Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

SEIU Makes it Official

*******************************

UPDATE: SEIU made it official in a conference call this afternoon -- they are endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"This is about more than one election. It's about building for the next generation of America," said SEIU President Andy Stern. "Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we've ever seen." The SEIU endorsement ensures a legion of ground troops for Obama in the states yet to vote; SEIU officials estimate they have more than 100,000 members in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone.

**********************************

The Service Employees International Union executive board will meet tonight via conference call to consider an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid, according to sources familiar with the organization.

The expectation is that SEIU -- one of the largest and most influential labor groups in the country -- will vote to endorse Obama, though until that decision is made later tonight it remains an open question.

Should SEIU throw its weight behind Obama, it would be another piece of the party establishment puzzle falling into place for the Illinois senator.

Late last year SEIU decided not to make an official endorsement due to a deadlock among its members -- that decision was seen as a setback for former senator John Edwards, who had assiduously courted the group.

Instead, the national SEIU allowed its state affiliates to make endorsements of their own. Those state groups tended to side with Edwards, but a handful went Obama's way.

While the symbolic importance of an SEIU endorsement of Obama is considerable, there is also a practical element. SEIU has roughly 100,000 members total in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- all crucial states holding primaries over the next two months. Thus, an SEIU endorsement of Obama would add crucial ground forces to his efforts in those states.

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  February 15, 2008; 2:58 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Pick: On Reporters and Voting
Next: Friday House Line: Republican Retirements Galore

Comments

nygqlkwpi uflbd nebm wfitpeamu rzfwcpbnu gcbijk urofsjql

Posted by: xipqhy ywqb | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's nomination would go against the popular vote too much...Obama and Michelle may represent change ...but not what I want as a white woman...who thought that I worked for social justice and equality...but appartantly not enough to make Michelle proud. ( I never voted for Bush and Cheney...so don't blame me)
We need Gore. We need Gore and Nancy Polosi

Posted by: hartfordcity | February 19, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

About half of the SEIU is made up of government workers, who of course will be for the Democrats, the party of ever bigger government. Mr. Cillizza failed to mention that.

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?p=2994

Posted by: federalistjournal-dot-com | February 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The most recent list of facts, Leon, is that Hillary Clinton has managed to lose her ENORMOUS (remember "inevitable"?) lead in the polls; distort her opponent's statements beyond the point that any reasonable person can ignore; bankrupt her campaign treasury of over $100M; alienate an apparent majority of her most loyal base (the African American community); re-triangulate her message more than half a dozen times; and all while demonstrating a singularly remarkable ability to cry on cue.

Also another fact for you: the two most experienced presidents EVER - "experience," as Hillary defines it, at least, as years of being a Washington insider - were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, a fact which clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such "experience" gives not ONE clue to the voting public of ANY relationship whatsoever between the quality of a person's ability to govern and the length of their resume'.

(Are those facts enough for you? They are for me.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 16, 2008 4:30 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, I liked Obama. His keynote speech was marvelous. He was a relative liberal in his very short senate career.

The Obama followers, however, make me sick. You are the meanest, nastiest, most immature bunch of "kool-ade" drinkers I have ever seen. The constant attacks on Hillary- do you know that I have yet to recieve one e-mail from her campaign attacking him, while I recieve at least one a day attacking her from his campaign. False accusations. Donna Brasille (Hey Donna, thanks for running Gore 2000 so well, we democrats sure need your opinions around). Constant nastiness. From a bunch of people who like that someone gets up and yells change without any specifics. And yes, I have checked his website. His staff does some adequate writing, but it still lacks depth. Additionally, the policies specified are more conservative than HRC's so- what exactly is this change? Are the Republicans gonna listen to his oratory and melt away all of the hatred and prejudice toward liberal ideology? Remember, Max Cleland had nothing to do with the Clintons. Tom Daschele didn't even like the Clintons. They do not play nice and it's not because of the Clintons.

Lets just look at the issues and how they will govern based on facts, and the future,not rhetoric or non-votes taken by a person who wasn't even in the Senate at the time. I think that if you do this, you will find yourself less angry, more appealing and you might have to reconsider who you are supporting.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | February 16, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton camp's claims that victory is just around the corner remind me of the story told by John Kenneth Galbraith of debriefing the German Albert Speer at the close of World War II.

How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing? It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland were growing ever closer to Berlin.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 15, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Ebubuk2004 posted:

""Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton.""

You may want to 're-check' your facts here...they are incorrect. More Clinton supporter drivel...make comments without supported facts. Those of us who actually read up on the issues on the candidates sites know better!

Also, just so you know...Economic plans for Clinton, Edwards and Obama were rated last month...Clinton (the more experienced) got a C- for hers! Edwards got a B+. And Obama? His got an A-!

Posted by: ndolan622 | February 15, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

johnL1 writes
" How does having the extremist position on the war issue make him the "uniter"? "

John, perhaps too many years of the Bush administration has addled your mind. Having a specific position on an issue is unrelated to one's ability to unite or divide. Surely someone without a specific or even extreme position is capable of dividing people on the issue. Likewise, someone with a specific issue (that you mislabel as 'extreme') is capable of uniting. The difference is a little characteristic I call leadership. Leadership is the ability to convince people that, whether they agree with your specific position or not, you're worth following. My favorite example of this is former uber-liberal Senator Wellstone, from my state of MN. He was a leader. A very liberal leader, but he still managed to handily wind elections in a state that has also sens Republicans to the Senate and Governor's office. How could an extremely liberal person do this? Its because he earned respect from the voters for having core principles that he stuck to. Its about leadership. Some people have it, some don't. We could use a good leader as President right about now.

Posted by: bsimon | February 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims to be the country's "uniter". Then he says that he is the one who is "truly", "all the way", against the Iraq war. A significant minority of the country support the war. How does having the extremist position on the war issue make him the "uniter"? Seems that being the one who is "totally" (except for voting to fund it) against it, will make it harder to unite the country on this difficult issue.

Posted by: johnL1 | February 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes, of Sen Clinton
"it has to do with experience and demonstrated accomplishments "

Name a few. She has a pretty limited set of demonstrated accomplishments. Certainly her Senate career has been light in terms of passing legislation. But maybe I've missed some. So why don't you list some for us? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | February 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

SEIU made an attempt to take the Chicago City Council by supporting over 15 different candidates against the old guard (the old guard was endorsed by Obama who has never delivered or advocated for 'change' here in Chicago or IL) - they picked up five and of those, several were due to other issues in the wards. No one really cares who SEIU supports, even their own membership. They will have little impact on this race. Clinton will carry the working poor by HUGE margins in WI, OH, PA, and TX.

Obama is the Hart/Bradley candidate in this election cycle. If he is the nominee, despite what he thinks, several of the swing states around the great lakes are in play in the general election. There are too many people like me who doesn't think hollow speeches and an semi-inspiring back-story merits putting some one in the Whitehouse or as commander in chief of our armed forces. Put him up against McCain (who has delivered results on working across party lines to change our campaign finances, treat immigrants humanely, and has the credentials to be commander in chief) and who has a very inspiring background story - McCain has a very creditable shot at NY, PA, MI, and WI. He will play very well in the West, and the south is completely Republican regardless of who the nominee is.

It looks to me like the Democrats have yet again pulled defeat out of the mouth of victory - and we thought there was no way Dems could loose this year.

At the end of the day, unless the Dems get it together and nominate Clinton, they will have handed the Republicans an opponent who is going to take a worse defeat than did Mondale.

What a shame - Clinton could have been very competitive - and it has nothing to do with race - it has to do with experience and demonstrated accomplishments that add up to more than community organizing on the south side of Chicago and the ability to deliver a nice speech. Obama simply is completely unqualified to be President of the US.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Vote for change. Vote for the future.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Because the past is behind us

and the future is yet to come

vote for the future

vote for Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I live in the wilderness, i.e. Illinois, so I can't get info on Virginia's 11th district where a shirt tail relative, Doug Denneny, competed in the primaries as a Democrat. Can anyone enlighten me?

Posted by: rog.simpson | February 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

-exactly what the nation and the stock market do not want to hear'

what do i care what the stock market wants to hear? the stock market is a collection of giant multinational corporations, not the citizens of this country. it's about time our politicians started serving our needs, not theirs. the greed of these companies is costing our people a great deal of pain and safrifice.

Posted by: drindl | February 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Please check Senator Obama's web site to read all his positions on economic policies, information that has been up for months. To say Obama is stealing Hillary's ideas is a lie. He has remained consistent in his ideas. She has been plagiarizing his language even as she slams him for only rhetoric. Obama has a proven track record of brilliant achievements. Hillary has a proven track record of taking the most money from lobbyists, more than any Republican running, for corruption, and for failure.

Posted by: shirleylim | February 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

nemotoad: i have no idea who you are, ace, but when some idiot like mibrooks starts putting words in your mouth, maybe you'll get a little ticked off too.

Now get lost. I couldn't care less who you vote for.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I can't speak to the history of fighting between Brooks and Spectator 2. But Spectator 2 needs to take a cool shower.

Calm down, get over your internalized "rules" for how people have to vote. I've said this already, Nuts to all of you who think I owe the democratic party something. I owe it d**k. Obama gets my vote, but if he isn't the nominee, I'll either write him in or I'll write myself in. I'll never vote for Hillary. I'd lay myself at your feet as a presumed sexist for that comment, if it weren't for the fact that all the women in my life have similar thoughts: Yes to Obama, No to Hillary.

It's her history, stupid. THAT's the only insurmountable thing in her campaign.

Posted by: Nemotoad | February 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"You'd prefer another term of Bush to Clinton? You are beyond contempt. Self-proclaimed Democrat and liberal. HAH. Nothing but a scumbag is what you are."

WOW. Hillary actually said that?!? Man, the cracks in the facade are really starting to gape.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival.

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1742


.

Posted by: PollM | February 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

BROOKS: you are nasty, disgusting, vile, woman-hating, gay-bashing piece of garbage.

And of course I'll be voting for Obama if he's the Dem Nominee and I know lyle will too.

You'd prefer another term of Bush to Clinton? You are beyond contempt. Self-proclaimed Democrat and liberal. HAH. Nothing but a scumbag is what you are.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

lyle -- I'm just repeating Obama's campaign slogan.

If you believe that Obama believs what you believe, vote Obama.

Obama has hope

Obama is a change

Obama is for the future

Vote Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Big endorsement in Texas that is not getting much media coverage -- former Agriculture Commissioner for the state of Texas and populist hero Jim Hightower will endorse and campaign for Barack Obama. This is huge. Hightower is a hero and a legend for many in Texas. This is about the best endorsement Barack could get in TX short of an Ann Richards endorsement from heaven.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

This endorsement may be the precursor to an Edwards endorsement. BTW, have there been any previous Edwards endorsers that have switched to Clinton? I think not a one.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mul | February 14, 2008 04:45 PM

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

Mul, those polls are old and are with voters that don't know Obama very well yet. Not only that, they are surely within the margin of error.
How about the following polls from Rasmussen?

New Hampshire:
Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

Colorado
Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Nevada
Obama 50
McCain 38

McCain 49
Clinton 40

These are three definite swing states very important in November.

Clinton supporters can argue that their candidate is better than Obama, but they cannot with a straight face argue that she does better in head to heads with McCain.


Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Again, nice try Harborrose

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16945479&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

"U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is rolling out the big gun in his increasingly close primary battle with Greenwich Democrat Ned Lamont.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to campaign on behalf of the three-term incumbent Monday in Waterbury, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman said today.

Clinton's wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has said she supports Lieberman but wouldn't back him if he loses the primary and runs as an independent."

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 15, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

An SIEU endorsement would help Senator Obama in Wisconsin if the numbers reported here are accurate. It has been shown that the more organized "ground-game" by the Obama campaign is one of the major reasons he has won more state contests than the Clinton campaign.
An endorsement by John Edwards would greatly enahnce Senator Obama's chances of wrapping up the nomination by June.
For those bothered by candidates picking up on issues championed by rivals, I think that is the legacy of candidacies that don't survive: remaining candidates incorporate the ideas of candidates who drop out. I think both Clinton and Obama were influenced by the agenda of John Edwards - to the benefit of this country's future, I might add.
To ebubuk2004: Are you in danger of becoming a Democratic Ann Coulter?
To varnmap: I don't think you meant to accuse Oprah of being a reverse sexist, did you? If your logic (illogic) prevails, I would become a sexist if I endorsed Hillary Clinton (because I am a man and should support a male candidate)?
The world is not that simple. Politics is essentially the art of communication and compromise, and these derogatory remarks do not constitute a dialogue between people who might have differing viewpoints.
The main reason why people are less and less attracted to the Clinton campaign is their negative tactics and, I think, more and more people are getting bored hearing about Clinton from Clinton.
The race for the Democratic nomination is not about Hillary Clinton or about Barack Obama, it's about who will best represent Democrats in the contest for president next November. It's about who would be the best prersident of all the American people.
Accusations, allegations, caustic remarks, and personal slights do not cause other people to agree with you. Derogatory remarks that have no basis in fact are a form of verbal terrorism.

Posted by: LiveFree | February 15, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

steveboyington - It's simple, really. A lot of us are tired of self serving crooks and fanatics. Now, most people understand that Bush and Cheney are those things. A lot of people, especially if they use their heads, think the same of the Clinton Presidency. Bill and Hillary threw a lot of women under the bus for having the gaul to speak out about being treated like a piece of meat. There is a very long lis of unresolved criminal issues surrounding that couple and I don't want to spend the next four years with the country falling apart while they once again misuse the levers of government to harm their enemies. The country is a mess and I am not optimistic about it being able to survive that. Couple that with the fools that support her, the hate filled psychotic numbskulls that apparently attack anyone, resort to libel and lies, spew bile and filth upon anyone that would dare point out that their "revolution" has a few problems. No person of conscience nor dignity could bear to imagine a leader of this county beholden to this sort of fool. For those reason, only an idiot would vote for Clinton. A third term of Bush would be preferable to her or them, heck dig up Nixon and parade him around in a wheel barrow and only the most self destructive fool would choose Hillary over him.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 15, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Spectator2, lylepink, and your other Clinton fruitcakes - The reason your candidate is loosing is because of YOU. The bile, the unmitigated hatred, personal insults, racism, and dangerously deranged behavior of you as a mob is something that people read and think about. No rational or decent person would want to be associated with any of you. If you are the best that Hillary can do... Well, then, that goes a long ways towards explaining why she is loosing. In the end, especially with irrational and downright bigoted followers like yourselves involved, a Clinton Presidency would be a very very dangerous thing to contemplate and it behooves all of us to do whatever it takes to ensure that that tragedy never befalls this country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 15, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

The unions, the superdelegates, Nancy Pelosi, John Lewis. Who will be the next to see the light? It's over.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Saw over on the NYT that a prominent Clinton superdelegate is switching sides.

Posted by: bsimon | February 14, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Spector2: Everyone KNOWS who you refer to is nothing but a LIAR, HOMOPHOBE, and Anything else he claims to be except an Engineer, and a very poor one at that, couldn't even compete with a Jethro of The Beverly Hillbillies.

Posted by: lylepink | February 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

---lots of demented Republicans posting pretending they are Democrats....reminds me of Oprah, the big double-cross against her own sex, giving women permission to vote for Obama, telling them they are free to vote for whomever they wish...those pronouncements devalued her image--big time... you talk like Obama is the Messiah??? It's cult-like, childish, and pure bull...

Posted by: vammap | February 14, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

SEIU I PERSONALLY APPLAUD YOUR DECISION TO SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE WITH INTEGRITY AND JUDGMENT. YOUR MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE PROUD TO BE ALIGNED WITH SENATOR OBAMA WHO WILL WORK HARD FOR THE WORKING MAN AND KEEP ALL OF OUR KIDS OUT OF HARMS WAY WHEN NO GOOD REASON SUPPORTS GOING TO WAR. COUNT ON THE GUY WHO INSTEAD OF BECOMING A SUPER HIGH PAID LAWYER BECAME A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER LOOKING OUR FOR US COMMON FOLK. AMERICA WILL REGAIN THE RESPECT OF THE WORLD AND BARACK OBAMA WILL BRING BETTER EDUCATION TO OUR COUNTRY AND KEEP US COMPETITIVE THEREBY INSURING OUR JOBS STAY HERE IN AMERICA

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 14, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The corrupt and monopolistic SIEU and Denny Rivera are destroying New York's economy, so I guess we can see what they have planned for the whole country.

Posted by: pgr88 | February 14, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Get it straight Brooks, polls are a measure, not a result.

Look what happened with Bush/Gore.

This race is so close, if you're really being realistic, not partisan, you'd be a little more scientific, a lot less of a devotee...

Get a grip!

Posted by: vammap | February 14, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

These unions didn't help him in Nevada. Check out the Sun Times and Tribune. Democratic Party and Obama. Also google "Larry Sinclair and Obama"

Posted by: rmary65 | February 14, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

"How could any serious voter supporting Clinton or Obama not support the other come November?"

Ask mibrooks, he's one of these freaks who'd rather give the White House to a conservative Republican because, even though he is a self-proclaimed liberal, he is a misogynist and a homophobe.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 14, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"Spectator2 - Haven't you outgrown your hatred and bitterness, yet? Still engaged in male bashing? A little racism tossed in for good measure? Lonely? Maybe you and Hillary can sit down and have a good cry when this is all over."

LOL you miserable, senile old turd.

As I have said on numerous occasions, I'll be happy to vote for Obama if he's the Dem nominee. But of course your addled brain just sees posts that don't exist.

Get some help, sick freak.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 14, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting how many people supporting Obama and Clinton post that they could not, would not, support the other if their candidate loses in the primaries.

I find that interesting and depressing.

Are so many people that shallow? The two are basically the same on every issue. They have different personalities, sure, and come from different backgrounds and generations. They have different leadership styles. But, they are very similar ideological people from the same party fighting for a nomination to compete against another party that is not remotely like them ideologically.

How could any serious voter supporting Clinton or Obama not support the other come November?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 - Haven't you outgrown your hatred and bitterness, yet? Still engaged in male bashing? A little racism tossed in for good measure? Lonely? Maybe you and Hillary can sit down and have a good cry when this is all over.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 14, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Union endorsements don't really help that much... at least not where I am from. I was in a union that was affiliated with SEIU for a couple of years. In the three elections before, during and now after that time, the statewide SEIU endorsement rallied a total of 0 candidates to victory. They were for Gephardt, who then dropped out. They were for Dean, who lost to Kerry. This year they were for Edwards, who finished a distant 3rd.

They are more helpful in the general election than in the primary.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

hey looks who's back, polluted brooks.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 14, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004 - Who cares what your polls say. If Hillary is the nominee, most of us vote for McCain. We can't stand either Clinton nor their corporate sponsors. *Every* poll out there shows her loosing to McCain by 8 points or more. Atbthe same time, *every* poll shows Obama with a lead over McCain. Get it straight, Clinton is a non-starter! Obama or McCain, that is the choice. Go Obama.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

It's simple as pie: if they endorse Obams, Hillary has every right to call in Mich, Wisc. and Superdelegates.

Get real...

How many endorsements does Obama need to win an election?

Can't he do it on his own?

Posted by: vammap | February 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

If anybody other than SEIU members knew what SEIU was, it might mean something more than nothing. I can't remember CC, what was the name of the endorsement type from your list that equated to meaningless?

Posted by: dave | February 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: Your 04:16PM Post is something else. Please tell me you are not now supporting Obama.

Posted by: lylepink | February 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

frank: What you missed is the newspaper reporting this is the same Mellon-Scaife [spelling] that haunted Bubba during his term with false allegations almost on a daily basis. This is continuing now with the rest of The Media bashing Hillary the same way.

Posted by: lylepink | February 14, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain lucked out against a very weak or half-absent field. He squandered millions of dollars and ended up broke. He's all they got left and are forced to support half-heartedly.

Obama worked his butt off and organized brilliantly against one of the strongest and most established political machines in history. His story is the one worth writing about and its only just begun. All grassroots. Brilliant.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Mul said: "Va made me panic but 5 points of that loss was republicans voting for Obama."

So, you're comforted by the fact that she lost by 24 points without the Republican vote instead of 29 points with? You lose by over 20 points, it's still a blowout.

Posted by: bbussey | February 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

make that over 2 months.

Also next Tuesday is going to be a bit of snore after watching the results come in for the last few contests. Watch CNN because they might be slow but they don't mess up their projections *cough* Missouri *cough*. Wisconsin could be close so it could take a while and Hawaii is many time zones out so we won't know til morning. Oh well, I guess Idol starts the voting rounds that day.

Posted by: cmsore | February 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

To those who still champion a Clinton candidacy --

Please explain to this independent voter how you can say that Hillary's experience and grasp of the facts and management acumen square with her record in this contest?

Really -- this is not a trick question.

Can you suspend for one moment your earnest support for the first genuine woman candidate for the U.S. Presidency, and explain to me (us) the evidence you see of Hillary's competence in political strategy, human resource management, fiscal prudence, issue focus, organizational precision, self-control, responsiveness to changing conditions and sensitivity to the voters beyond her rapidly narrowing constituency base?

Again...this is not a trick question.

Given her inept campaign thus far, Hillary's experience seems not to translate to competence in leadership.

Experience + campaign = failure?


Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

premail, FYI John McCain's campaign and his amazing comeback have been nothing less than phenomonal. Books will be written about how he came back from the political dead last summer during which all the CW counted him out and he had to start over from the ground up.
He has shown true grit and leadership throughout, proving all the naysayers wrong.

But I agree with you about Hillary. Her over-consulted poll-driven campaign has shown enabled us to see her true colors, and they ain't pretty.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

It will effect Wisconsin the least, because the main advantage of a Union is feet on the ground and organizational. But it will help more in Ohio which has two weeks, might help a good deal in Texas especially the caucus half of their system, and Pennsylvania which has over a month.

Posted by: cmsore | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

ANOTHER UNION ENDORSEMENT

Barack Obama has won the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union with half of its 1.3 million members in the Democratic presidential battleground of Ohio.
ADVERTISEMENT

The UFCW gives Obama an organizational boost in vital upcoming contests, with 69,000 members in the Buckeye state and another 26,000 in Texas. Hillary Rodham Clinton hopes to stop Obama's winning streak in those two states on March 4 and capture most of their 334 delegates.

The food workers also have 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday.

The union is made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers, with 40 percent of the membership under 30 years old. Obama has been doing especially well among young voters.

"Senator Obama's message of changing hope into reality has inspired our members, particularly our young members, across the country," Food Workers President Joe Hansen said in a statement in which he also lauded Clinton's tireless efforts on behalf of workers.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

this endorsement wont amount to much, i agree with whoever pointed out the insignificance of the Culinary Worker's endorsement in Nevada. Those new polls will be drastically different in 10 days in the case of Ohio and as soon as march 4th is over Obama will be ALL over PA campaigning...(hopefully at PSU) and those polls will become closer, its the one thing we should have learned from this campaign...if Obama campaigns the polls get close.

http://theghostofedmuskie.blogspot.com/

Posted by: srg5007 | February 14, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I checked the state websites, and I *think* Ohio previously endorsed Edwards, while Wisconsin and Pennsylvania made no endorsement. Is that correct? I'm just curious. (The Obama campaign has an office at SEIU Wisconsin, so I'm a bit confused there.)

Posted by: TomJx | February 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

My question to Hillary Supporters!

Hillary talks about her 35 years experience but she can't even run her campaign! She raised $140 million and with out of control spending she have to loan her campaign $5 million. IF SHE CAN"T EVEN RUN HER CAMPAIGN HOW IS SHE GONNA RUN THE COUNTRY!

Also John Mccain has to get a loan to run his campaign after a disastrous start.

These two talk about experience but can't even run their own campaign.

Posted by: premail | February 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Philly would be on Fire, Dallas would be on fire, Huston and Clevland would be on fire when Clinton WINS!!!

They want Drug dealer in White House, so they will burn the Korean owned stores....

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

If John Edwards wants to avoid the label of hypocrite, before he endorses he will heed what smart union leaders are weighing just now. Pork ("earmarks") are one outcome of big money and all it buys of politicians in campaigns, and Hillary ranks very high in snagging these. (Obama isn't entirely clean, though he ranks in the bottom quarter of the Senate):

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

"Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed."

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 14, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk is getting very very BORING.

Posted by: pinepine | February 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The most important question is will the SEIU endorsement of BHO cause EDWARDS to endorse BHO? Now that would carry some real weight.

ebubuk2004 is part of the legion of undead HRC posters who appear to be determined to post the same stuff over and over and over again even if it isn't true. It's unfortunate that HRC is being represented by such morality-free individuals. Bill? Is that you?

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

According to his newly released economic strategy , the Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.
-This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government.

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

-exactly what the nation and the stock market do not want to hear

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

the SEIU and Lincoln Chafee- not a bad day for Obama endorsements.

Posted by: cmsore | February 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Another nail in Hillary's coffin...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has taken 35 years of experience, and used it to mismanage her campaign into the ground. She is unable to handle the operations, organization or finances of her own campaign - it's a complete debacle, even with Bill's help.

The assumption she would clinch the coronation on Super Tuesday showed arrogance. Neglecting to disclose the $5m loan until after Super Tuesday was deceitful. The inability to deploy an effective organization after Super Tuesday showed incompetence. But her new slogan is about solutions? Why should we buy her promise of "solutions" when all she has demonstrated is failure?

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"If the Clinton campaign ever bothered to check their facts before attacking, they'd know that Barack Obama's comprehensive energy plan to create millions of new jobs was introduced a month before Senator Clinton's, and that his infrastructure plan invests billions more to rebuild our roads, bridges, and schools than hers does. But the real problem in Washington is not a lack of good ideas, it's the failure to come together and solve our problems because politicians are too busy scoring cheap political points like this one." -- Obama Spokesman Bill Burton

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 14, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a FRAUD


Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 04:15 PM

If you believe the future is not now, and not in the past, vote Obama.

If you believe change is impossible without doing something, vote Obama.

One candidate is running for hope.

Vote for hope. Vote for change. Vote Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 14, 2008 04:16 PM

Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

ELECT OBAMA
YOUNG,HONEST, SINCERE AND VITAL
HE'S GOT THE GOODS.

THE QUALITY AND CHARISMA
TO GET THIS COUNTRY
OUT OF THE WOODS

In respect for all those who have died and suffered because of the pre-emptive war on Iraq, contribute to the Obama campaign today and please, Vote O!

Posted by: maddymappo | February 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

90% blacks vote for Osama, because where he stands on the issue? Please, he doesn't even know what is stands for..... He jut read what his white advisors wrote for him.

The Gov of PA is right. What is wrong for white people to vote for Hillary.

He is Husler from Chicago.....

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, Harborrose. Maybe Chris already knows that Obama won in CT with the enthusiastic support of Ned Lamont!

Sliming Obama with Lieber-stink isn't a strong strategy. Hillary voted for the Iraq war authorization, and also for Kyl-Lieberman.

If you want to vote for an "anti-war" candidate, your only choice is Obama.

Posted by: marSF | February 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The Mac vs.Obama polls in Key states are favoring Hillary! Just by a little.

Don't see the SUI whatever having much affect. The workers will vote how they want and a few phone banks will not make a difference.

Maryland exit polls showed nothing has changed in the dynamic of the race. Obama does well with the young, blacks, and latte drinkers. Maryland was 37 percent black and lots of rich voters. Hillery won women by a wide margin.

The Polls in Ohio, Penn, and Texas add weight to this statement.

Reporters are not good with numbers so they kind of missed this story. (I am a demographer so I am good with numbers)

Va made me panic but 5 points of that loss was republicans voting for Obama.

Posted by: mul | February 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

LonewackoDotCom | February 14, 2008 04:29 PM

Dear amigo/enemigo of the immigrants, you have these advertisements on your site.


Immigration DNA Testing
AABB Accredited Lab Buccal Swab DNA Test For United States Immigration
www.immigrationdnatesting.us

Migration Law
Legal Advice on Migration Law, Skilled Migration & Family Reunions
www.ebalawyers.com.au

Deport Illegal Aliens
Sign Petition. Send Illegal Aliens home.

Are you for or against immigration/ whatever as long as it is hateful?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Endorsements by the Culinary Workers Union and the SEIU of Nevada didn't seem to help Obama in the Nevada caucuses.

Posted by: tprescott | February 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 04:15 PM

Yeah, well said! If the Dems wanted to nominate a plaigerizer, they'd have voted for Biden.

Posted by: JD | February 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"All rise for The President of the United States Barack Obama!"

Yes, we the people heartily REJECT the dinasaur-machine senior citizen candidates running for president.

Next time don't assume you're inevitable, hillary. This is America. Nobody tells us how to vote!

GET OUT AND VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: onestring | February 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Yesterday I heard you on NPR. A caller from Conn. noted that Obama had campaigned for Lieberman in Conn. when Lieberman ran on a pro-Iraq War platform as an Indep. against the anti-Iraq war Democratic candidate. She (the caller) claimed she was disgusted and disillusioned with Obama, who had proclaimed to be so anti-war. She questioned why this info was never addressed in the media.

You acknowledged that you, being from Conn., knew about this and knew Obama was friends with Lieberman. You commented that you were at a loss as to why this contradiction (flip-flopping?)by Obama has never been mentioned anywhere.

My question to you is why don't you mention this the next time you appear on "Hardball" or mention it to Tim Russert prior to the next MSNBC debate?

Posted by: harborrose | February 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Politico says the endorsement is a done deal.
Sweet.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Salon has already demonstrated that the McCain aides words have emerged by being sent through the email chain of Clinton staffers.

Posted by: cmsore | February 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

This is how the Clinton camp operates until the people hear the words of a real candidate, then their undertones of racism and division fall under the onslaught of hope, unity, and a better tomorrow! Check it! It sucks to be on the wrong side of such an amazing social movement. America Rocks! Can you smell what Barack is cookin'? Goodbye relics!

Typical:

Governor says some Pennsylvanians likely to vote against a black man
A Clinton supporter, Edward G. Rendell cites his huge win over Republican challenger and former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann in 2006. A spokesman says he meant no offense.
From the Associated Press
February 13, 2008

HARRISBURG, PA. -- Gov. Edward G. Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said that some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival, Barack Obama, because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 reelection campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of 20 percentage points.

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

Posted by: frank | February 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Now, here's the side of the SEIU that you won't hear about from Cillizza:

http://wiki.lonewacko.com/wiki/Service-Employees-International-Union

Given that Barack Obama marched at an event that supported illegal immigration and that was organized by not just the SEIU but by those linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties, he's a natural fit with their organization:

http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Ok, ok, ok ebubuk2004...we get it. You're not a fan of Obama. We get it. Posting the same message over and over again will not help you win more points.

If you don't like him, just say that you don't like him. Everyone has an opinion.

Posted by: ovwong | February 14, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 04:16 PM

Mr.Obama is busy making minced meat out of the Billarys.

As soon as that small business is taken care of, he will immediately turn his proven powers of making friends quickly and minced meat out of opponents, unequivocally towards your undivided attention.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

While I am a great supporter of the labor movement, I think it's very interesting that not one major National union endorsed Barack Obama before the primaries started. As far as I can remember, only a few SEIU locals (WI, IL, KS, WA) endorsed Obama before the Iowa caucuses.

Which begs the question of how influential International/National unions are during the primary season. Most labor unions endorsed Hillary (who still has a chance of winning the nomination) or Edwards. I think that unions are much more influential during the general election, however that can be argued also.

In 2004, 1/4 of all general election votes came from union households (one member of the household was in a union or a retiree). Of those votes, about 2/3 went to Kerry and 1/3 went to Bush.

Influential, but not decisive.

Posted by: ccarnshi | February 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk,

Similar polls were conducted last year in Washington, Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Louisiana, Missouri, Idaho, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, North Dakota, Alaska, Minnesota...

All had Hillary ahead at one point. Then the voters learn about Obama and meet him and overwhelmingly abandon Clinton, with good reason. I was one of those voters.

I thought Clinton was the best. But that's because I never expected a candidate like Obama to come along. He is a whole new kind of politician. In his character, his passion and his optimism, he has nothing in common with Senator Clinton. She wants to beat the Republicans, he wants to unite the nation.

I'll vote for Obama, thanks.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The Pennsylvania election is on April 22. That's in 10 weeks. Does anyone remember how accurate the NH, IA, and SC polls were 10 weeks in advance?

The Ohio polls might be somewhat meaningful. But talking about late April primaries right now is ridiculous.

Posted by: Blarg | February 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is fraud and Husler from Chicago


Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 04:15 PM

If you believe the future is not now, and not in the past, vote Obama.

If you believe change is impossible without doing something, vote Obama.

One candidate is running for hope.

Vote for hope. Vote for change. Vote Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 14, 2008 04:16 PM

Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ebubuk2004 posted:

""Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton.""

**************************

Why should they cover it? Is coming from the Republican side, hello? They know that they need to start attacking Obama since he became the "front runner" They would have said the same thing if Clinton was on Obama's shoes.

Posted by: ovwong | February 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton leading Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania: poll


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both crucial states in upcoming primaries, according to Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday.

Clinton, a New York senator, has lost eight straight nominating contests to Illinois Sen. Obama, but leads him 55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, the poll found.

Among Ohio Democrats, women back Clinton, 56 percent to 30 percent for Obama, while men back Clinton 52 percent to 42 percent, the poll found.

White Democrats favor Clinton 64 percent to 28 percent, while Obama leads 64 to 17 percent among black voters, according to the survey.

"Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find," Peter Brown, an Quinnipiac University Polling Institute official, said in a statement.

"It has blue-collar America with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-American than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day."

Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont hold nominating contests on March 4. Pennsylvania voters will select presidential nominees in a primary election on April 22.

The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent.

In a general election matchup with Republican front-runner John McCain, Ohio voters give the Arizona senator 44 percent support to 43 percent for Clinton and 40 percent for Obama.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent in the general election, Obama has 42 percent to McCain's 41 percent, the poll said.

The Quinnipiac University poll was taken February 6 through 12, after the "Super Tuesday" contests in which McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination with coast-to-coast primary victories.

The Ohio poll of 1,748 voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent, including 564 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

The Pennsylvania poll of 1,419 voters has a margin of error plus or minus 2.6 percent, including 577 Democratic likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

pinepine writes
"Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania"

Interesting. Of course, those events won't take place for a couple weeks. More interesting are the upcoming events in WI & HI, where Obama is showing leads. It will be curious to see if the margin narrows in future events, as the candidates increase their exposure there. I suspect Obama has large natural constituencies in OH & PA that will go a long way towards improving his numbers in those states.

Posted by: bsimon | February 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both crucial states in upcoming primaries, according to Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday.
Clinton, a New York senator, has lost eight straight nominating contests to Illinois Sen. Obama, but leads him 55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, the poll found.
Among Ohio Democrats, women back Clinton, 56 percent to 30 percent for Obama, while men back Clinton 52 percent to 42 percent, the poll found.

White Democrats favor Clinton 64 percent to 28 percent, while Obama leads 64 to 17 percent among black voters, according to the survey.

"Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find," Peter Brown, an Quinnipiac University Polling Institute official, said in a statement.

"It has blue-collar America with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-American than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day."

Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont hold nominating contests on March 4. Pennsylvania voters will select presidential nominees in a primary election on April 22.

The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent.

In a general election matchup with Republican front-runner John McCain, Ohio voters give the Arizona senator 44 percent support to 43 percent for Clinton and 40 percent for Obama.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent in the general election, Obama has 42 percent to McCain's 41 percent, the poll said.

The Quinnipiac University poll was taken February 6 through 12, after the "Super Tuesday" contests in which McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination with coast-to-coast primary victories.

The Ohio poll of 1,748 voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent, including 564 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

The Pennsylvania poll of 1,419 voters has a margin of error plus or minus 2.6 percent, including 577 Democratic likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

pinepine | February 14, 2008 04:10 PM

Yeah! As of now, she is the undisputed front runner, Reuters sez!!!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Reuters:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both crucial states in upcoming primaries, according to Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday. (55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, and in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent)

Matters?"

******************************

Not right now...lets see how much he can close the gap when is closer to March 5th. Besides, in the spirit of full disclosure that poll was taken before the Potomac primaries. Hillary has been holding double digit leads in those states since like forever.

Posted by: ovwong | February 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

If you believe the future is not now, and not in the past, vote Obama.

If you believe change is impossible without doing something, vote Obama.

One candidate is running for hope.

Vote for hope. Vote for change. Vote Obama.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets away with everything. This proves that an egocentric man is greater than a genius woman. I love it that the media doesn't cover this detail until someone brings it up.

"Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Of real lobbyists and Mark Penn:

Didn't The Hillary pay Mark Penn "his company that is not owned by him" $5 million for the privilege of his "Where's the bump" ultra-sapient expert advice and direction?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Mark Penn will just claim that the HRC campaign expected this all along and that it's totally irrelevant anyway because nobody cares what the SEIU does"

Ha!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

If SEIU endorses Obama tomorrow (Feb. 15th), that would be good news. However, with that endorsement Obama supporters need to jump on the SEIU members in helping propel Obama farther at the ground level in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

NEWS FLASH: Taxpayers for Common Sense released its rating of congressional members and earmark spending. HILLARY CLINTON ranks 8th in the senate with $343 million. The disturbing thing about this is that she is not a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Just saw this:

Reuters:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over Barack Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both crucial states in upcoming primaries, according to Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday. (55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, and in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent)

Matters?

Posted by: pinepine | February 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

1) SEIU always endorses the Democrat
2) HRC is toast
3) Why waste the electrons with this non-story?

Posted by: JD | February 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

And if it happens, Mark Penn will just claim that the HRC campaign expected this all along and that it's totally irrelevant anyway because nobody cares what the SEIU does, never mind how hard HRC may have tried to secure said same endorsement in the past.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Not that it matters but it's beginning to look like a landslide tsunami in favor of Sen. Obama.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Up next: Obama ties up the nomination.

Real Americans know Obama is working for them. Real lobbyists know Hillary is working for them.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company