties wqith renzko denying him and then saying "oh yeah he gave me 250,000.00 but we gave it away" dirty liar, 4) his Reverend RACIST and ANTI-AMERICAN remarks in 20 years attending his preaching he said "I never heard that" LIAR AGAIN, and then saying "only black people know what it feels like" EXCUSE ME LATINOS, WOMEN, GAYS, JEWISH PEOPLE ETC. know what is like to have been discriminated. how DARE HIM MOCK US MINORITIES? and also he called his grandmother a "TYPICAL WHITE PERSON" that's dissing white people who have no racism in them, you can't keep blaming people for what ancestors did YEARS AGO then he plans to advance only blacks in JOBS...so to all the white people who were voting for him they saw how he's about to do a JUDAS on them. and then the new OIL DONATIONS HE DENIES ON TV. the truth has been uncovered and now we see WHO OBAMA REALLY IS...that's why he's DOWN on the polls!

Posted by: Sarina | April 10, 2008 11:25 AM

Obama: There Will Be Bamboozling II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7OFLl3asg&eur
l=http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/02/obamboozled_did.html

I have read so many articles about Obama trying to like and truat him but he's simply ingenuous. Virtually everything he says is not in alligmnet with how he vores, but his supporters don't care. I find the situation quite Bizare, but if you look at how he uses advertsing, and religios techniques, and focuses on young people and Black voters, and uses peer pressure to win... It adds up. Plus he has David Axelrod a notoriously vicious press agent ans startegist.So the game is undermine Hillary and undermine truth any way he can... I find it truly scary.

Though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Posted by: artysmarty | April 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Why is it that the so called greatest democratic nation has so many misogynists? Why can we not think intelligently and vote for an intelligent woman for president. If an intelligent man can imaprtially evaluate the candidates it is so obvious that the woman candidate is more qualified than the man. So people vote for Hillary. Do not hate her. Do not do unto others what you would not others do unto you. Think intelligently. Be kind. notsoaveragejane

Posted by: pnepomuceno | April 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Thank you so much for the article. It reminds me of the election in Ohio. Hillary had been leading Obama by good margins in the polls. As the race drew near Obama narrowed her lead. On the morning of the election the polls had Obama winning by 5 points. Hillary beat him by double digits. I seem to recall the same thing happened in California. So much for polls. All that really counts is the votes.

Posted by: ninasevyn | April 3, 2008 8:23 PM

Why don't you political campaign addicts what until the people of Pennsylvania (and the other states) actually vote, or at least a week or less before the primary before you start looking at the mass array of polls, some of which are campaign tools for the candidates. They choose the one that suits their propaganda at the moment. Furthermore, they conflict with each other a lot. Furthermore, come election day, they are usually way off and the TV pundits spend three days making excuses about why they were erroneous.

Really, it may seem like a football game most of the time, especially the way the press covers it (actually the football coverage has far more facts than the politics) but i hope people take it more seriously than the Superbowl. But really I'm not so sure they do.

Anyone know the typical TV audience for the SuperBowl versus the turn out for a presidential election? That would be interesting I'm sure it would be simple to statistically account for the under 18 TV viewers who cannot vote.
The polls and pundits are usally off, so why make a big deal of a few points change in one of a hundred or more polls?

Internet poling is absurd. That is definitely NOT a random sample of anything, but especially of the voter public.

Posted by: KRittenmyer | April 3, 2008 7:12 PM

For those who think Republicans are voting for Clinton, check the exit polls. They are voting for Obama.

So by your logic, that means the GOP thinks Clinton is the more dangerous candidate?

Logic is logic, no?

Posted by: Jim2312 | April 3, 2008 6:21 PM

Having followed various blogs and threads, it is clear that nobody is going to convince anybody of anything. So why post? To put in my two cents; nothing more. So a couple of points, that seem like common sense to me, but obviously not everyone would agree.

1. Clinton's pastor is not comparable to Obama's pastor. In one case, the pastor lied about what he had done, was found out, tried, and sentenced. Clinton could not possibly have known this serious flaw in his character, since it was not public. Nor did she refuse to disown him after he was convicted (to the best of my knowledge). But Obama knew of Wright's views, which were very public and consisted not only in pointed and vulgar criticism of the United States (fair enough, if his congregation can take it) but also in preaching hatred of white people. And Obama not only sat there for twenty years, he referred to Wright as his uncle and spiritual adviser, and he has embraced him publicly, noting that he could no more disown him than his (according to Obama) racist (white) grandmother. So not only are the pastors different -- secret vices vs. public vitriol -- but the relationship of Clinton and Obama to their respective pastors is dramatically different.

2. Polls are snapshots in time. Would any of Obama's followers argue that he should have dropped out of the race or did not stand a chance when the polls suggested he hadn't a chance? Did the polls call Clinton's win in California? What are the margins of error on the polls? Four percent? Five? What are the methodologies and samples? What questions were asked and how were respondents chosen?

3. Trends? Who cares? It is certainly possible, but highly unlikely that Obama closed a 28-point deficit in Pennsylvania in a couple of weeks. Now that would be amazing and notable. More likely, the PPP poll is flawed (check out its methodology). The only polls in Pennsylvania that count, of course, will occur on 22 April.

4. Endorsements? Again, who cares? Did Kennedy, Kerry & cpy. help in Massachusetts? And Wyoming is history, no? This is just campaigning and not particularly newsworthy.

Posted by: Jim2312 | April 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Enough is enough. Let the only superpower of the world produce first woman presidxent when even the developing countiries have produced so so many. Is this the male chauvinism ? . It is a big surprise & disappointement to me as i looked upon the land of the mother of the modern democracy & the liberty to lead the world in the gender equality too. At last an woman have vwentured & arrived soi close yet it looks like due to the male chauvinism she may be denied of this historical oppurtunity. I want Dem. parrty to win & also this time at last in the history of the presidency an woman who is equally competitive & qualified get the chance thereby addressing this belated historical injustice. Engineer Ram Bahadur K.C. Posted on 03 April, 2008.

Posted by: kcengg | April 3, 2008 12:10 PM

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 2, 2008 03:47 PM

***********************
the only thing worth noting on that post.

I noticed that the long, rambling posts (svrelapse, jacksmith) are sounding increasingly shrill. What's the matter, shouldn't the polls give you two comfort? Sounds like you are trying to convince yourselves more than us. BTW, Clinton has to have a convincing win in PA, not a so-so one. That is why she is so frantically campaigning in NC.

Posted by: LABC | April 3, 2008 12:08 PM

yankeenana2 wrote: "Obama did go on tv in Fla. he said that he would see that the votes were counted, but that was before the primaries,it was a tv station in Tampa Fla." Do you think that a copy of that program is preserved?

Posted by: royrichard | April 3, 2008 11:55 AM

lisa8:

Hopefully, enough Republicans and Independents vote for Hillary in Pennsylvania then ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 3, 2008 11:48 AM

Hilary Clinton is most definitely not keeping her lead in PA. She is sliding in the polls. The margin is now within single digits; Last week she had a double digit lead. If Clinton does not win PA by 20 points she has lost any hope of ever catching Obama. This latest poll is not good for Clinton.

Posted by: lisa8 | April 3, 2008 11:45 AM

Obama did go on tv in Fla. he said that he would see that the votes were counted, but that was before the primaries,it was a tv station in Tampa Fla.Why hasn't the main stream media airing all the stories all the candidates are sprouting instead of putting OB on a pedestal the man lies oops Imeant to say misspoke

Posted by: yankeenana2 | April 3, 2008 11:08 AM

FairlingtonBlade:

I've been using her middle name longer than I have his ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 3, 2008 11:05 AM

McCain fails economics 101, communications 101 and politics 101 all.

He supports the government's bailout of big investment banks like Bear Stearns with $29 billion of tax payers money under the pretext that there is going to be a systemic risk to the US economy and financial system.

This is Henry Paulson's and Ben Bernanke's logic. Because Paulson was yesteryears' Goldman Sachs man. He should bail out his friends. McCain is OK with that.

Bailing out greedy bankers who wrapped subprime mortgaes in Collaterized Debt Obligations to provide lenders with cash is OK. McCain forgets that Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup with all their financial sophistication should have known what they are wrapping to sell in order to provide mortgage cash to underwriters.

But he is a tough market guy and conservative disciplinarian when it comes to helping home owners who were duped by lenders who introduced teaser rates, variable rate mortagages. They did not have a knowledge to understand fine prints.

It is understandable who is favoring whom and using money in McCain agenda. This is not different than Bush policies.

Posted by: tilak.dias | April 3, 2008 10:57 AM

I really wish that someone in the Washington Post would explain to me and millions of Clinton Supporters, why you have, for the last 14 months continually run negative remarks about Senator Clinton. i have not heard one word about Hillary picking up SIX and yes SIX MAYORS IN SIX CITIES IN INDIANA. DON'T YOU THINK THAT LITTLE BIT OF GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE INSTEAD OF DESTROYING HER INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER?????

Posted by: abutterbutt | April 3, 2008 10:44 AM

Newsweek reports:

"In a new ad, Obama says, "I don't take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading, because:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."

Posted by: thejaner | April 3, 2008 10:36 AM

Cable this morning featured polls that showed Republican 3 to 1 thought Obama would be much harder for McCain to beat then Clinton. Democrats thought Obama would be twice as hard to beat as Clinton. The Clintons make it up as they go along. The republicans already have a feature length film to release on Hillary. Just because Obama hasn't gone after their past, don't imagine that the republican 527's will give it a miss.

Posted by: karela | April 3, 2008 9:59 AM

To Hillary Clinton this must sound like: "mission accomplished", when it comes to her Tonya Harding style campaigning. She will not win the nomination. 99 lawmakers have already endorsed Obama 96 for Clinton. He is closing the gap with superdelegates. The only question remaining is, will the numbers of defectors to McCain from Hillary Clinton's supporters be as high if she actively and positively campaigns for Barack Obama after he has won the nomination?

Ah, won't happen - right?

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/hillary-clinton-is-using-the-wright-controversy-against-obama/

Posted by: old_europe | April 3, 2008 9:41 AM

Don't make too much of the "google" poll ... I google Barack Obama several times each day together with Rezko, Reverend Wright, John McCain 100 year war and most of the indefensible issues that are associated with him. Since every misstep that Senator Clinton makes is splashed all across the major media, those of us who support her and oppose Obama pretty much do our own research -- thus the bump. Don't put any good spin on it. I think you'd find there are a lot of people doing research like me .... sorry to break it to you like this!

Posted by: beebop1 | April 3, 2008 8:21 AM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 8:16 AM

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...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 8:11 AM

About Secret Service agents and "Persistent Picture-Seeker Irks Obama"

After studying American media I have found that trendsetting journalists in a patronizing and unappetizing way have decided to make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to fulfill her campain. Her main opponents are neigther Obama nor McCain. No, CNN for example even reinforce this behavior by allowing threatening and contemptuous and probably unlawful comments from Obamas supporters. The only positive result of this kind of acting is that it tells a lot about some of Barack Obamas followers. This is one example CNN February 23rd:

"Hang the WITCH
burn in hades witch
you no good lying witch
YOU SHOULD DIE & go away"

Posted by: royrichard | April 3, 2008 7:52 AM

Clinton said she "misspoke" about infiltrating Bosnia, Rambo-style, under sniper fire.

Yet "misspoke" doesn't seem like the right word for a story that turns out to be easily distinguishable from the true facts.

I suggest coining a new word: misspeech - meaning a whole speech, or sizeable part thereof, in which the speaker employs a flexible approach toward reality.

By the way, misspeak under oath and you can get five years in the clink for perjury.

Posted by: festy25 | April 3, 2008 7:07 AM

Yes you go Hillary, The Clintons live on. Not God Damn America, God Bless America. We will never vote in a racist empty head like Obama.......

Posted by: gracekelly | April 3, 2008 6:23 AM

- I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US President is experienced enough to bring the whole world together
- I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US President can think about anybody else than himself
- I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US President is experienced enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job
- I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US President is human and not an actor

Finally, I will visit USA and continue to buy US products whatever happens because I love its people. European

Posted by: royrichard | April 3, 2008 5:37 AM

"any...any hint of danger, they would not have landed a plane with the first lady and her daughter...his". Of course it wouldn´t! And Hillary was quite aware of that as well. The only problem is that Americans has not the slightest ability to understand a joke or self-irony. Irony is your main wapon and it has always been. Godd bless the United Kingdom.

Posted by: royrichard | April 3, 2008 5:26 AM


Hi there
I am from Switzerland... although I am not American hater; but after 2003; after the start of the Irak war decided not to visit USA... or not to buy any US products...
America is a great country, the land of opportunity; and the land which has the potential to bring the whole world together as a single democratic nation ...
Since couple of decades you have presidents who lie for their cause... who were/are selfish... real politicians than humans...

See how bad the US economy is, see how the people are suffering in the war zones, see how other people from other nations think about America...
Its really sad; how a nation could fall this much down; because of the politicians and their selfish policies ....

I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US president is young and energetic to bring the whole world together
I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US president can think logically and judge the things in the right way and time
I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US president is wise enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job
I will visit USA and start to buy US products; if the new US president is a human than politician

This is not the mind set of one person; try to talk to people out side US

Actually you people need a change!

Posted by: kalamchatty | April 3, 2008 5:06 AM

BigTimeOhioan talks about the Bosnia visit and the sharp shooters, etc...but the pilot was interviewed last week and he contradicted all that (as has everyone including Simbad). The pilot said that nothing was flying, not even a bumblebee. No orders were given to sit on flak jackets...he thought that may have come out in the movie "Apocalypse Now" and he was emphatic in stating that if there had been any...any hint of danger, they would not have landed a plane with the first lady and her daughter...his interview is in You tube, also.

Posted by: pulakimo | April 3, 2008 4:18 AM

Mrs. Clinton portrays herself as the supporter of workers, of unions, of children, but this ABC report during the debates, earlier this year, pretty much captures the true Hillary Rodham Clinton, in my opinion. You decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigkAd3SxxI

Posted by: pulakimo | April 3, 2008 4:05 AM

Pensylnvania is the land of blue collar and Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with them. She has not worked with them on the street to help them finding jobs as Barack Obama did! She had loaned her own campaign millions of dollars (much more than a regular blue collar will make in his life time) coming from the lobbyists she is working for (and who do not have generally the interest of working people in mind) while Barack Obama's campaign is fully financed by small donors. Barack Obama is the man of the people, while Hillary Clinton is part of a dynasty and who would not be in this race without the name of her husband and the support from the establishment and lobbyists. In a fair world, Pennsylvannia should be an uphill battle for Hillary Clinton.

If Pennsylvanians are voting for the most experienced candidate, they should take into consideration that Chelsea Clinton has the same leading and heroic experience as her mother by growing up in the White House Mansion and by also dodging snipers fire in Bosnia. So Chelsea could also run for president if we follow Hillary's reasoning. Seriously, when Hillary will agree to cooperate to release her White House records, Pennsylvanians will know that most of Hillary Clinton's experience comes from meeting with lobbyist and that Barack Obama is really the most experienced candidate compared to Hillary, with more years in the legistlature (Illinois and U.S. senat) and more years working on the street with people.

Pennsylvania should be tailored made for Barack Obama! It's only a question of passing the message to the voters.

Meanwhile, the Clintons should be pressured to release their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation). There are things that can raise ethical issues.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 3, 2008 2:28 AM

to the one who loves to put up quotes on these pages every day

about the "laundry list of the clintons' sins" and "mosts"

first...a 150 million dollar investigation into the first lady

'the first ever in us history"

is ...when it ends in nothing but a big fn....0

is a complete fraud upon the people itself

and ought to itself...

resulted in the disbarrment of the lawyers and prosecutors who did this to her for over 6 years straight ad nauseum

[does the duke rape case result have any relevance to you and that prosecutor only spent 5 months and a million dollars

...and he was aptly and appropriately RAN THE F out of town and LOST HIS BAR LICENSE TOO BOOT!]

so...why don't you add that in your

"firsts"

its was a big vast right wing conspiracy
that ended in the prosecution of a president for a

bj

wow...

three years of congressional total time
hundreds of millions of tax dollars mis spent

and NO INDICTMENTS AGAINST BILL OR HILLARY BECUASE

EVEN THOUGH DIS TASTEFUL TO THE LITTLE JEWISH HOTTIE THAT TOOK THE LOAD IN HER MOUTH BUT MADE SURE SHE CAPTURED ENOUGH ON HER LITTLE PRETTY DRESS AND KEPT IT FOR A YEAR

...IT IS >>THE LAST TIME I LOOKED

NOT A FELONY TO GET A BJ IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!

OK!!!

AND ITS CERTAINLY NOT A FELONY FOR PUTTING UP WITH THE EMBARRASSMENT AS THIS MAN"S WIFE AND MOTHER OF THEIR ONLY DAUGHTER

so...go figure

maybe she ought to be prosecuted for
stayingw/ bill...


im sure those like you think she ought to be...

and you all would gladly spend another
2 years of this nation's time doing it and over 150 million dollars of tax payers money doing it

all at the lead by a big tobacco company lead corp counsel...who was on retainer to the same companies that clinton justice was helping to nail for killing everyone w/ deceptive amounts of nicotine in cigs for the past 50 yrs

[see the movie the insider]

and obtained for billions of unjust dollars...but

those of you who like to post these kinds of "mosts"

leave out that he was the ONLY PRESIDENT THAT WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON BIG TOBACCO AND BIG MICROSOFT

AND TRY TO OBTAIN JUSTICE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

AND DID SO>>>W/ big tobacco

the only down side

Ken Starr went away empty except for a
white lie about ...

the little jewish hottie who let some
of bills dna slip conviently onto her little blue underwearless dress...

go figure

but you forgot to mention

bill's load to mouth ratio ...

was also bigger than any other president's too

except..i heard...L BJ's

[but that's because of the name...only]

yes, "old big load johnson"

was his nickname they say around the
white house...and they also said

his little texan groupies ...swore by the stuff...


[g w s they say...never winds up on condi's dresses...though...

she's kind of anal about from all the insider accounts...]

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 3, 2008 1:40 AM

I do not find racial meaning in every insulting remark about Obama from the Clintons as many have during this ugly season. However, I cannot understand what Hillary Clinton means by "he can't win!" unless she is harkening back to her Arkansas days and making outdated assumptions about America's unwillingness to embrace an African-American president. I can't help but believe that this was her coded meaning and, fortunately, she is dead wrong.

Posted by: jadkisson1 | April 3, 2008 1:36 AM

I am not a Democrat who would vote for McCain, but I will not get enthusiastic about Obama until 2016. He is too young and inexperienced.

You say paJAMa, and I say paJAWMa,
You say OBAMa, and I say OBAWMa,
PaJAMa! PaJAWMa! OBAMa! OBAWMa!
(If you don't know the next line, you're not old enough.)

Posted by: dotellen | April 3, 2008 1:31 AM

by the way

the quinnepac poll ...re: hillary in OHio


on the weekend before the election

GOT IT JUST ABOUT RIGHT!

she actually beat the numbers of quinnepac

so go figure

it was rassmussen that had OHio tied w/ hilary

which the national media NEVER ADMITTED TO INDICATING

SHE BLEW HIS DOORS OFF IN OHIO

84 out of 88 counties

and here's the oppositte side of all this
obama talk in pa

....if PA voters vote in record numbers

this year b/c of their status as a meaningful primary for the first time in years...

like say..2.2 million voters which is comparable to ohio's totals [pa actually has MORE registered voters than ohio]

....

if she wins by 9 or 10 %...

SHE CLOSES THE POPULAR VOTE ALMOST OVERNIGHT INSTANTLY

that IS WHY THE MARGIN IS IMPORTANT
DON"T KID YOUR SELF


AND THIS IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE

no matter what...

if the voters vote in the number of
3 million

OBAMA IS TOAST FOREVER...

do you obama ite better pay rasmusseen and that ppc polsters better

.....so they can try to depress the hillary voters in pa ...to not come out

and you better pay some evil cia operative to get the bad weather machine running for April 22


b/c if PA votes heavy and i mean heavy

its OVER "THERE

for O MAN A

not so from hea vena

or is that from Havvana?

like some soronoa

good night and good luck obamaites

& indiana and wva and kentucky

are lurking in the shadows dudes?

just say...BOO! in indiana and ky and wva

and the ghost of chicago's south side 'johnny'

...will be no more

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 3, 2008 12:53 AM

It is my opinion that svreader is vastly more interested in seeing his words posted than in either the candidates or the election. Hasn't been any new or relevant information out of him in weeks... just wind.
As for JackSmith1, his goddess's "experience" is pretty frail; the wife of a dentist doesn't drill teeth. I like her ok, I just like Obama more. Bill was an adequate President, made to appear better by being bracketed between 2 Bushes. And we know how much Slick Willy likes bushes.
I am heartily tired of Yale. We have other universities in America, why only Yale can make leaders? Our last President not from Skull and Bones was REAGAN! Last election, BOTH candidates were from there!! Something about New Haven is starting to smell.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | April 3, 2008 12:46 AM

in a word

texan has it right

if we were to follow the polls and stay home...maybe their 'medicine' would work on the people of pa and other places

like it did in wisconsin and virginia and in senator kennedy's and kery's drinking 'buddy' room of their twin mansions

but i bet ted "the embarrassed irishman"

K..is truly mad as hell ...
not against hillary

but his stupid polsters like rasmussen

who seem to keep just

getting it wrong..on the ground...

for some reason...

this bizarre zogby polls are NO LONGER BEING USED...

that were first SO CNN and USA TODAY important to the Obama camp

but even these failed SO miserably

that zogby had to take a JOB AT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN JUST TO STAY IN BUSINESS!!!!

Ha! HA! HA!

the question is...just WHEN DID ZOGBY GET HIRED

BEFORE IOWA...AFTER NEW HAMPSHIRE

or..better

after they had him winning California on the front page of the USA TODAY

by 13% on the date of the election!

what a load of crap these guys are

my five year old could do more honest poling that these discredited "i am now a part of the obama campaign"...freaks....


...whose kool aid will be listening to tommorrow as this race gets closer to the day of election?

rasmussen...or the local KDKA poll?

as in new hamsphire

THE ONLY POLL THAT HAD IT RIGHT WAS ONE OF THE LOCAL NH COLLEGES WHO HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD


AND NO ONE BUT NO ONE USED OR LATER REFENCED OR MENTIONED THIS POLL

they just used "Racism of NHites" as the basis for the "sudden shift" towards hillary

all the while

this very very credible political science professor in new hamphire kept trying to tell the nation media...i saw the interviews on msnbc...at 300 am!!!!

true on the night before the election there

"hillary is tracking very very postiviely and we are seeing a major shift towards her in NH

and everyone else including rassmussen and zogby and usa today and 12 others

had her losing by at least 13%


IT WAS SO GREAT

even andrea mitchel had to sit down and change her girdle on that one

[yes..its true..according to a poll taken by zogby and rassmuseen...575 of the american public BELIEVES andrea mitchel

wears a GIRDLE...ITS SO TRUE!!!!]

...anyways...

get a life and stop trying to suppress the real vote and simply allow the pa folks

do what they know full well they are going to do

they are going to follow new york, new jersey, california, florida, OHIO and TEXAS popular votes


and simply kick some ...O's a$$

out of the keystone state, if not out of the election...

and it ought to have happened sooner...

if florida was truly counted...ALONG TIME AGO


Ed "the big nose" rendell aint' going to allow anyone called "hussein" run over his

baby boo...

...so get the hell out of here OK?

Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 3, 2008 12:38 AM

The media seems obsessed with keeping this race going. When Clinton had the lead, they pushed Obama. Now that Obama has a lead, the media is not only pushing Hillary's case, but actually pretending that the race is still alive when it basically isn't.

I guess they know a cash cow when they see one, and this primary season is sellin' papers.

Posted by: davestickler | April 3, 2008 12:26 AM

texan is right


....same old politics...rasmussen drank the obama kool aid before New Hampshire
and California [where he had him winning easily by 13%]

AND OHIO...

where obama lost every county except 4...

OUT OF 88 of them!!!

by wide margins...

pa..demographics are WORSE Than ohio's in many respects

but there is a movement and hillary knows this and that's why she has been in pa over 20 times so far and she's been in at least 15 separate cities as has bill

they are endorsed by over 7 major community mayors, and county executives

the governor, the lieut gov and the democratic party workes afsme, the ATF american federal of teachers and

the steelworkers are neutral

but a quote today in the pitt gazette

has 63 yr old steel worker from the clarion works

stating...

listen, "i don't want my name used by there is NOT one person in this mill that is going to vote for that guy with a funny name...ok?

check it out...

its in today's post gazette

so keep drinking in all those phoney pols which say "its close and he's closing in her in pa..."

the PITTS KDKA [most distinquished one if not oldest in the nation local news]

has a mutual quinnepac poll which is published in same newspaper

she still hold at least a nine point advantage over obama moma in pa....

what is SO very clear...

pa is holding for her and many in the middle part of the state will never vote for obama if he turned water into wine tommorrow...

and..the same thing is for many who are industrial workers and numerous nursing unions and teaching unions are working hard

by probably in the final analysis

not only the white male in the middle

in pa is more apt to vote along the lines of the Ohio primary...which simply swamped Obama moma

instead of all those cheese heads in wisconsin who heard one too many news items from their neighbor chicago...

but ...pa will be won by women

and women who love this intelligent, pretty and very seriously capable leader

who...
by the way...

landed in not one, but TWO "hot zones"

as per the former president of Bosnia

the acting president at the time of her visits

and he said...

"we told the staff and her plane associates to get out the flak jackets

and we told them that the situation in the hills next to the outposts were

capable of still containing snipers"

this is this man's quote

why doesn't teh national news put this on front and center?

and why don't they add

from the ap news article written in 96 about the tuzla landing...

"hillary was immediately surrounded by an advance team of sharpshooters and taken to the brush area where another team of snipers were waiting for her..."

so...go figure

no no bullets were being fired

but when is the last time your were

escorted by a sniper team into neutrallize military hot zone

w/ fighter jet aircover...
knowing your staff was told to don
flack jackets

...go read yesterday's nyt op ed piece
written by both of her staffers who described in detail the very real danger that they all did face on those jumps into the outposts

to encourage the troops and nato officers in those hot zones...

why is this such a story?

b/c they know hillary...

had enough balls to not only admit to a mistake
\
but to visit a real hot zone where people like mccain and cheney

today...would NEVER BE CAUGHT DEAD visiting

and obama was still wearing his "training panties" when this happened

apparently...

bult then again...

he probably gave a great speech about

"visiting a hot zone and taking fire one day soon"

and everyone will think he was the

re-incarnation of JFK and the
PT 109 story...

Obama takes on bosnia in a speech and settles ancient score!!!

i can just see that story in the making


Posted by: BigTimeOhioan | April 3, 2008 12:22 AM

The Clintons have shown that they will not hesitate to say anything or to cross any lines for more power and more money. The Clintons records during and after the White House speak for themselves:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Let's press the Clintons to release all their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation) so that we understand what lies below the tip of the iceberg.

The negative campaign of Hillary is representative of what the Clintons are; corrupted politicians with a lot of connected friends in the party who owe them and in the lobbying business who hope to collect for their favors to Hillary's campaign and/or to the Clinton's library foundation which is a money laundering machine.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 3, 2008 12:12 AM

mchaney2002 - "Not voting for Obama because of something his Pastor said"? Uhh excuse me. I believe people who do not vote for Barack Obama as a result of the Wright scandal is more so because of Barack Obama's inaction, by continuing to be a member of the church and subjecting his wife and children to Rev. Wright's hate speech. This reasoning for not voting for Barack Obama is NOT ridiculous; it shows that people are concerned about the Barack Obama's bad jugment for the past 20 years by attending this church that promotes black power while attacking white people (and our government).

If people have a problem supporting someone who had the bad judgment to continue attending such a church for 20 years while subjecting his wife and children to such rants such as the U.S. government created AIDS just to kill off the black population, then they have every right to not support him for that very reason. That explains why more Democrats would support John McCain over Barack Obama.

Posted by: InSearchofTruth | April 2, 2008 11:58 PM

jacksmith seems to think that a wife inherits intelligence and wisdom from her husband. And then he calls the rest of us idiots. Figures.

Posted by: svand | April 2, 2008 11:53 PM

ChrisDC - Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton never had "nation-wide" ads that aired in Florida unlike Obama who saturated the airwaves in Florida with his "campaign" ads. He may not have campaigned personally, but he sure campaigned via his campaign ads. So your "logic" doesn't add up because the people in Florida knew all about Barack Obama thanks to his numerous ads he ran. As for being "well known," I think your arugment fails on that front as well given the fact that Barack Obama gets far more favorable press compared to Hillary Clinton.

Why hasn't he campaigned in Florida? He has via his political ads he aired on t.v. Why didn't Hillary Clinton air campaign ads in Florida? Because she RESPECTS the rules, including the rule that allows Super Delegates to vote independently.

Posted by: InSearchofTruth | April 2, 2008 11:49 PM

svreader

JakeD puts DIANE in there, because I called him out a few weeks ago regarding his incessant harping on Obama's middle name. It's idiotic and infantile. Let it go.

however, you know little about academics. I was a professor, except I wasn't. I was a lecturer at a British university, which is the equivalent assistant professor in the American system. Universities have research professors, who aren't tenured or tenure track. They are, however, entitled to use the honorific. Your harping on this particular matter betrays your lack of perception.

You would rather, to pick a previous metaphor, destroy the village in order to save it. You would leave the DemocratIC party in smoking ruins than live with the party choosing another candidate. I suspect you would have posted similarly about Tsongas had the net been around back then.

So sad.

Buh-bye

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 2, 2008 11:14 PM

Please People!!What President Clinton did when he was in the White House has nothing to do with Hillary.She has made her own accomplishments.It has been proven that her foriegn affairs experience is a LIE!! You can't make it part of your resume when you held no official post besides being the first lady at the time.
We need to look at the facts and and see how the issues affect you and make a dicision based on who you think can solve them with the most accuracy.
All three candidates have flaws,short comings and weaknesses so lets stop looking for the perfect one.
Not voting for Obama because of something his Pastor said is rediculous.We are not held accountable for what other people say,only for what we say.
We have two of the best candidates running for the President of the United States.Hillary and Obama. If they were not they wouldn't still be in the race.
STOP BICKERING AND SHOW SOME CLASS!!

Posted by: mchaney2002 | April 2, 2008 11:08 PM

Please People!!What President Clinton did when he was in the White House has nothing to do with Hillary.She has made her on accomplishments.It has been proven that her foriegn affairs experience is a LIE!! You can't make it part of your resume when you held no official post besides the first lady.
We need to look at the facts and and see who the issues affect you and make a dicision based on who you think can solve them with the most accuracy.
All three candidates have flaws,short comings and weaknesses so lets stop looking foe the perfect one.
Not voting for Obama because of something his Pastor said is rediculous.We are not held accountable for what other people say,only for what we say.
We ahve two of the best candidates running for the President of the United States.If they were not they wouldn't still be in the race.
STOP BICKERING AND SHOW SOME CLASS!!

Posted by: mchaney2002 | April 2, 2008 11:03 PM

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate
Posted March 19, 2008 | 01:11 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Barbara Ehrenreich, Christian Conservatives, Fellowship, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Religion, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright Barack Obama, Prayer Breakfast, Religion And Politics, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, The Family, Breaking Politics News

There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in may


Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.
The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:


During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.


At the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family's young women's group. And, at the Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the underappreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define the Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worship Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power -- cultivating it, building it, and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain -- or, better yet, renounce -- her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family.


Posted by: ldcvoigt | April 2, 2008 10:57 PM

obama is a "slacker."

Without a doubt, from 2000 to 2008, the Senate's most prolific legislator is Californian Diane Feinstein. Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes in 3d overall (after Bill Frist) and 2nd for all Senate Democrats. Hillary's legislative output puts her into the 97th percentile.

Where does Obama rank? Not in the top ten or twenty. His output puts him at the 65th percentile.

Posted by: mjno | April 2, 2008 10:51 PM

bink --

I'm probably quite a few years older than you, kid.

Please don't insult me.

As far as your candidate goes, you can have him.

He's as phony as a three dollar bill.

Its too bad for you that you can't see that.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 10:47 PM

If we want to know how Obama is going to do we need to see what PA does.

If it is much worse then Ohio then Obama is in big trouble with the typical white people.

If it is about the same than Obama and Hillary are probably about as strong now as then in the GE (I would have given HRC a slight edge but I like HRC and both can lose) - although Obama seems to be off kilter - they can not pivot even with a very very friendly press. Three weeks and no 'effective' working class message although they have been trying.

Posted by: mul | April 2, 2008 10:42 PM

svreader,

When will you finally get it that though you imagine you're doing your candidate Hillary Clinton a favor with your omnipresence in these WAPO forums you're really pretty much a perpetual annoyance who does your candidate more harm than good?

Wake up, son.

Posted by: binkynh | April 2, 2008 10:32 PM

YES!

Posted by: brigittepj | April 2, 2008 10:30 PM

Rather than asking if Obama (or Clinton) supporters will switch to McCain if their candidate loses, the polls should ask if the respondents will vote at all. I suspect that a significant number of the "new voters" that Obama is attracting will stay home if Clinton wins. Many of Obama's strongest supporters in the primaries up to now have been from groups that historically have low turnout (minorities and those under 25). That is probably not true of most Clinton supporters. Thus, while an Obama-McCain election might lead some Clinton voters to go for McCain (as recent polls suggests), that is no worse for DEMS(and probably better)than a Clinton-McCain race that turns off minority and young voters who stay home in large numbers.

Posted by: gurssr | April 2, 2008 04:33 PM

They did that 16 percent a piece said they would not vote at all.

When a voter goes for the other guy that is a net loss of 2. 4-2 becomes 3-3.

If someone stays home it is a net loss of 1.

Posted by: mul | April 2, 2008 10:25 PM

The Pa. primary should be quite telling in that I have seen numbers of 87,000 Repubs changing their Registration to vote for Obama in an effort to stop Hillary. These have been disputed by some in that changed Registration are well over 200.000. I hope someone in Pa. has these totals, and I would think Indies would be included since it is a closed primary [Voting only by party Registration] HELP!!

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 10:24 PM

Keep in mind that Obama hasn't campaigned in Florida***, so it makes sense that Clinton would have an advantage, being more well known.


(***And why hasn't he campaigned in Florida? Because he RESPECTS the rules.)

Posted by: ChrisDC | April 2, 2008 03:32 PM

Hello Hello earth to Chris -Ohio- Penn.

Florida - no rule against campaigning there. Just a pledge which is now done.

Please off to the GOP with you we don't need your kind.

GM Michigan

Posted by: mul | April 2, 2008 10:21 PM

The headline ought to have read, "Clinton's PA Lead Diminishing".

Because it is, and quite remarkably so.

Otherwise, all I'd like to add to this "discussion"--which is pretty much not-surprisingly dominated by ever-screeching Hillary supporters as have become most of WAPO reader commentary forums--is, Get. Over. It. Clintonites.

Posted by: binkynh | April 2, 2008 9:28 PM

The issue that never gets talked about is Obama's history of cocaine abuse.

The press has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about bringing it up, but it goes to the central questions of character and judgement.

The most important thing to not lose sight of is that Obama doesn't stand a chance in the general election.

Nominating him would be an symbolic gesture, but one that would cost Democrats the best chance they've had at the whitehouse in years.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Mrs. Clinton hits under the belt. She doesn't play by the electoral rules unless she makes them. If Florida and Michigan primary results count, then the state democratic parties that once disenfranchised black voters in the Deep South should petition to have their primary results accepted. After all, the National Democratic Party that began excluding state primary results that racially disenfranchised black voters is exercising the same authority in not counting Florida and Michigan's primary results because the two states broke the National rules. If the results of the early prohibited state primaries are accepted, then all national party rules should be abandoned, and any state primary result ought to be accepted, including the results from precints and states that discriminate on the basis of race.

Posted by: thedefendant | April 2, 2008 8:52 PM

Thanks Gov. Dave!!! =)! Right on!!

Go Obama!!

Who Else wants to give the nod?

I'd really like for our people overseas to get ready to pack up their equipment and prepare for departure on their way Home right here on Home Grounds. Absolutely.

Who Else wants to give the nod?

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 2, 2008 8:43 PM

VeloStrummer (07:16) wrote: "just like FARMER BILL WHEN HE PLOWED HIS SEED INTO THAT WOMAN, MS. LEWINSKY'S DRESS".

Other BRAINPOWER borrowed from Obama supporters:
- It makes me sick.
- Hillary get out! You are showing how pathetic you are each day you continue on....
- Oh and just a suggestion, keep Chelsea at home. She is the worst public speaker I have ever listened to.
- I want to hear Hillary say what her husband and she did while in office for voters in Pennsylvania.
- I'm looking real hard here.....somebody please ask her!
- Maybe she was running from snipers!
- hahaha. I just hope hate Lady never quits
- Wow. No Hillaryous staffers here, eh??
- Hillary is such a hypocrite.
- I feel a lot of hate for President Obama in this room.
- When I see Oboma on television I feel inspiration...I feel a new beginning...I feel change!
- Clintonians, the Anti-American party, can
- Thanks again hate Lady!
- Monica Lewinsky and..

VeloStrummer, when I saw your comment above I thought about this statement from one of the Obama fans:

"When I see Oboma on television I feel inspiration...I feel a new beginning...I feel change!"

My intention is not to hurt, but this phrase seems to be designed to incite to lust or depravity - MY UNDERWEAR FEELS WET....I FEEL CHANGE! Is Obama a youth manipulator?

Posted by: royrichard | April 2, 2008 7:52 PM

The Quinnipac poll is bogus. McCain would cream Obama by strong double digits country wide. No way is Obama in single digit shouting distance of McCain.

By Nov, every one will know Rezko, every one will know his middle name, every one will have seen and memorized pastor Wright's speech. Obama will be toast in Nov.

Serves the bleeping dems right for being such sexist rotten pigs and ganging up on Clinton.

Posted by: intcamd1 | April 2, 2008 7:48 PM

Pretend that you're a Democrat (Hillary supporter)

Smear Obama with any of the following:

1. He's a Muslim
2. He's not Black enough
3. He's not White enough
4. He's not patriotic
5. He's a racist

note: never address any "issues", instead smear him with any association: his pastor, someone who endorses him, his wife, his father,etc. always make racist commments (i.e. compare him to Jim Jones), put his middle name in capital letters...and MOST IMPORTANT repeat it over and over (check FoxNews for latest smear)

remember: Americans are stupid! (look how we got them in the Iraq war!)

if you repeat anything enough, they'll believe it.

then

SAY IF OBAMA IS NOMINATED, YOU WON'T VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN NOVEMBER

* note: this is generally true, but if Hillary is nominated, it doesn't matter who gets elected...you can vote for whomever you want....McCain is slightly better, but both are in our lobby's pocket, i.e. both Clinton and McCain will put America in our WARS

THE NEOCON LOBBY OWNS BOTH MCCAIN AND HILLARY.

but not Obama

WE MUST STOP OBAMA !

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 2, 2008 7:46 PM

As a middle aged white woman I can't believe the ignorance of my kind. Hillary is standing on the shoulders of her man to grab the White House ring. Strip away his name and his record and she would be a nobody.

When a woman who has fought up through the ranks of politics on her own accord then and only then will I vote for a woman. Thank you Obama for saving me from having to vote to wanting to vote Democratic.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 2, 2008 7:36 PM

Go Obama! If Obama can lose to Hillary by less than 10pts and show erosion of Hillary's white working class base, I would count that as a draw.

Oh yeah Obama picked up three endorsements today! Former Indiana Senator Lee Hamilton who was the top democrat on the 9/11 Study and led the Iraq Study Group. Obama got endorsed by the Wyoming Governor who a superdelegate and by the Senator from Montana who is also a superdelegate.

Coupled with multiple polling showing the Clinton Pennslyvania lead narrowing and the national lead widening for Obama over Hillary makes for a good news cycle over the next 5 days. If the Obama campaign announces tommorrow that he raised over $30 million, WATCH OUT! Here we go with Obama momentum, again!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 2, 2008 7:34 PM

I can understand why Shrillary chose this Pastor. They are both liars. And he has an affinity for young girls, just like FARMER BILL WHEN HE PLOWED HIS SEED INTO THAT WOMAN, MS. LEWINSKY'S DRESS.


By ROCCO LaDUCA
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:25 PM
Last update Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:27 PM
UTICA --

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

"As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied," Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Dwyer said he believes Procanick was being honest when he told the girl's mother in a recorded phone call that he was wrong to caress the girl's body while she was trying to fall asleep.

However, Procanick instead testified in court that he did nothing wrong other than spend time alone with the girl, who was a friend of the family, Dwyer noted.

If Procanick had accepted responsibility from the beginning instead of straying from the truth, Dwyer said, Procanick would likely have faced a lesser punishment and possibly avoided jail time.

"The truth would have set you free," Dwyer said. "You had a chance to be a man and say, 'I made a mistake.' But as always, the cover-up is much worse than the original crime."

Procanick's defense attorney, George Aney, noted that Procanick still received a sentence less than the maximum, which was up to seven years in prison.

"It's considerably less than the maximum, but considerably more than he deserved," Aney said.

Aney also took issue with how Dwyer and the victim's mother used harsh language to attack Procanick's Christian values.

"You are just an evil man," the victim's mother said Friday in court. "You lied, and you had your wife lie. And all these people who showed up in court to support you, did you lie to them, too?"

The Observer-Dispatch does not identify sex-abuse victims and their families.
The victim's mother said her daughter is still waking up scared at night because of what happened, and she continues to see a therapist. The young girl also feels that everybody is mad at her, the mother said.

Assistant District Attorney Doug DeMarche Jr. then read a note written by the girl, who did not appear in court Friday.

"Bill made me sad and scared," DeMarche read. "I thought I did something wrong, because I trusted him."

Dwyer gave Procanick an opportunity to speak in court, but Procanick had nothing to say to the victim and her family.

Aney did not plan to speak in court, he told Dwyer, but he felt obligated to respond to what the victim's mother said about Procanick and his wife.

"I believe she shows her own lack of Christianity by referring to people as liars," Aney said.

After the sentencing, Aney further commented about what was said in court.

"I respect Judge Dwyer for what he said this morning, but I have to say I disagreed with him," Aney said. "I have every right to express my feelings, and my feelings are that we are not permitted to call anybody a liar. That's a judgment someone higher than I makes."

DeMarche, however, said he can understand why the girl's mother spoke of Procanick in such harsh terms.

"She had a lot of faith and trust in Mr. Procanick, and he violated that trust," DeMarche said. "I think she's justified in being angry."

Posted by: VeloStrummer | April 2, 2008 7:16 PM

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

Posted by: rahaha | April 2, 2008 7:10 PM

the classic poll (most recently) that failed to account for Indies was one identified as an AP poll, for the November general election... as i recall that poll surveyed about 850 dems and maybe 750 repubs, but NO indies.... and then produced results showing that Mccain would stack up better than HRC, but not as good as obama, as i recall the percentages,,, but the big flaw in that AP poll about 6 weeks ago was that it completely failed to account for indie voters, who are on average about 28 percent of the national total, but much bigger in some states, and smaller in other states.... but still 1/3 of the electorate,,, so unpeel the onion to see how the national election polls obtain their #s... and if they do not include the proper mix of indie voters, then they are not worth the byte space they use on the web......

Posted by: 1988joey | April 2, 2008 7:01 PM

Yes there are other polls: Obama is up in PA by 2 pts in the most recent Public Policy Poll and only trails by 5 pts in Rasmussen's. Oh, yeah, baby ... April is the cruelest month, Mrs. Clinton.

Posted by: Omyobama | April 2, 2008 6:53 PM

Queixada:

I would actually prefer that Barack HUSSEIN Obama win the nomination (after wasting another $100 million, and only on the 3rd or 4th ballot, of course) rather than Hillary DIANE Clinton. The possibility that she could win against John SIDNEY McCain (at least for me personally) outweighs the likelihood that every Obamaniac stays home / votes GOP.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:52 PM

but don't forget how all the major polling services select the folks to add to their tallies... in Dem. primary contests, they only seek opinion of registered Dems (altho a few Repubs and independents may spoil their way into the mix),,,and same goes for Repub primary voter surveys..,, while in polling data for the GENERAL ELECTION IN NOV, they poll Dems, Repubs and independents... and hopefully in the correct portion of dems, repubs and indies in the national mix..., but a number of the polls have been VERY SKEWED because they did not canvass the proper percent of indie voters... they need to be 30 percent of the total at least, but many of the polls fail to include indie voters, or only in a small percent.., so don't forget how the polling data is collected.... like the sausage, you need to know how the ingredients are selected...

Posted by: 1988joey | April 2, 2008 6:51 PM

Part of the Obama snow job where he portrayed Rev. Wright's paranoid rants as coming from anger that is the baggage as the legacy of of old white racism, carried by old blacks. Well, there is current-day stuff that is alive and well, carried by the young blacks, that is a lot worse than the racism, sexism and homophobic intolerance of the older generation of blacks. It's called Hip Hop, Gangsta and Street culture. It's full of racism, paranoia, anger, violence, abuse of women, sexism and a whole lot of dysfunctional antisocial expression schemes. The social psychological disordered behavior that Rev. Wright's hate-speech-as-sermons represents and coveys to blacks and supported by Obama is alive and well in the current-day generation in Black America. It's just in a newer more dangerous carnation.

Blacks leaders should start speaking out about taking some personal responsibility for high rate of high school drop out, sexual promiscuity, children born out of wedlock, , absence of male parenting/role models, drugs, crime, incarceration, AIDS, instead of playing the victimhood game and blaming whites for black failures! Until that time there will always be hate mongers & race baiter,s to use them and profit from their plight like the Rev. Wright, Rev. Jessie Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Barack Obama as well as 10,s of thousands of White and Black Politicians. In fact the whole Democrat party! Hand outs, instead of a hand up, is the means of keeping Blacks down and economic Slaves! Keeping Blacks as an race of victims and believing all of the above is Whitey fault is designed to keep them from progressing instead of a race of achievers! It is in the best interest of Black preachers and Democrat politicians! Blacks will never be lead to the promise land by hate mongering Preachers like Rev. Wright or by bottom feeding Politicians like Obama that wants and works to keep Blacks in the Ghetto, on Welfare, and voting Democrat!

Posted by: american1 | April 2, 2008 6:49 PM

I know because I count on average how many people per thread even acknowledge your existence, let alone whether it's because they agree with you, or because they think you're insane. It's significantly declining, because even when people take time they don't owe you, to refute some of the idiocy contained in your copied/pasted hate-campaigns, you still repeat the same mess and then act as if you proved someone wrong. Even the easily swayed idiots, that lurk in the thread notice this, and tend to steer clear of your influence. In the threads I've been to, typically two or three people go out of their way to agree with you, while most either ignore you, or downplay your existance. I have taken into account however, that you are doing all this on a message board that FAVORS Obama. So if anything, I at least give you credit for not preaching to the choir, but you're still preaching lies. If you plan on making any ground in the near future, you might wanna troll people who AREN'T educated individuals. :)

Posted by: Queixada | April 2, 2008 6:47 PM

svreader:

I'm not "harping on" it anymore than I am on his pre-marriage middle name.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:43 PM

@leonardwatts2 said:

Clinton's Pastor

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

Posted by: leonardwatts2 | April 2, 2008 02:55 PM

and msasianpersuasion2u said:

... and I remember Hillary Clinton's pastor Rev. William Procanick. He had that sexual abuse case back in January. And she talks about Rev. Wright, PLEASE!

Posted by: msasianpersuasion2u | April 2, 2008 03:27 PM

-------------------------------

Pretty sleazy posts, leonardwatts2 and msasianpersuasion2u. Procanick was not Clinton's pastor, he is from Clinton, New York.

I'm an Obama supporter, and it really irks me that scummy people like you two throw around a phony charge about Sen. Clinton. She does badly enough on her own without you two making up lies about her.

Posted by: washpost16 | April 2, 2008 6:40 PM

Queix --

Why do you think that?

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:39 PM

JakeD --

Why do you keep harping on Hillary's pre-marriage middle name?

What point are you trying to make?

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:38 PM

Lmao.
I come to these threads everyday
to laugh at everyone who pays
the copy-paste idiots any mind.

If there's any title Hillary/her supporters
have earned during this lengthy runs
is MASTER OF THE SPIN. They're like scientologists the way they lie to themselves and believe it.

svreader and Jake have probably been getting Obama votes if anything at all.
Hey. psht. I salute their efforts.

Posted by: Queixada | April 2, 2008 6:36 PM

rick --

Obama and his supporters are the ones that do drugs.

Why don't you try getting sober.

If you do, you'll realize you've been supporting the wrong candidate.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:36 PM

To: David2007
In response to your comment on my comment. I am not for Obama or Clinton. But to show you where I got my information from is Clinton's former pastor:http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857 and about Bill Clinton's girlfriends at: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2399417 and the guy that posted before me also has a website posted. Have a good day!

Posted by: msasianpersuasion2u | April 2, 2008 6:35 PM

svreader:

I pray to God you don't own any weapons.

Do us all a favor and double up on your meds.

Posted by: rickfcombest | April 2, 2008 6:34 PM

storyofthefifthpeach:

If you think I'd ever vote for Hillary DIANE Clinton, you are mistaken.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:34 PM

Everytime I hear an Obama supporter talk about how "he takes the high road" it makes me want to vomit.

Obama's run a very dirty campaign.

Here's a time-line of some of his attacks.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:32 PM

JakeD---

Pro-Life Democrats?

So, I take it you support Clinton's vote against the ban on cluster bombs? You do know these kill lots of children? And the people in Iraq who have been killed due to her vote? Not to mention her stance on abortion is exactly the same as Obama's.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:25 PM

"Obama" in that last post should be "Clinton" -- sorry for any confusion.

P.S. to storyofthefifthpeach -- the state-by-state results are, at least, a start -- and, "shame" can be a positive motivator, especially for pro-life Democrats out there. "Every person is a person, no matter how small."

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:23 PM

Funny the title of this article says "keeps her lead" instead of "her lead is shrinking".

This article is better:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_pennsylvania

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:23 PM

Right Svreader. You are the last true messenger of truth. Your posts are so enlightening. Keep up the good work. I am sure you have won Obama some votes. Really.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:20 PM

svreader:

The latest Rasmussen poll has McCain leading Clinton in Florida 47% to 40% and Pennslyvania basically tied with Obama at 46% and McCain at 45%.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:17 PM

JakeD---

Well, if you find her "patriotic" comments and words about being ashamed to be a Democrat positive, I would hate to see what you consider negative.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:17 PM

JakeD---

Cool that you are obsessed with middle names, but the web site you pointed out is pointless. Without extensive polling data (of which their is none on a state by state basis at this point) no one can predict how things are going to fall in the general.

For now, Gallup is the best indicator.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:14 PM

sydneyg77:

No -- the polling data I have relates to the NATIONWIDE Electoral College, linked above, not just the University of Chicago -- my question to you was just that, a question.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:13 PM

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:11 PM

storyofthefifthpeach:

There's nothing negative about reading current polling data that SHOWS McCain will indeed win 3/4 of the States easily. Those are the facts as we know them today. What did you think "gracekelly" said that was negative?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:11 PM

you have polling data that indicates that the University of Chicago is lying to protect Barack Obama?

Posted by: sydneyg77 | April 2, 2008 6:08 PM

Gracekelly----

Does making negative comments really make you feel patriotic?

Is that what it means to you to be "American"?

That is not the America my family has been building for the last 300 years.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 6:06 PM

llrllr:

What, exactly, is "absurd" with averaging of polls -- lessens the impact of outliers and errors -- the more data, the better, I always say.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:04 PM

sydneyg77:

"Clearly" one of the crazies, with access to polling data (and, my "candidate" was Mitt Romney ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:02 PM

You are doing a disservice to the public on polls.

Why did you select this one poll rather than the PPP poll that shows Obama ahead in Pa., or some other polls?

Why does your column add a click-on connection to the Post article on polling, which says next to nothing? It is apallingly weak and then it shuts off reader comment, so at least someone at the Post realizes what a dog the story is. It tiptoes over the CNN averaging of polls rather than pointing out the absurdity of that practice. Why not inform the public and not protect your friends, CNN obviously?

Now is the time for a medium to assess all the polls since the Democratic race began as a way to let readers know that the CNN presentation is BS, and that poll such and such has been closest to right and poll such and such has been furtherist from actuality in election results since the race began? This would be a valuable story.

You should be working for your readers rather than protecting your friends in the media and polling organizations.

Posted by: llrllr | April 2, 2008 6:01 PM

storyofthefifthpeach:

Actually, across the ELECTORAL COLLEGE board, Hillary DIANE Clinton does slightly better than Barack HUSSEIN Obama (although both are losing to John SIDNEY McCain):

McCain (304) vs. Clinton (203)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr02.html

McCain (324) vs. Obama (205)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr02.html

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:00 PM

OK you are clearly one of the crazies I was talking about - yes, JakeD, there is a mass conspiracy against whatever candidate you support...

Posted by: sydneyg77 | April 2, 2008 5:59 PM

JakeD: As I said, we already know who the candidates are and what issues they stand for. However, it is not to say that I haven't voted for independent or republican candidates in the past or in the future! As an independent, I have more of a problem with our limited choices because of our two-party system but this time I am voting democrat - doesn't make me one FOREVER!

Posted by: sydneyg77 | April 2, 2008 5:58 PM

sydneyg77:

You probably believe that the Law School has not been in contact with the Obama campaign re: said statement or has any incentive to cover up for Obama's lie, right?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:57 PM

Yawn. Obama actually outperforms Clinton overall in general election numbers across the board. By cherry-picking a few states and saying that is how things will be during the general election is just absurd. Haven't you noticed Obama has been in the lead for almost 2 weeks in the Gallup polls?

The gains she has had are based mostly on her own negative attacks on Obama, not on anything McCain or Republicans are doing.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | April 2, 2008 5:56 PM

edwcory --

He's their senator and they'd like to have a friend in the whitewhouse.

Their press release doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a professor.

I'm a Ph.D., but I've learned not to call myself Dr. in the wrong situations because people would assume I'm an MD.

He knew exactly what he was doing and why it was wrong to do so.

Their press release doesn't change the fact that he intentionally misled people.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 5:56 PM

Dictionary.com "Word of the Day" on April 27, 2003.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM

statement released by UC law school:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

I had to reply to the last few posts!

Posted by: sydneyg77 | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM

"ou·tré" adj. Highly unconventional; eccentric or bizarre.

[French, from Old French, defeated, past participle of outrer, to pass someone,

from outre, beyond, from Latin ultrā; see al-1 in Indo-European roots.]

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM

sydneyg77:

"I will PROUDLY vote for whomever is the democratic nominee."

Spoken like a true Independent.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:52 PM

ANY poll showing Obama leading is just silly. It means they called Obama's headquarters and got the telephone numbers of Obama supporters and called them. She leads in a big way. And in an election, even 10 points is a big lead. We saw this same crazy stuff showing up in the Ohio polls. And we knew then that it was wrong. This is the same old thing. New place, old tricks.

Posted by: Texan2007 | April 2, 2008 5:51 PM

"Obama was a part-time lecturer, not a tenured professor or even tenure track assistant or associate professor."
Posted by: svreader

Your obsession is pretty outre. The University of Chicago released the following statement a couple of days ago:

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

Posted by: edwcorey | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM

I am sick of this election. Today's elections are nothing more than marketing campaigns with ad slicks, sound bytes and catchy slogans that seek to manipulate ignorant gullible voters and most of the people on this blog are falling for it, like most of the population did in at least the last couple elections. It's depressing to scroll down and see "Hillary's lies" and "Obama's lies" and "the truth about 'insert candidate here' the media is conspiring to keep from you" with all the stupid links to articles on baseless web pages that like to think of themselves as journalists and videos from youtube. I don't care if you support Hillary, Obama or McCain, most of the people posting here are the worst examples of American citizenship and you really need to look at yourselves and decide what effect this election is having on your emotional stability (svreader - I strongly encourage you to seek help regardless of whether I agree with you or not). Furthermore, as an independent, I do not advocate partisan politics and I strongly encourage anyone to vote for the candidate they believe in during that election, dem or repub, but the differences between the dems pale in comparison to the differences between the dems and McCain. For those who proudly proclaim their support for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nom: you are willing to sell out your values and beliefs cheaply out of spite, and you should be ashamed. I am not a McCain supporter, but I have more respect for someone that disagrees with me and has INTEGRITY than someone that places a presidential vote like they're voting for prom queen. The dems started with two EXCELLENT choices for president, not because of race or gender but based on experience, judgement, intellect and compassion in humanity. People should not forget that. It hasn't changed, and I will PROUDLY vote for whomever is the democratic nominee.

Posted by: sydneyg77 | April 2, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama's sweet talk isn't gonna work in Pa. I think its a total insult to Al Gore for {Obama} to say he would hire him!? He better go back into the shoeshine business and get some experience before he even considers Al Gore working for him.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | April 2, 2008 5:47 PM

That would give Barack HUSSEIN Obama 227 Electoral Votes (he needs 270 to win).

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:45 PM

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:43 PM

ASinMoCo:

How do you think he beats McCain in Virginia?! Even giving him Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, he still loses.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:42 PM

edwcorey --

Obama was a part-time lecturer, not a tenured professor or even tenure track assistant or associate professor.

Obama LIED to make himself look more impressive.

He could have said "when I taught law at ..." and left it at that...

His intention was clealy to take credit for something he didn't earn.

Its a pattern in his life.

He's done it over and over.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 5:37 PM

Here's the thing though-Obama has other paths to the presidency that don't necessarily need to include PA, OH, FL. If he takes CO and VA out of the Republican column (which is likely), and wins NV and NM (also likely), as well as NE (a stretch, but within the realm of possibility), he can still win, without winning PA, OH and FL. This is of course ignoring the fact that he is still beating McCain in PA, and probably OH, as well as the possibilities for electoral pickups in MO, NC and the Dakotas (probably a couple of others, too).

Posted by: ASinMoCo | April 2, 2008 5:36 PM

"I heard Obama while campaigning somewhere in Pa. At that occasion he said that Dick Cheney (I am not sure if it was him or another Republican) was his cousin. To be honest 8th or 10th cousins are really not the same as cousins. As a matter of fact that´s a GREATER LIE than H. Clinton´s smiling Bosnia gunfire. Senator Obama also referres to himself as "a constitutional law professor" on the campaign trail. He never held any such title! Why such lies?"

Posted by: royrichard

The genealogy was undertaken for all the candidates and posted in the newspapers. The University of Chicago, where Obama taught, released a press sheet saying that Obama was a professor. If you're looking for lies, look in the mirror. Or at least get yourself up to date.

Posted by: edwcorey | April 2, 2008 5:31 PM

Thisworld --

I doubt you're a lawyer.

If you are, I pity your clients.

If you think Barry Obama is a gem, you do lousy research.

Obama Supporters --

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 5:25 PM

All of you who claim to know who can beat who in November need to remember Chris Berman's famous statement:

"THAT is why they play the games."

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 5:18 PM

svreader, since you are asking, I am a lawyer who blogs between very busy schedules to support this one-in-our-life time leader. Unlike you, I am capable of recognizing the value of a gem when I see one. Also unlike your Momma, I don't lie, not even for my profession. Oh, I am definitely not on Obama's payroll because this is a pro-bono which I absolutely enjoy!

Posted by: thisworld | April 2, 2008 5:17 PM

I suggest you check other polls as well: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html. She ranges from +5 to -2 depending on the poll.

Posted by: aisrael | April 2, 2008 5:16 PM

OBAMA IS BEATING CLINTON IN PENNSYLVANIA

Real Clear Politics latest poll results for PA shows a PPP (Public Policy Polling) poll conducted from 03/31 to 04/01 with a sample of 1224 LV with Obama LEADING Clinton 45 to 43.

Also, the latest North Carolina poll, again PPP, conducted 03/29 to 03/30, gives Obama an 18 point lead, 54 to 36, over Clinton.

Nationally, the latest Gallup poll, conducted 03/30 to 04/01, has obama up 3 points, 49 to 46.

Clinton has clearly been hurt by the Bosnia exaggerations/misstatements/lies. And rightly so.

Posted by: hellisen | April 2, 2008 5:15 PM

If Clinton doesn't take Pa. by at least 10% she'll likely bow out.

That being said, Obama seems to have NO SHOT at winning the general election since he can't move the vote or polls versus McCain in Ohio, Pa. or Fla. And he has campained quite heavily in the first two of those states. New Jersey is trending to McCain also if Obama is the nominee. Obama won't be blown away in the general like McGovern or Mondale, but he is beginning to look like Dukakis. Darn shame, because Hillary Clinton probably could have beaten McCain. But Obama, who lacks a resume, can't make an argument.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 2, 2008 5:13 PM

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:11 PM

Carolp23:

So, if we disagree with Obama on his policies, we are all "bigots" huh? I am not leaving America and will do my best to make sure he is not elected President.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:09 PM

"De" = "Be"

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Obama will be this country's next President and it will be great for America. It says something that the ENTIRE WORLD is rooting for Obama to win. As a politician Obama is brillant, even tempered and honest and you can't say that about the other candidates. Bitter people are so DESPERATE to bring Obama down that now its Obama's fault everytime someone he knows says something they don't like. I certainly have bigoted people in my family who grew up in a different time and they raised me but guess what? I AM NOT A BIGOT AND DON'T SHARE THEIR BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!! Shocking,huh? All you hypocrites out there are the real bigots and just don't want to see a black President. Intelligence will prevail and OBAMA WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN GET OUT OF AMERICA!!!!!!!

Posted by: Carolp23 | April 2, 2008 5:06 PM

Good points, Texan2007. If Rush Limbaugh urges Republicans and Independents to "De a Democrat for a Day" they want felony charges filed immediately. But, when their own candidate does it, The One can do no wrong!

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:05 PM

The news here is that Obama has cut Clinton's PA lead in half, going to high double digits to under 10. He is clearly gaining on her in a state where she had an enormous lead.

Posted by: frankwalter | April 2, 2008 5:01 PM

Rev. Wright's James Cone says: "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.'"
OBAMA 08

Posted by: cowbell5070 | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM

"About one in five Democrats in each of these three states said he or she would support McCain if Obama were the Democratic nominee; that is about double the proportion who would vote for the Republican against Clinton. "

That's somewhat half-baked analysis. If you're trying to glean relevant data about the general election, you need to look at the whole population of voters, not a subset that only includes Dems. While the Dem numbers quoted above are somewhat damning for the Obama campaign, how do they compare to swing voters? Which Dem candidate attracts more swing voters, against McCain? That's the question superdelegates should be asking.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM

Texan2007

So say you. Truth be known, none of us knows which of these people would do better against McCain. One measure, though, is the superdelegates, many of them officeholders who will share the ticket with the presidential nominee. Many signed up with Hillary early on because they thought (as did most of us) that she would be the nominee. However -- tellingly, IMO -- 67 supers have declared for Obama since February 5, versus 9 for Hillary. Do you really think these self-interested, politically savvy individuals would want to nominate somebody who would drag them down to defeat in November? Right.

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM

I think it is pathetic to discuss which lie is a smaller lie - remember they are all politicians so they all lie. We cannot change this.

However, I should think that it is highly hypocritical of Obama to profess on one hand to be above politics and on the other hand to act like a typical politician. Nothing bad about it, just hypocritical.

Posted by: lskjf | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM

If Obama gets the nod, this will be the first time in my adult life that I am turely ashamed to be a Democrat. But still proud to be an American Obama!

Posted by: gracekelly | April 2, 2008 4:48 PM

Svreader, what you're doing is like asking the followers of a cult to open their eyes and realize that they're gladly allowing themselves to be robbed blind by their leader.

Tell them "Hope is not a plan", and they'll call you a Bushie.

Tell them that repeating "change, change, change" over and over again makes their leader sound like he's begging for spare cash (and not actually working or making plans to change anything), and they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Tell them that we've heard "Yes, We Can" a million times, but that we've never heard "How we can", and they'll just stop short of choking you.

I agree with everything you've said, and I just hope that the Obama supporters' self-destructive behavior isn't going to make their awakening too painful when it comes.

Posted by: leal45235 | April 2, 2008 4:46 PM

Polls? Polls? Polls? The fact IS that Clinton beat Obama in Florida and Ohio by a large majority. Always ignored, but very important in a General Election. The one that still is the only one that really counts! And as far as an answer to JakeD, the first blogger, what about the Republicans in Wisconson and other contests that thought they would be for Obama, as he was "easier to beat" as well as Obama's OWN campaign running "Be a Democrat for a day" in almost all of the early contests! How easy we forget! Well, we have not! Hillary should be the nominee because she can win the general Election.

Posted by: Texan2007 | April 2, 2008 4:44 PM

svreader

You need to get your lies straight. You used to say the people froze to DEATH in the unheated slums.

Obama is closing the gap in PA and is almost 20 points ahead in NC. That ticking sound you hear is the clock running out for Hillary. What will you do all day -- post for McCain?

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 4:42 PM

Obama's Economic Plan

In fact, what is far more worrisome than the Trinity Church "commitment to Africa" is Obama's call for "economic parity."

Economic equality is the justification for an exploding welfare and entitlement state.

Economic parity implies government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases; government subsidized health care for all and so on. Essentially this translates to socialize wages.

CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that Obama's vision for government-run everything will cost Americans $800 BILLION.

Obama was described in a 2004 Men's News Daily Report during Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign:

Obama's closest religious advisers and bible/political teacher -- Fr. (Michael) Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church - may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity.

Posted by: olandug | April 2, 2008 4:40 PM

Ben91aro´s (04:12) of course Senator Obama´s lie about being a professor and his lie about himself being a cousin (not distant cousin) of Dick Cheney is being of more significance than Hillary Clintons "smiling (self-irony?) lie" regarding Bosnia.

Posted by: royrichard | April 2, 2008 4:36 PM

Rather than asking if Obama (or Clinton) supporters will switch to McCain if their candidate loses, the polls should ask if the respondents will vote at all. I suspect that a significant number of the "new voters" that Obama is attracting will stay home if Clinton wins. Many of Obama's strongest supporters in the primaries up to now have been from groups that historically have low turnout (minorities and those under 25). That is probably not true of most Clinton supporters. Thus, while an Obama-McCain election might lead some Clinton voters to go for McCain (as recent polls suggests), that is no worse for DEMS(and probably better)than a Clinton-McCain race that turns off minority and young voters who stay home in large numbers.

Posted by: gurssr | April 2, 2008 4:33 PM

After Hillary's Bosnia nonsense, one would have to be a total loon to even consider supporting this pathological liar.

She's nuts!!

Hillary - You owe Sinbad an apology, he told the truth - you Hillary lied and boy it sure was a whopper.

Posted by: BuffyTheBanana | April 2, 2008 4:32 PM

thisworld --

I don't work for any campaign or political organization.

What about you?

I post because I'm sick and tired of a con-man like Barry Obama being painted as a saint.

He let the poorest of the poor who elected him FREEZE in unheated slums in his district that his buddy Rezko got $100M to repair or replace but didn't bother to, and Barry didn't care.

That's why I post.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 4:29 PM

Matchups vs. McCain are completely meaningless at this point. Look at the two sides: McCain is the clear victor in the Republican primary - the Dems are fighting tooth and nail. There is so much animosity between the Clinton and Obama supporters that genneral election polls taken now are meaningless. There are certainly many Clinton supporters who, right now, will say that they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Likewise, there are many Obama supporters who say, right now, that they will not support Clinton if she is the nominee. Once the dust settles and the Dems have a nominee who is graciously endorsed by the losing candidate, most of these dems will return (grudgingly) to support the dem nominee. That is why taking these head-to-head polls during the heat of battle are meaningless.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | April 2, 2008 4:29 PM

My fellow Democrats, it's time to WAKE UP!!! I'll say this, one more time: In the November General Election, all that Republican and Independent "Support", that Brack Obama has garnered, that put him over the top, in some areas and helped, in others, will be standing in line, waiting to vote, for JOHN McCAIN!!! Now, that may sound harsh, but, it's just stating the fact, that many Republicans have been advised, to vote for Obama, in Open Democratic Primary Elections, and then vote Republican, in the General Election!!! It's merely This Year's Strategy!!! Vote, for a REAL President, Hillary Rodham Clinton!!!!

Posted by: ArbuckleDoc | April 2, 2008 4:27 PM

It will be Hillary or McCain. I, like many voters would never vote for the Racist Obama, he will never lead these "God Damn Americas", and I am sure he certainly could not refer to me as a typical white person....UMMMMMM

Posted by: gracekelly | April 2, 2008 4:27 PM

thisworld -

Know what the richest, most ironic item is on deadbeat HRC's long list of unpaid bills? The HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS for her campaign staff!!! roflmao

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 4:26 PM

David 2007 wrote, "Reminds me of Gov. Patrick Deval of Massachusetts, a black American in the mold of Obama"

That's right, David, watch out for those smo-o-o-o-o-th talking black dudes -- they'll fool you every time.

What an incredibly uninformed, racist post. I thought you Obama-haters had finally given up on the phony "nice words/no details" arguments, after it was pointed out that there WERE details in the speeches -- and on his web site.

Why don't you just admit you can't vote for a black guy and get it out in the open?

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM

svreader, just like your old Momma, you are losing your sanity altogether here. We have all gathered by now that blogging on this site is your full time job but be sure to make the Hillary campaign pay for your hard work before they are completely bankrupt. You see, apparently, your Momma isn't very good at paying small invoices and as a result, she owes something like $8.8 million to small businesses who went out of their way to cater for her campain. How cheap. Well, anyway, these poor folks certainly found her out the hard way, didn't they? They complain now Hillary doesn't even reply to the letters from lawyers who are working for them, because she is too busy on the road telling every working folk and small business owner that she will fight for their rights. This is called Irony, svreader, but then again, you wouldn't understand that.

Posted by: thisworld | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM

mibrooks --

Like a true cult member, you ask people on these boards to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Intelligent people will get as much information as the can and make their own decisions.

You're wrong about the polls.

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 4:22 PM

My grandmother once told me(she wasn't a typical white person) that an act on emotions is a short lived act. The emotions will run out on Obama by Nov. McCain will will 3/4 of the states easily. I get no joy in saying that.

Posted by: gracekelly | April 2, 2008 4:20 PM

There is a poll out today - http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-takes-lead-in-pennsylvania.html
- showing Obama with a narrow, but increasing, lead over Clinton in PA. As for the Clinton staffer's like svreader and XXreader (same people, from what I can tell), truthseeker, et al, ignore them. They basically spend 10 hours day spamming forums like this one with utter garbage. Expect Obama to pull an upset win in PA and expect FL and MI to not count. The alternative is a whole lot of Nader votes, becasue none of us Obama supporters with an ounce of integrity will EVER vote for Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 2, 2008 4:15 PM

To: JackSmith1 | April 2, 2008 03:47 PM

Right on!!

I find it incredible that so many of Obama's supporters think that this person with so little experience and accomplishments can take on one of the toughest jobs in the United States.

Obama has never had a tough election in his life. He had his 4 Democratic opponents disqualified in his first election to the Illinois senate and ran unopposed. And he virtually had a walk through in his U.S. Senate election when his major Democratic and Republican opponents imploded due to revelations about divorce scandals.

He did very little during his years in the Illinois Senate until the last 1 or 2 years when the Majority Leader took Obama under his wings and virtually handed him important legislation that other Democrats had fought for years to have passed. They called it bill-jacking. He replied that the legislation never would have passed without him.

And his time in the U.S. Senate has also not been that distinguished, most of which he has spent running for President of the United States. Stories I read indicate that many times he tried to grab the limelight and to claim a greater share of ownership and responsibility and accomplishments that was actually due him.

The major factor propelling him forward is his crafted image and message of hope and change and unity. Great sounding words, but very few details as to how these tremendous challenges will be accomplished.

Reminds me of Gov. Patrick Deval of Massachusetts, a black American in the mold of Obama, who used the same political consultant as for Obama. Great sounding words during the election, but tough going and only moderate accomplishments since being elected. And very little follow-up on those great sounding words of the election. Is this what we have to look forward to if/when Obama is elected President of the United States?

Posted by: David2007 | April 2, 2008 4:13 PM

I loved the comments that began with, "You might be an idiot." Incredibly funny.

Fortunately, we live in a country where the freedom of speech allows Mr. Wright to speak his mind or his thoughts and equally allows us, the people, to listen or not listen. Everyone has a friend or friends who makes outlandish statements, yet we don't banish them or like Dwight Shrute of The Office, "shun" them.

The people of the U.S. place too much relevance on the Presidency and the President's ability to make legislation. Anyone that can multitask the plethora of information and assimilate it on there own would be the world leader, indeed. Fortunately, they have advisors, which should be where scrutiny is placed.

Who is disseminating the information for the President? What are there views? What sources are they using?

Royrichard* statement about Senator Clinton's lie regarding Bosnia and interpreting Senator Obama's lie about being a professor (lower case p) being of greater significance, has obviously never served in the military. Moreover, this person represents all that is wrong with pundits, journalists, and legislators who lack military service, yet are somehow experts on the military and strategy.

The President simply does not have the ability, time, or skill to to discern through a myriad of information and make follow it up with informed decisions.

Posted by: ben91aro | April 2, 2008 4:12 PM

Jayne (03:44) I didn´t say that Obama was bragging about his connection to Dick Cheney. I said that Barack Obama tried to make his person more interesting than it really is! I also said that he lied! A cousin is the son or a daugther of brother or sister on your fathers or mothers side. 9th cousins are hardly not even relatives. Further: He wasn´t "a constitutional law professor", that´s also a lie in order to make his personlity look more interseting than it really is! A recession is going on but certainly not in the world of the academic titles.

Posted by: royrichard | April 2, 2008 4:11 PM

The polls that show Obama ahead of Clinton are very inaccurate. And if they want Senator Obama to do well in PA, they should not allow him to speak without written instructions. Every time they allow him to do that he says things like, I wouldn't punish my daughters with a baby or the Kennedys helped my father get to America, or I didn't see that questionnaire...those are not my positions (even though Politico found that the questionnaire was in Obama's handwriting).

These things are not discussed by the MSM but they are by other conservative media like Fox, Washington Times, NY Post, and they will use every one of them in November. So don't be so smug about Clinton's statement about Bosnia. It's the only thing you Obama worshippers seem to be able to use against her. We've got lots about Obama...it's just not out there yet but it's coming.

Posted by: hazwalnut | April 2, 2008 4:09 PM

"About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

"Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

"Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never."

(From the Chicago Tribune)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,7143430.story

I challenge anyone here to find someone who *actually knows* Rev. Wright who doesn't consider the clips being shown on YouTube to be a gross misrepresentation of his beliefs and his ministry. And, if you can't, shouldn't this be a non-issue?

Posted by: davestickler | April 2, 2008 4:09 PM

Note to New Visitors to the Blog:

If you come upon "YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT" or "svreader,"
hit the scroll key and hold it down for 2 or 3 seconds.

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 4:08 PM

OBAMA IS OUR SAVIOR. Barak and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! No more so called elections where typical white people vote, blacks have been held down too long! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded on slavery. REPARATIONS NOW!

Posted by: cowbell5070 | April 2, 2008 4:08 PM

marqgoldberg:

You are not referring to the TORTURE he was subjected to as a Prisoner of War, are you?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 4:07 PM

Some interested groups who are backing Hillary have been trying to over-play the fact that more people have been reported as saying that they would defect the party if Obama is the nominee. What these groups have deliberately left out is the fact that Obama supporters will be so p**sed off if the nomination is stolen from him, they will start a civil war which will see the evaporation of the Democratic Party itself.

Posted by: thisworld | April 2, 2008 4:07 PM

tone it down a little svreader, you're scaring the kids....

Posted by: zneroladivad | April 2, 2008 4:06 PM

Hmmm, Shouldn't we be looking at polling averages?

The Real Clear Politics Polling average for Penn. was Clinton +17 on Mar 21 (52.7 to 35.7) and on Mar 27 it stood at Clinton + 6 (48.3 to 42.3).

Google Real Clear politics, click on "polling"...

As far as November match ups with McCain go, remember the Dems chose Kerry because he was "more electable" come November. We all know how THAT worked out.

For all y'all still bringing up the Rev Wright, remember that when Bill Clinton NEEDED him he invited Wright to a White House prayer breakfast the day the Starr Report was released. He might not have "known" him, but he flew him out and invited him into the White House for the cameras. Of course when HRC needed to change the subject from Bosnia she conveniently reminded the press about Wright ("He wouldn't be my pastor"). Another case of the Clinton's being there for you when they need you.

And anyone who thinks HRC is "fully vetted" has been smoking from Carville's private stash :-).

have a good day all!

Posted by: abbatrey | April 2, 2008 4:06 PM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 2, 2008 4:05 PM

You know I said it about Obama when he bragged that he was showing ahead of McCain in the November polls, and as a Hillary supporter, I'll say it about her too. I just can't get excited or disappointed about poll numbers that are reflecting something that is 6 months away.

Posted by: badger3 | April 2, 2008 4:05 PM

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 4:02 PM

So people in these states would rather vote for their opposition than a black man and yet, they got the cheek of accusing Rev.Wright of racial hatred and divisive politices. This is called whamey double standard for which Hillary is very famous. Not surprisingly these people also love her or McCan't. How very sad and primitive! By the way, Fl, Oh and PA are just three states in how many ? Dont forget that. Three states in the US do not decide the election. We all knew they were solid Clinton bases anyway. By the way, the article says nothing about Clinton's eroding margin in PA, from double digit to now a convenient single digit. Obama is sure making an in-road in PA.

Posted by: thisworld | April 2, 2008 4:02 PM

Polls, polls, polls . . . according to the same polls Senator Clinton had a 30 point lead over Senator Obama early in the Democratic primary. Nothing wrong with taking polls, but it is too early in the game to take the presidential election polls seriously. A lot can happen between now and November.

Senator Obama's goal should be to narrow the gap with Senator Clinton in PA as much as possible - if he can somehow pull a winner in PA, I'll will call that a "stunner." Senator Obama has a winning strategy in the Democratic primary, this is why he is ahead of Senator Clinton, yesterday's presumptive nominee.

Posted by: felicitymason | April 2, 2008 3:59 PM

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:57 PM

'zneroladivad' said, "...if PA comes down to a couple of points, Hillary is toast."

Perhaps more like just 10 points- she really needs to win major, as in double digits or nothing.

Posted by: davidmwe | April 2, 2008 3:57 PM

Well, then, maybe McGovern and Cleaver are wrong that a woman can't win. Good thread on the topic here:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=1839&sNode=1839&uId=289

Posted by: GHarri | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM

I don't understand you guys; who the hell writes your headlines?

"Clinton Holds Lead in PA" What? According to RPC, Clinton's average lead in PA among the various polls has melted to SIX points. In fact, in a PPP poll released this morning, Obama is actually AHEAD by two points -- admittedly statistically insignificant, but up 28 points from the last PPP survey.

On top of that, you report her leading in meaningless, hypothetical head-to-head matchups in various states for the November election, giving that more prominence than polls in an actual primary that's 3 weeks away? Tell me you're not trying to make Clinton's lame "I'm more electable" argument for her.

The headline should have been "Clinton Losing Lead in PA; Leads McCain in State Matchups"

Come on. Get it right.

Posted by: jac13 | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Polls indicate that if Obama is nominated almost a third of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. About 18% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Hillary is selected. But I highly doubt that they asked the Hillary voters how many of them plan to vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated. Republicans know that the better Hillary does in the primaries the better it will be for Republicans in November. Hillary supporters (the real ones not the bogus ones) had better wake up soon. And while you're at it google "McCain songbird" and learn about how McCain ADMITTED in a US News and World Report interview in 1973 that he gave military secrets to the enemy during the Viet Nam war. If the real John McCain is seen by the public before November he won't have a snowballs chance.

Posted by: marqgoldberg | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Quinnipiac has never been right about anything. Ever. Its got to be the worst polling company out there. Rasmussen (I know, I know, they are Republicans) have called the last 3 elections on the money. They have Clinton leading Obama by 5, 47-42. He's gaining and if PA comes down to a couple of points, Hillary is toast.

Posted by: zneroladivad | April 2, 2008 3:53 PM

Royrichard:
Obama joking about how Dick Cheney is a distant cousin is a bigger lie than Hillary's repeated exaggerations about her experience in Tuzla? I would like to make a comparison between mountains and the small earth piles of digging rodents.

Posted by: joekowalski | April 2, 2008 3:53 PM

The Rasmussen poll for Pennsylvania now has Hillary ahead only by 5 (47 to 42) and the PPP poll that came out today has Obama ahead there 45 to 43 (April 2). All show the gap narrowing. Obama also was endorsed today by the Governor of Wyoming (Super delegate) and by former Congressman Hamilton of Indiana who was the Democratic Co Chair of the 911 convention. Survey USA had a poll out today showing Hillary up there 52 to 43 and Hamilton's endorsement should help Obama narrow the gap as he was a member of Congress for 34 years and is from outside of the Northeast part of the state and Indianapolis where Obama is already strong.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | April 2, 2008 3:50 PM

To: msasianpersuasion2u | April 2, 2008 03:27 PM

You bring up a reference to Bill Clinton's girlfriend and Hillary Clinton's pastor. This is information that I have never heard or read about. Could you please cite references so that we can check it out?

It's easy on an anonymous blog to cite unproven facts, rumors and innuendo and it seems to be a typical trait of many Obama supporters who seem to have so much hatred for the Clintons! Maybe they should practice some of what he preaches, such as HOPE and CHANGE and UNITY.

Or does he have them so bamboozled that anyone not for him must be wrong and must be destroyed? Wow, is that a way to unite the country?!!

Obama reminds me of the barking dog that chases cars, making a lot of noise and a big show. But the problem is, once the dog catches the car, it has no idea what to do with it. Just like Obama chasing the presidency.

Posted by: David2007 | April 2, 2008 3:48 PM

Obama's supporters have lots of passion.

Unfortuantely, they also don't have a clue what kind of guy Barry Obama really is.

Obama supporters are in denial about the key issue.

The Obama they're in love with is imaginary.

The real one, nobody could love.

Barry Obama's actions don't match his words.

He gets people to like him by telling them what they want to hear.

He's got a carefullly crafted public image.

The image is great.

The real guy isn't.

Hillary's been fighting with one hand behind her back.

She can't bring up things like Obama's felony history of repeated cocaine abuse.

She can't bring up "Obama's Slums" and what it shows about his total lack of character and total lack of human compassion.

Republicans can, and will.

But there's an additonal point.

Obama supporters have done everything they could to trash the best Democratic President since FDR.

Mainstream Democrats will neither forgive nor forget that.

Obama's supporters love to gloat.

They Gloat now.

They'll cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:48 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...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 2, 2008 3:47 PM

This is an extremely one-sided presentation of the polling data. In two other major polls out in the last 2 days, Clinton led in Pennsylvania by 5 points in one, and trailed Obama by 2 points in the other. Moreover, even the Quinnipiac result showing Clinton up by 9 represents a narrowing of the gap to single digits, from a 12-point lead for Clinton in the Quinnipiac survey two weeks ago. The trend across all those polls is clearly away from Clinton and toward Obama, which is why other major news outlets are reporting, more accurately, "Clinton's lead shrinks in PA."

As for the match-ups against McCain, other polls have shown Obama running much stronger than Clinton in the following states: Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all states where Obama either leads or is highly competitive with McCain. Of these states, Clinton is competitive only in Minnesota and Wisconsin, though with smaller margins than Obama. Clinton trails McCain in all the rest. In short, it's Clinton who's got the real "electability" problem here, as she's just not very popular across large swaths of the Upper Midwest, coastal Southeast, Mountain West, and Pacific Northwest---regions that she has written off and overtly insulted, dismissing their electoral significance in her short-sighted insistence that only a handful of "big states" matter in the primaries and the general election.

Posted by: bradk1 | April 2, 2008 3:47 PM

we will do everything in our power to make sure JERKORAMA STAYS A LOSER. VOTE NO TO THE FRAUD, DECEIPT AND PLAIN LIES BY HIM AND HIS UNPATRIOTIC AMERICA HATERS.

Posted by: tahirn | April 2, 2008 3:45 PM

This Google Trends Chart is clearer on all candidates (US only, last 12 months):

The Google Primary

Posted by: davidmwe | April 2, 2008 3:45 PM

Royrichard, that's pathetic, to try to call the Cheney thing a lie. It was Lynn Cheney that brought that up in the first place and heaven knows Obama's not bragging about that connection. The Clinton claim that Obama wasn't a law professor has already been debunked -- by the University of Chicago itself! There hasn't been a bigger lie than Hillary's sniper fire in Bosnia since Bush claimed that there were WMD in Iraq.

It seems to me that the focus of this story shouldn't be that Clinton's got a 9 point lead -- but what happened to the 20+ point lead she had not long ago?

Posted by: Jayne | April 2, 2008 3:44 PM

It's not shocking that Clinton is doing better in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where she won a primary and is leading in polls. (There hasn't been a campaign in Florida, so citing a poll there is pretty silly.)

On the flip side, Obama could be expected to do better in swing states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri.

Posted by: davestickler | April 2, 2008 3:42 PM

Hi JakeD- Ron Paul, and I add with pain, has fallen from the graces of the Internet users. You can see a Google Trends chart here:

All Candidates Google Trend Chart Link.

Posted by: davidmwe | April 2, 2008 3:41 PM

I heard Obama while campaigning somewhere in Pa. At that occasion he said that Dick Cheney (I am not sure if it was him or another Republican) was his cousin. To be honest 8th or 10th cousins are really not the same as cousins. As a matter of fact that´s a GREATER LIE than H. Clinton´s smiling Bosnia gunfire. Senator Obama also referres to himself as "a constitutional law professor" on the campaign trail. He never held any such title! Why such lies? Is he trying to make his own person look more interesting than it really is? Is he trying to get sympathy from somebody?

Posted by: royrichard | April 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Hillary Clinton for President. Two words: Sniper fire!

Posted by: aasesq | April 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:39 PM

George Bush was electable...twice. That's not a virtue in and of itself. The question is who will bring the needed leadership to Washington to resolve the malaise (of partisanship, of pettiness, of tired thinking).

Although she has been an admirable Senator, Hilary has proven her preference for the low road, picking at differences even among those with whom she should be natural allies. A Clinton Presidency (again) would undoubtedly exacerbate the divisions with the country. Remember that the Republicans--and independents--rallied around George Bush (and rejected McCain) in part because of their fevered fervor to end Clinton's legacy.

Obama is electable. Clinton is electable. McCain is electable. With today's campaigns, even a deceased candidate is electable (it has happened).

Let us focus instead on who would be the best President.

Posted by: brown7777 | April 2, 2008 3:38 PM

davidmwe:

Are you tracking Ron Paul's Internets traffic too?

chrisoleks:

Does you analysis take into account "Operation CHAOS" Republicans who switched registration to Democratic just for the primaries?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 3:36 PM

If, as the Clinton campaign repeatedly points out, the media had a bias against her, then why did her lies regarding Bosnia, of which they had video footage of not been distributed for the public to view, in December, then in January, and then in February? As a veteran who served in Bosnia, I am greatly offended by remarks of disconnected politicians, which is certainly the case with her.

When did it become an imperative that the ability to win the general election was the baseline for a democratic candidate? Isn't the idea for the people to decide who to represent them. While some may make the decision based on national electability, others may want anyone but Bush, or someone who champions the values they hold dear.

Why do pundits point to Clinton's potential to sway the super-delegates by amassing an advantage in the popular vote, when the party uses delegates.

In regards to Michigan and Florida, they achieved the goal of increasing there relevance. Unfortunately, it is not the type of relevance they sought. The world is not fair, it is not balanced. For better or worse.

Posted by: ben91aro | April 2, 2008 3:36 PM

The Google Factor;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Decide for yourself.

Posted by: davidmwe | April 2, 2008 3:35 PM

What none of these polls take into account is what has happened in the primary voting in all states during the lead up to the general election. Democratic turnout numbers have been astronomically high, record breaking in many states. Anti-Bush sentiment and general dissatisfaction with the direction of the country is certainly one component of increased turnout, but it is indisputible that Obama is bringing in a whole new crop of voters.

If he is doing this in the primaries, which fewer people pay attention to, it only logically follows that he will bring in far greater numbers in a general election,especially once he gets rolling in a one-on-one matchup with McCain. Those numbers iwll be more than enough to offset the supposed "losses" this poll is indicating, half of which are bitter Hillary fans who will suck it up and vote Dem in the general anyway, despite what they say now, just as many Obama supporters would do the same should Clinton be the nominee, yet maybe not admit it at this juncture. Trying to measure such sentiment at this point is asinine, as is reporting on such measurements.

Posted by: chrisoleks | April 2, 2008 3:34 PM

Keep in mind that Obama hasn't campaigned in Florida***, so it makes sense that Clinton would have an advantage, being more well known.


(***And why hasn't he campaigned in Florida? Because he RESPECTS the rules.)

Posted by: ChrisDC | April 2, 2008 3:32 PM

The polls showing Hillary defeating McCain in the battle ground states are so meaningless. Just as the polls said Dukakis would defeat Bush sr. in the battleground states at this period in 1988, we know what happened there. Obama is the far superior candidate to Hillary, Hillary's high negatives would never get her into the whitehouse.

Posted by: lumi21us | April 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Senator Clinton has always been the most electable candidate and it is about time people are starting to realize that fact. She is far superior in all categories and I'm sure this will not go unnoticed for long.

Posted by: TALVES | April 2, 2008 3:28 PM

Obama is not electable? As my late grandmother told me as a boy, "We shall see, we shall see . . . "

Posted by: meldupree | April 2, 2008 3:27 PM

The American people and the media should know about Bill Clinton's girlfriend Belinda Stronach so we don't have another Monica Lewinsky episode and I remember Hillary Clinton's pastor Rev. William Procanick. He had that sexual abuse case back in January. And she talks about Rev. Wright, PLEASE!

Posted by: msasianpersuasion2u | April 2, 2008 3:27 PM

Finally, people realize that Obama is not electable.

Posted by: lskjf | April 2, 2008 3:20 PM

Posted by: leonardwatts2 | April 2, 2008 2:55 PM

Does this take into account "Operation CHAOS" Republicans who switched registration to Democratic?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 2:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company