Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dean Rules Out Age As An Issue (Sort Of)

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday that his party is unlikely to make Sen. John McCain's age an issue in the fall presidential election. The Arizona Republican will be 72 in August.

"I doubt we will bring it up in the election," said Dean, dismissing the idea as a tactic Republicans might employ but Democrats never would. "There is somewhat of a higher ethical bar on what we do," Dean said. "We don't have any Lee Atwaters or Karl Roves on our side."

Dean added, however, that in recent DNC-sponsored focus groups designed to gauge voter opinions about McCain, participants regularly brought up the Arizona Senator's age as a potential point of concern.

Those worries fell into two main categories, Dean said. The first was a "health concern"; the second was the idea that McCain has "very old fashioned" opinions on a variety of topics. As evidence, Dean cited a focus group of conservative women in Charleston, West Virginia. When the Democratic organizers of the group told participants that McCain opposed insurance coverage for birth control pills and supported abstinence-only education in schools, they reportedly said "this guy is out of step with what modern views are."

Recent polling by the Post suggests that McCain's age is an issue among a decent-sized chunk of voters. In an early March survey, roughly two thirds of those polled said McCain's age made no difference to how they would vote. Of the remaining one third who said it would matter, however, nearly all (27 percent) said McCain's age would make them "less enthusiastic" to support him, while just four percent said it would make them "more enthusiastic." In a January Post poll, more than three in 10 voters (31 percent) said they would be "less enthusiastic" about backing a 72 year old candidate.

Dean's comments came during a briefing for reporters on polling on the presidential race conducted in 17 swing states by the DNC. The finding were presented by two pollsters: Allan Rivlin of Garin-Hart-Yang Research, and Cornell Belcher of Brilliant Corners. Rivlin's firm conducts polling for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign, while Belcher is one of four pollsters for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Dean refused to release the results of the head-to-head matchups in the poll but said that each of the Democratic candidates were ahead of McCain, a contrast to internal data from the Republican National Committee that showed the Arizona Senator leading Obama 48 percent to 42 percent and ahead of Clinton 51 percent to 40 percent.

Based on the poll's findings, Rivlin referred to McCain as a "target-rich opportunity" about whom voters know far less than is currently assumed. Dean, in his ever-quotable way, put it thusly: "This 'John McCain has a strong brand' is an insider phenomenon. It's just not true."

Voters' first reaction to McCain is "lukewarm", added Rivlin. Forty two-percent of voters said the Arizona Senator had "some appeal" to them, while thirty-nine percent had "only a little" or "not much at all" interest in McCain. Seventeen percent expressed "a great deal" or "quite a bit" of interest in the candidate.

"There is a real awareness that they don't know much about John McCain," said Rivlin. "They are interested in learning more."

That education process will be the battle of the next few months between the two national parties and the universe of ideologically aligned outside groups, and could well determine the ground on which the general election will be fought.

Ben Smith of Politico reported today on the re-formation of the group formerly known as the Campaign to Defend America and its plan to spend $40 million on an effort to define McCain. Earlier in the year, the Campaign to Defend America ran a seven-figure ad buy in Pennsylvania and Ohio attacking McCain as the "McSame" as Bush.

That line of argument was one of several outlined by Dean and his pollsters as effective attacks against the Arizona Republican. The others: "Not an independent, not a reformer"; "doesn't get it on the economy"; and "has changed his position on key issues."

Because of the variety of attacks that they believe will prove effective against McCain, DNC communications director Karen Finney argued that Democrats don't need to make the Senator's age an issue. "We don't even have to talk about that to have a very strong case to make against McCain," she said.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 10, 2008; 4:11 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Elton John Raises $2.5 Million for HRC
Next: The Line: The Eyes of Texas Shine on House GOP

Comments

The Democrats will attack John McCain's age simply because he is solid on every issue. Barack Obama is totally dense about foreign policy, the economy, or world affairs in general. His actions and time in the Senate puts him on the level of a college freshman. On top of that, he is a racist of the first magnitude. His racism is exceeded only by Oprah's, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hillary Clinton is simply a female model of her husband. It is a proven fact that neither one understands what the truth is. They lie to fit the occasion. Bill was convicted of perjury, lying under oath and disbarred. Hillary has already been caught in In addition, our troops are still in Bosnia. Remember Bosnia? Thats the quagmire clinton got us into.

Will the Democrats attack McCain's age, absolutely. The likes of Howard Dean, Paul Begala, Chris Matthews, James Carville, the Clintons, and Obama have no credentials that deserves even consideration for the Presidency, much less hold the office.

Posted by: Dale32 | April 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will attack John McCain's age simply because he is solid on every issue. Barack Obama is totally dense about foreign policy, the economy, or world affairs in general. His actions and time in the Senate puts him on the level of a college freshman. On top of that, he is a racist of the first magnitude. His racism is exceeded only by Oprah's, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hillary Clinton is simply a female model of her husband. It is a proven fact that neither one understands what the truth is. They lie to fit the occasion. Bill was convicted of perjury, lying under oath and disbarred. Hillary has already been caught in In addition, our troops are still in Bosnia. Remember Bosnia? Thats the quagmire clinton got us into.

Will the Democrats attack McCain's age, absolutely. The likes of Howard Dean, Paul Begala, Chris Matthews, James Carville, the Clintons, and Obama have no credentials that deserves even consideration for the Presidency, much less hold the office.

Posted by: Dale32 | April 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will attack John McCain's age simply because he is solid on every issue. Barack Obama is totally dense about foreign policy, the economy, or world affairs in general. His actions and time in the Senate puts him on the level of a college freshman. On top of that, he is a racist of the first magnitude. His racism is exceeded only by Oprah's, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hillary Clinton is simply a female model of her husband. It is a proven fact that neither one understands what the truth is. They lie to fit the occasion. Bill was convicted of perjury, lying under oath and disbarred. Hillary has already been caught in In addition, our troops are still in Bosnia. Remember Bosnia? Thats the quagmire clinton got us into.

Will the Democrats attack McCain's age, absolutely. The likes of Howard Dean, Paul Begala, Chris Matthews, James Carville, the Clintons, and Obama have no credentials that deserves even consideration for the Presidency, much less hold the office.

Posted by: Dale32 | April 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Castleberry, McCain was right about Al Qaeda, and it's you libs who are ignorant--not John McCain. Here's a few indidputable facts to point out the fallaciousness of the current Dean-inpired smear campaign:

• Earlier this month, the U.S. military and the current head of Iraqi intelligence reported that Iran has been targeting al Qaeda's enemies--not al Qaeda itself--inside Iraq. There have also been a number of reports on Iran's support for al Qaeda in Iraq. The Kurds have routinely complained about Iran's support for al Qaeda's affiliate, Ansar al-Islam.

For more on Ansar al-Islam's ties to Iran, and other bad actors, see Dan Darling's excellent primer. http://www.cpt-mi.org/Ansar%20al-Islam%20Final.pdf

As Darling wrote: "Another apparent relationship exists between Ansar and radical elements of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which seeks to use Ansar as a proxy force against the Coalition in Iraq."

• More generally, the theological differences between Iran and al Qaeda have never been a serious impediment to cooperation. For example, Iran's cooperation with al Qaeda going back to the early 1990's. There is detailed evidence of cooperation between Iran's chief terrorist, the late Imad Mugniyah, and al Qaeda.

• The 9-11 Commission found extensive evidence of collaboration between Iran and al Qaeda. For example, the Commission concluded (p. 61): "The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations."

• The Clinton administration recognized the relationship between al Qaeda, Iran, and Iran's terrorist proxy, Hezbollah.

Here is, in part, what the Clinton administration charged in its indictment of al Qaeda following the August 1998 embassy bombings: "USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hizballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States."

• The mainstream media, including the Washington Post itself, has reported on Iran's ties to al Qaeda. But now a blog hosted by the Washington Post dismisses the idea that the two could collaborate.

John McCain was right the first time. He shouldn't have taken his comment back. But this whole imbroglio shows just how much ignorance there is on the part of liberals concerning our terrorist enemies.


Regarding his questioning of Gen Petraeus this week, McCain, being a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee was the first to ask questions, and I found them to be pointed and relavant. I was impressed with how comfortable he seemed holding Petraeus accountable for a less than stellar performance, even asking him what lesson was learned from it. It was obvious he was well informed and his questions were spot on. This - to me - shows he's a natural leader.

By the time Obama, the very junior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee got his chance (which was 13th, 4th from the bottom of the list), there was little else to be asked or answered. I found his questions to be an attempt to get Petraeus to "prove him right" so to speak, which didn't happen.

Obama is just too green to handle something of this magnitude yet. And his statement of a few days ago on the subject of his expertise on foreign policy, saying he was more experienced than Clinton or McCain, really highlighted his inexperience. Surely he can't believe that, surely he was making a joke.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The Dems won't need to bring his age up. Voters will think about it every time they see a close-up of his face.

Posted by: pdech | April 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

If loud mouth DNC Chairman Howard Dean doesnot wise up and keep his big mouth shut
along with Nancy Pelosi also keeping her
out of touch with reality braindead mouth
shut and Barack Hussein Obama doesn't stop
lying then the Democrats will have lost
the 2008 Election long before Election Day.

Posted by: Sherry Kay | April 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

No, there is no Rove among the Democrats, but there is a Carville.

Of course the "official" Democrats aren't going to attack McCain on his age, but Dean is playing in fantasy land by pretending that the unofficial attack dogs won't tear apart McCain as too old.

Posted by: blert | April 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This'll be a good test: will the media devote an increased level of general scrutiny to the Republican VP candidate, given the increased likelihood of midterm succession?

Posted by: FlownOver | April 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

There is no good answer is there, proudtobeGOP?

Either McCain has shown bouts of befuddlement and confusion (not exactly they guy you want as Commander in Chief)

Or

He does not have a grasp on what is REALLY going on between Iran and Iraq (not exactly the guy you want as Commander in Chief).

Is it his very advanced age? At 72 years old, it could be.

Or, it might simply be that he does not fully understand the complexities of today's world.

After all, he was 5th from the bottom of his graduating class, so we can't be sure whether he has the intellectual prowess needed for today's complex globally-intertwined issues.

Posted by: Castlereagh | April 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JEP | April 11, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

No one cares if a Presidential candidate is 72 years old.

"Did you know long naps are a precursor to senility? Do you know John McCain takes long naps?" has nothing to do with his age, it is purely a question of competence. And obviously no one, not even a Democrat, would hesitate to raise questions about their opponents competency.

Posted by: muD | April 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

That's what McCain is so good for this country. He will not be afraid to bomb Iran and al-Qaeda in Iraq and maybe even Syria. We should bomb all those countries that don't live like we want them to.

Not like that little wussy Obama who would rather "talk" with them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What does it matter whether McCain is confused or not? Both al-Qaeda in Iraq AND Iran should be bombed to hell.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

You are very eloquent in expressing your distaste for Howard Dean, proudtobeGOP.

But I noticed that completely avoided my question? Why not be brave; try to answer it?

Why DID McCain continue to be confused about Shi'a Iran supporting Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq even AFTER being tutored by Joe Lieberman?

Posted by: Castlereagh | April 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Castlereagh, I see you got the memo from Howard Dean, too....yeah I saw his email with the canned talking points that you are repeating.

I enjoyed very much replying to Mr. Dean, the lying opportunistic weasel that he is, that he ought better concern himself with the disenfranchisement of millions of Democrats in MI and FL rather than waste time trying to prop up Obama's campaign.

The superdelegates won't listen to him, the voters surely won't listen to him, and even the two frontrunners are probably cursing his name as we speak....with love like that for the chairman among his own party, he has become the Eliot Spitzer of the DNC.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I respect kingofzouk's honesty.

He admits he is Hawk when it comes to American foreign policy, and yet, he frankly admits that he does not have the cajones to do the actual fighting.

I reaspect your candor kingofzouk.

Posted by: Metternich | April 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So, kingofzouk: are you saying more "regime-change" and more "nation-building"?

Not going so well in Iraq, you know.

Posted by: Castlereagh | April 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if Castlereagh is right: that McCain is either dangerously age-befuddled or he really does not understand the intricacies of the fight against Islamic Extremism, but either way it does not bode well for a Commander in Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Posted by: Metternich | April 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

as you many of you already know, I am just fabulously wealthy...

I say, it is time we bomb Iran back into the stone age.

And we surely need to out some "boots on the ground" and occupy their country after we're done bombimg the s*** out of them.

I, of course, would never fight in a war or join the armed service -- period. That is far too scary for my ilk. Send the poor folk, that's what I say.

I am quite the Hawk when it comes to American foreign policy -- but I, and my class, will never do the actual fighting. ...or dying.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

McCain's age will not be an issue in the fall campaign . . . as far as I know.

Posted by: Stonecreek | April 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

proud on McCain: "That's why he's a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, because he is ignorant of foreign policy"

Then why does he keep mis-speaking on Shi'a Iran supporting the Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Why does he need Joe Lieberman to coach him?

I could understand doing it once... but why does he keep doing it? Does he really not know who the players are? Is he really as befuddled as he appears?

Does being 72 years old play a part in his continued "mis-statements"?

Posted by: Castlereagh | April 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

from bsimon: "...has McCain found his Quayle?"

Hey, the idea just came to me:

Who is a "darling" amongst the far-right fringe of the far-right Republican Party?

Who is still "relatively" young?

J. Danforth Quayle, that's who!

McCain could choose Quayle as his Quayle!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Israel Problems Continue

Obama was asked again yesterday about his church's relationship with Louis Farrakhan and he responded, rather presumptuously, that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have."

It's an absurd claim given Obama's long relationship with Jeremiah Wright, but it also came just hours before the Los Angeles Times published this report about a 2003 dinner attended by Obama in honor of Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi, a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of the Obamas, is also described as a "critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights." The event featured plenty of criticism of Israel:


At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."


Obama also spoke at the event, and while his speech "adopted a different tone," it was not a fierce condemnation of the preceding anti-Semitism--or the threat to violence.

In fact, it's pretty clear that for much of his career Obama understood anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as an unalterable feature of the political landscape in Chicago's South Side.

Perhaps Obama found such remarks abhorrent. Perhaps he tolerated them only in order to serve a larger good--in this case his work as a community organizer. But it does appear as though Obama viewed tolerance of anti-Semitism as an occasional cost of doing business.

What's troubling is that the international community is not all that different from Trinity United in its views on Israel. Over the course of this campaign, Obama has emphasized the need to rebuild weakened international institutions and repair frayed alliances. But at what cost?

If he thought it was in service to this larger good, would he sit silently in the pews of the General Assembly as Zionism was equated with racism? Supporters of Israel are bound to worry.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6383

Having taxpayer money spent to send Obama supporter Jimmy Carter to Syria for a meeting with the head of Hamas next week doesn't help much either.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama Flubs on American Idol.

For last night's "American Idol." Hillary, Obama, and McCain taped appearances. It sounds like there was a mix-up with the Obama campaign, as he referred to events that are scheduled for tomorrow night as "tonight." Not a big deal, but he and Hillary offered standard-issue hooray-for-charity-work mini-speeches.

McCain did that, but more: "'American Idol' is a lot like a presidential primary election. Except for people in Michigan and Florida -- their votes actually count."

Zing. Think about how many completely apolitical people watch American Idol, who have completely tuned out the details of the presidential race, who will likely ask their friends/fellow Idol watchers what that meant.

They'll learn about the mess on the Democratic side, and how they're set to have only 48 states represented at their convention, while the Rs worked out the issue on their side quickly and fairly equitably.


Watch out Mr. Dean, America is paying attention to YOUR failures; your future is looking well past it's prime.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"McCain's ignorance of key questions in international affairs, foreign policy, domestic affairs..is wide, deep, and dangerous"

Riiiiight. That's why he's a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, because he is ignorant of foreign policy. I guess you would say then, that his democratic counterpart, the chairman Sen Levin, is also ignorant of foriegn policy.

You liberals kill me.
Even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that McCain has way more experience than Obama on critical matters involving the country....
"Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to [bring] to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Oh, and let's not forget those 130+ "present" votes. That should count for something.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 11, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Sen. McCain's age will continue to be an unspoken theme of the campaign this summer and fall. When the intellectually vigorous, physically vibrant Sen. Obama stands beside Sen. McCain during a debate the comparison will be obvious and not in McCain's favor. The older man's Vietnam war experience is honorable but irrelevant to the present circumstances. In fact, it increasingly clear that his static worldview is dangerously out of date with present dangers and realities. If he is not sure of the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia then we are left to wonder what else is he not up to par on. He is fundamentally wrong on the central analysis of the struggle in Iraq, which is in fact a civil war between Iraqi factions and not a 'front in the war on terrorism.'

Of greater consequence will be Sen. McCain's flagrant flip-flops on issues of crucial importance to average voters: the economy and the role of government in helping citizens (as opposed to Wall Street bankers) in trouble. First McCain wanted to not help out home-owners facing foreclosure because that was their fault, now he is changing his tune. Watch for a similar flip-flop on the issue of privatizing Social Security: now McCain is for it, soon he will be against it, I'll wager.

McCain's ignorance of key questions in international affairs, foreign policy, domestic affairs, and economics is wide, deep, and dangerous.

I am not worried about his age, I am worried about his incompetance.

Posted by: dee | April 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

boutan writes
"It isn't just a question of if he is ok RIGHT NOW... a fair question is, "what will he be like when he is 80?""

Find me a test that can produce an answer & we can discuss the results. Until then, its speculative. While the odds of suffering from age-related illnesses increase over time, youth is not a vaccine against contracting alzheimer's, parkinson's, dementia or other neurological disorders.

Posted by: bsimon | April 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Code for "We won't attack his age. Not unless we start losing to that decrepit, ancient, wrinkled man. (I didn't say he was old!)"

Posted by: Chris Anderson | April 11, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

McCain is about as sharp as a gunnysack full of wet mice.

Posted by: richard olveda | April 11, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Age, race and gender should not be the issue. The 527 and other have more going for them against Obama , if he is the nominee. 1. Lack of experience ( severed in the Illinois house for 7 yrs, on a part time bases and most of the bills he passed were in 2002, very few in 2003 and none in 2004. 2. Lack of good judgement ( Rezko and Rev. Wright) 3. Big donors among Obama backers ( they expect something in return) there are 79 bundlers, 5 of them billionaires, they along raised $200,000 each.

Posted by: jp,michigan | April 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Of course age should be an acceptable issue to discuss.

You have to be over 35 to run for President. It is a constitutional requirement.

So, if you can be "too young"... why can't you be "too old"?

Everyone knows what it is like to see their Grandparent get old and less mentally competent. It isn't just a question of if he is ok RIGHT NOW... a fair question is, "what will he be like when he is 80?" (at the end of a 2nd term)

It isn't "ageism"... it is just common sense.

It is SO much sense that the DNC won't even NEED to bring it up - it is bloody obvious just looking at the guy. He looks OLD (especially next to his plastic surgeoned wife)

Posted by: Boutan | April 11, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it time to get back to some of the old ways or old fashioned thinking. Just look at some of the modern day thinking. Does it really work? Education is a prime example.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Face it Barack Hussein Obama is totally
un-electable and Obama is nothing more then
a stinking lying sleazy Chicago political
hack drug addict that is owned by the likes
of Chicago slum lord Tony Rezko and "Uncle"
Rev Wright and Howard Dean and the DNC and
Nutcase Madame Speaker and Obama Veep Choice Nancy Pelosi,Windsurfer John Kerry and old DWI KIller Teddy Kennedy and big
hedge fund money people and now when are
all you braindead in total denial Toxic
Obama Kool Aid Drinker Obamabots ever going
to get back in touch with reality and accept the real nasty truth about Obama?

Posted by: Sandra | April 11, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

bondjedi - "No one but a few Hillary deadenders believe the experience or the Rezko crap."

Really? Did Obama all of a sudden gain another term or two? Wright/Rezko/Ayers/Dohm - they are who they are. He does fall in the top 10 most liberal Senators. He won't have problems getting elected because he is black, he will have problems getting elected because of what he believes, his experience (or lack thereof), and the people he hangs with.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, On this page:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html

read the "Wilkerson interview, the 7th on the page, although all are useful.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 10, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, Hi.

This is from a later story about Powell.

""There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."
---------------------
It is part of the rich chain of Cheney based deception you can review over several "Frontline" episodes. Powell was among the ones deceived, And he has since said it was the lowest point of his career. He spent four consecutive days at CIA trying to double check before he went to the UN. He insisted that the Director, Tenent, sit behind him at the UN because he did not fully trust CIA and wanted them to show their good faith.

I do not judge him harshly.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 10, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

There are reports that Colin Powell may soon endorse Sen. Obama. Powell is a decent man but his testimony before the UN as to mobile weapons of mass destruction was shameful.

Curious how Obama supporters would view that endorsement: as never mine or no thanks.

Personally I would not want the HC campaign to be in any way associated with his deception or association with W's failed Iraq policies and Powell's testimony as a precursor to the quagmire in Iraq. Would Senator Obama now trust Powell's flawed military judgment or reject it out of hand?

Looking for an honest, objective opinion by an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 10, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday Little Rockefeller tried to swift-boat John. Today, Howard tries to Fosterize him.

Last cycle these folks had a big problem with W's lack of fighting credentials. Now they support two chicken-little democrats who want us to attack Pakistan, negotiate with an Iranian madman, stick a finger in Columbia's business, and pick a fight with China.

Profiles in Courage indeed.

Posted by: Scoop | April 10, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Polling with Dean and the Dem candidates is nonsense and meaningless at this point. The Dems do not a candidate yet and are still poudning each other. Of course McCAin has a huge advantage now. Check the numbers in a couple of months when the dust clears and the Dem nominee is selected.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

hey, I didn't do that multi-post thing...

and as fir this little gem about Kristol;
"...writing checks with his mouth that his bum can't cash."

I think you have the orifices mixed up here... From everything I have seen, Kristol is usually speaking from the lower sphincter.

Posted by: JEP | April 10, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Just think, by the time his war is over, McCain will be 180 years old...

Posted by: JEP | April 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Just think, by the time his war is over, McCain will be 180 years old...

Posted by: JEP | April 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Just think, by the time his war is over, McCain will be 180 years old...

Posted by: JEP | April 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

"Hey Zouk... L and I are having oysters and giggles a little later. Care to make it a threesome?"

Film at 11!

Posted by: Optimyst | April 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

If there is any ass-kicking to be done in Fiji, let me be the first to volunteer for extended duty.

do you think an LST can pull a water-skiier?

gotta go

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I would explain that a US President can never remove the threat of violence from our set of options.

Imagine the glee in Iran if he declared "Under no circumstance would we ever get in a fight with Iran".

the next closest thing is to declare - "I will talk to Iran with no preconditions and plead for forgiveness for all the US sins over our history. At the same time I will flee the field of battle and leave it to our ex-allies to fend for themselves. Our word is worth nothing."

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"After suggesting that Iran may 'have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,' Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not 'out of the question.'"

Bill Kristol is the typical neo-con - writing checks with his mouth that his bum can't cash. He has made the most out of his auspicious beginnings - babysitting Dan Quayle.

Attacking Iran is the neo-con equivalent of going double or nothing. Attacking the Iranians and botching that - who will be next? Myanmar? Turkmenistan? Fiji? zouk, any ideas?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

drindl is back beating her pet dead horse again.

How tedious.

Hey drindl - you won the congress and still didn't end the war. It seems your representatives are too chicken to even chicken out.

ahh the dripping irony.

TTFN

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

and this is the guy who is advisig McCain... look out for a draft.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

and with what army, I wonder...

Lieberman, Bennett, And Kristol See Petraeus Hearing As 'An Argument' For 'Going Into Iran'

During their appearance before the Senate on Tuesday, Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker accused Iran of "funding, training, arming and directing extremist 'special groups' in Iraq." "I think one might look for a reconsideration in Tehran as to just where they want to go in Iraq," said Crocker. "This would be an excellent time for them to reassess."

Liveblogging the hearings for the Washington Post, Fiasco author Thomas Ricks pondered what Crocker could have intended with his "reassess" comment, considering that "there will be a new American president in place in less than a year":

But he also said, "This would be an excellent time for them to reassess." What does he mean by that? Why would Iran want to adjust their relationship now, when there will be a new American president in place in less than a year? Or is there some sort of implied threat there: You guys better get smart, or this president still has time to pound you?

It is unclear whether such a veiled threat was Crocker's intention, but some on the right are certainly seeing his and Petraeus's testimony as cause to begin talking about striking Iran again.

On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol -- who had a personal meeting with President Bush yesterday -- that a "conclusion" he drew was that the hearing was "less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran." After suggesting that Iran may "have to pay some price at some point on their own soil," Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not "out of the question":

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

December - 2009. Lib HQ

Why did we run such an inexperienced, liberal candidate. you'd think we would have learned from losing every Presidential election in decades.

Well in all fairness we did win one.

That was a conservative. he passed welfare reform and NAFTA and balanced the budget. We got fooled good.

we sure didn't want that to happen again - or did we. Maybe we should have given hillary a chance to bring him and his interns back.

Her problem was that she would say anything to get elected - it just didn't seem right.

but saying the truth or what we know of it didn;t seem to work either. who was the dummy who came up wtih tax increases, losing wars and expensive government health care we couldn't afford.

We thought that was what the people wanted

We were wrong again. there'e always next time.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Cult of Zouk:

Cheney: In 2004, who did you want - the guy who went and fought in the 'Nam, or a couple of chickens**ts?

Zouk: The chickens**ts, sir!

Cheney: Can you find any difference between Bill Clinton, a draft dodger, or your fearless hero Dubya, who spent the war having his naked bum spanked in the Skull and Bones basement?

Zouk: Dubya was a hero in the reserves, sir!

Cheney: Now tell me, troop - what does the sky-rocketing price of gas, a trillion-dollar mortgage disaster, and a dollar worth half as much as it was eight years ago mean to you?

Zouk: Unprecedented prosperity, sir?

Cheney: Why is it okay for CEOs to receive millions, despite crummy performance?

Zouk: Because I don't want the government to take the fortunes I'm gathering from this ten buck an hour mailroom job, sir!

Cheney: Very good! Now let's attack Iran?

Zouk: Um ... you mean fight? Me? Personally?

Cheney: Ha ha! Just testing! Let's just promise some poor kids a free college education if they lay down their lives for my foreign policy ignorance!

Zouk: Yay!

Cheney: Another question - does global warming matter?

Zouk: Not to someone who has had 20 bypasses and likes his steaks marbled, like you! That heart won't last much longer!

Cheney: What heart?

Zouk: Ha ha!

Cheney: Now let's say the pledge of capitalism: "I pledge allegiance, to big oil, for which it stands, and I don't give a crap about anyone so long as I get what I want."

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

a general election of the black guy vs. the white guy.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 6:19 PM

I would say it is more like the moderate and experienced old guy vs the baby-faced untested extreme leftist with delusions of granduer and some evidence of bad judgment and malfeasance for America, young guy.

It seems only you wacky Libs still see in color. when you lose really bad, you will blame it on racisim in America, not the extreme leftism of the candidate. you always find some lame excuse.

Was Kerry and gore and Dukakis and mondale and...secretly black or what?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

zouk:

Did you just post the Bush Administration's playbook?

"‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society."

You're either with us or with the terrorists.

‪"The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations)."

Executive privilege and signing statements ("It's the law, but I'm not going to obey it.").

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

a clumsy substitute for discuss:

Iran : We want to kill you, we have for some time

Obama: Let's talk about that, tell me about your childhood?

Iran: you can talk all you want, we will smile in your face and then kill you when you aren't looking. we've been doing it since 1979, remember? We have talked much since then and you Libs always try again. Meanwhile, the killing goes on.

Obama: We don't like killing. we prefer talking.

Iran: OK, keep talking then.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"If you think that those are not valid issues and that they won't be around for the rest of the campaign, you have delved into the fantasy genre."

Of course they'll be around. But since you're new to this game, I'll let you in on a little secret: the GOP brand is to put its fruit on the lowest hanging branch. Willie Horton, Call me Harold, etc.

No one but a few Hillary deadenders believe the experience or the Rezko crap. The overwhelming desire to throw the bums out and keep the ancient parrot out of the White House is going to make the GOP panicky, so this is going to be a general election of the black guy vs. the white guy.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

'As much as you hate it, discussing is the only option "

why am I not surprised a committted Lib comes to this conclusion (again). sounds like cult-ish behavior - see above:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.


Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a "cult scale" or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry--or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar--or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"It boils down to two approaches:
1. Plead with the enemy
2. Kill the enemy

and

1. raise taxes, spend more, increase big government
2. lower taxes, spend less, shrink government"

Well, that's four approaches. The first two, "plead" is a clumsy substitute for "discuss." If it's killing you want, God love you, but the current administration has backed the military into a corner vis-a-vis the Iranians. As much as you hate it, discussing is the only option (unless you advocate a nuclear broadside).

This current admin has actually used your last two as a smorgasbord, giving us the worst of both worlds. Cut taxes, increase government, spend big on Blackwater and Bear Stearns.

Try again, big boy.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Dave! - cultism depends on the willing suspension of disbeleif - to turn a phrase.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, Matthews has been right about as many times as Howard Dean has. Zero. Seems like they both get a tingle in their leg from Obama, though.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi - "Half of those are make-believe, the other half were batted down."

Let me guess, you make your living as a fiction writer. If you think that those are not valid issues and that they won't be around for the rest of the campaign, you have delved into the fantasy genre.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

It boils down to two approaches:

1. Plead with the enemy

2. Kill the enemy

and

1. raise taxes, spend more, increase big government

2. lower taxes, spend less, shrink government

easy choice really

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - "The interesting question is whether the abilities that deteriorate are those that impact a President's effectiveness."

It is hard to argue that Reagan was not effective and he was showing signs of old age, if not alzheimers in his second term. My perception was that his mind was functioning fine but the quickness and some of the communication abilities had deteriorated. Was he the exception or the rule? I know he was the oldest president, who else was up there in years?

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

All you have to have is McCain stand right next to Obama and you have age, vitality, the future etc. be an issue. Some will equate McCain's age with experience,others his age with risk of dying in office, and others age as being not a person to deal with tomorrow's world.
I think Americans are well used to the concept of people living well into their nineties and as the seventies what used to be the sixties. As a result, Obama nearing fifty is percieved as younger.
Race, age, demeanor, temper, verbal skills, diplomacy, religion, humor, height, weight,etc etc will all be used by people to sort out whether they think any candidate has what it takes to be a successful president.
Most have no correlation with success but that wont stop people from thinking those particular characteristics are important.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"Wright, Rezco, foreign policy, inexperience, lack of substance, former dope head, one of the 10 most liberal Senators... Just to name a few quickly off the top of my head."

Half of those are make-believe, the other half were batted down.

Believe me, leichtman got this one right (even a broken clock is right twice a day): the effective ads to be rolled out by the 527s will be in the vein of "Harold, call me." I'm sure they've already been scripted; what is being worked on right now are McCain's plausible denials.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I really think that only Quayle is uniquely qualified to be Quayle. But I have to say, other than defeating Daschle, he has had an unremarkable career. I would be surprised if there were any VP announcements or actual decisions for at least a month. What is the rush?

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

svre impersonator you are sick! stop the harassment, NOW!!! I find your posts threatening and ask the moderator that they stop, NOW!!

Posted by: Leichtman | April 10, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Age has absolutely nothing to do with John McCain's being the wrong choice to be President. Its his policies, not his age that speak to his being the wrong choice. I would not agree with the majority of McCain's policies if he was physiologically 55 years old. There are folks older than John McCain's who's policies are correct and there are young politicans who's policies are out of step with America's right direction. I could hear these same policies from much younger Linsey Graham and I would oppose them equally coming from a man 20 years his junior. Americans know McCain's age, and Dems make a grave mistake if they attack his age rather than his wrong headed policies. Its equally offensive as saying Sen Obama or Sen Clinton are not qualified to serve because of their race or sex; neither should be tolerated.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I saw a passing reference to the prediction (Matthews?) that McCain will pick Thune as his running mate. If that's the case, has McCain found his Quayle?

Posted by: bsimon | April 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

OK, I admit it. I am insecure about the size of my package.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

To use a sports metaphor, that jersey has been retired.

Posted by: bsimon | April 10, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Dave: Thanks for making the point I was about to make. There is definitely a difference between age, on one hand, and race and sex, on the other, when it comes to an individual's capabilities.

And while there are plenty of people a lot younger than McCain who aren't up to being president, I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether someone who will be 73, 74, 75, and 76 will be up to the job.

So am I calling Dean a liar? No, but the issue will be raised.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 10, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi - "...Obama's is viewed as negative, is the only way to hit him."

Wright, Rezco, foreign policy, inexperience, lack of substance, former dope head, one of the 10 most liberal Senators... Just to name a few quickly off the top of my head.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

DavE! writes
"That is not to say old people are incapable, just that your abilities deteriorate as you age."

The interesting question is whether the abilities that deteriorate are those that impact a President's effectiveness.

Posted by: bsimon | April 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain's age will be an issue. His mental sharpness and focus as well as health will be an issue. We have 6 months between now and Nov. 4th. McCain will have a checkup sometime in the future. McCain has already demonstrated he has senior moments like when talking about the differences between Sunnis, Shias, and terrorists. His economic policy knowledge will be exposed as insufficient and weak. And the coup de grace will be the net weath he enjoys as Cindy McCain's husband. Once people realize that the McCains are worth more than the Clintons, average income people will began to realize why McCain doesn't worry about the economy too much.

Posted by: AJ | April 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Why would the DNC or Dem nominee need to attack McCain on his age? The media - and McCain himself - talk about it every chance they get.

Posted by: bsimon | April 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin,
I actually think age is slightly different from the other two in that a person's abilities are affected as you get older in most people. That is not to say old people are incapable, just that your abilities deteriorate as you age. Whereas with race and gender, whether you are capable or not has nothing to do with either. As far as capitalizing on them, there is probably no greater argument for improving education than this. My take is that attacks like this are going for the ignorant demographic.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
I do concur with you that statements like Dean's are essentially meaningless and I appear to have misread or misinterpreted your comments (and should have known better based on your previous posts). Sincere apologies.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The difference between age and race in the general election, and race and gender in the HC death march/Dem primary is that race, if Obama's is viewed as negative, is the only way to hit him.

With Clinton and McCain, the Obama camp suffers from an embarrassment of riches when it comes to material to attack his opponents. Why go after Hillary's gender when there is Lewinsky, bogus foreign policy credentials, sniper tales, free trade fibs, stiffed small businesses, etc.

With McCain, his feebleness and forgetfulness are only reasons #64 and 65 in a long list of why no one in his/her right mind would vote for him.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 10, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"What I will continue to fail to understand, Dave and Blarg, is how age, gender, and race can actually be capitalized upon by am opponent."

Because a lot of americqns still think of all those as derogatory... you've seen it on these boards.

Posted by: drindl | April 10, 2008 5:07 PM

And they use those classifications as a wedge to drive people apart into separate tribes. The more it is repeated, the more people end up defending their ground and attacking the others. Look at how much more shrill these boards have gotten since the presidential race has intensified.

Posted by: mnteng | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

blarg I am sure the GOP or their 527s conveniently forget the call me Harold ad and would say it never happened. Seems like that ad was not so long ago.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 10, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"What I will continue to fail to understand, Dave and Blarg, is how age, gender, and race can actually be capitalized upon by am opponent."

Because a lot of americqns still think of all those as derogatory... you've seen it on these boards.

Posted by: drindl | April 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Dave, if you think I'm saying that Republicans are racists, do you also think I'm saying Democrats are ageists? I'm saying neither.

What I'm saying is that every candidate will be attacked on all of their weaknesses. That includes the weaknesses that people will admit to attacking (lack of experience, support for unpopular policy, etc.), and the weaknesses that everyone pretends to ignore (race, age, religion, etc.)

Someone who supports McCain will attack Obama for his race. Someone who supports Obama will attack McCain for his age. These attacks won't come from the RNC or DNC. Dean's statement is therefore meaningless, and so is the equivalent statement from the head of the RNC. (Whoever that is.)

Posted by: Blarg | April 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

That would have been smoother as

"..unaware of the sole metric for each do not exist."

Count me among the "old".

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

What I will continue to fail to understand, Dave and Blarg, is how age, gender, and race can actually be capitalized upon by am opponent.

Those who define these three candidates within a sole metric will not be moved, and those who are unaware of the sole metric do for each not exist.

Where is the advantage in calling McC "old", or BHO "black", or HRC "female"?

They are. So what?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

No, Dave, it could be 100 years and it wouldn't be long enough. McCain is no Reagan.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if it has been long enough for McCain to reuse Reagan's line on age: "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - "Expect to see an identical (and similarly meaningless) statement from the head of the RNC about not using Obama's race as an issue in the campaign."

Trying hard to put aside the insinuation you make that Republicans are racists, I believe that both Obama and Hillary have already made race an issue in this campaign.

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

FIX THE LOGIN, CC

"Earlier in the year, the Campaign to Defend America ran a seven-figure ad buy in Pennsylvania and Ohio attacking McCain as the "McSame" as Bush."

Seven figures and the best they could come up with is "McSame"? Good thing they have lots of money.

And on to other news from the AP...
"McCain erases Obama 10-point national lead. Poll: Presumptive GOP nominee now tied with both Democratic contenders.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.

Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent. Factoring in the poll's margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, Clinton and McCain are statistically tied.

Despite all the conflict surrounding Obama, the Democratic contest is unchanged from February with Obama at 46 percent and Clinton at 43 percent. But the heated primary is creating divisions among the electorate -- many Clinton and Obama supporters say they would rather vote for McCain if their chosen Democrat doesn't win the nomination.

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women -- from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less."

Posted by: Dave! | April 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This isn't a surprise at all. Even if the DNC were planning to attack McCain for his age, Dean wouldn't admit to it in a meeting with reporters. The attacks wouldn't even come from the DNC; they'd be spread by "independent" organizations, campaign surrogates, etc. Expect to see an identical (and similarly meaningless) statement from the head of the RNC about not using Obama's race as an issue in the campaign.

Posted by: Blarg | April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company