Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: Obamacains and McClintons

A new Gallup poll shows a significant number of supporters of both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) would not vote for the other Democrat in the general election should their favored candidate lose the nomination. These folks say they would instead back Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Twenty eight percent of Clinton backers in the survey said they would back McCain if Obama won the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would choose the Arizona Senator if Clinton wound up as the nominee.

These numbers prompt two thoughts.

First, these blocs of voters need names. The Fix is putting forth Obamacains and McClintons -- not terribly original. If you have better ideas, suggest them in the comments section below and we'll grab the best of the best and use them when we write about this topic again.

Second, be careful to put too much weight on the implications of these numbers. Democrats are currently in a protracted and increasingly vitriolic race for their party's nomination, a contest that tends to reinforce the idea that if their preferred candidate isn't the nominee they will never be able to bring themselves to vote for the other gal or guy.

McCain might seem like a legitimate choice in the midst of a contested Democratic race but will Democratic voters feel the same come the fall? Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she is almost certain to cast McCain as the heir to the legacy of President George W. Bush -- a decidedly unappetizing prospect for most Democrats.

In a memo on the findings, Gallup's Frank Newport offers just that sort of caution, noting that in a recent poll by his organization 20 percent of Republicans said they would either not vote (nine percent) or back the Democratic or a third party nominee (11 percent) if McCain doesn't pick a vice president more conservative than he is.

"These results suggest that it may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking," writes Newport. "And it may be equally likely that they fall back in line by the time of the general election."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 27, 2008; 3:54 PM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Polling the Wright Stuff
Next: Friday Line: Pin the VP on the Nominee

Comments

And the Dems need to move their convention up to just after the last June primaries. Continuing the internal warfare until August is stupid and self-defeating.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The Dem convention needs to recognize reality, declare a stalemate, eliminate the Supers and their numbers, seat a split from Fl and Mi, and select one of many other well qualified leaders, acceptable to all who could then unite the party and proceed with the campaign to defeat McCain and the GOP. O and C shooting at each other is now nothing more than shooting themselves in the foot. IT'S THE WHITE HOUSE, STUPID. Winning that will require a united party and neither O or C now have that ability. Claims that wither could now bring everyone on board are just wishful thinking. We've had going on 8 years of that and it's time to include that in the calls for change.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This nonsense about a dream ticket of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is just that, nonsense. They can each show unity by endorsing and campaigning for whichever one gets the nomination. Obama would be crazy to settle for #3 (after Bill Clinton) and Hillary Clinton has done her time as a second fiddle in the White House. Vice president is career suicide and if neither of them, having been so close to the nomination, ought to settle. They'd be better off in a cabinet position or helping out in the Senate.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | March 29, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Clinton are really the 2nd or 3rd choice (or even further) given the starting lineup. A stalemated Dem convention should eliminate the Supers and recalculate the numbers needed, seat a 50/50 split from Fl and Mi, release all delegates from their pledges, move the convention to just after the last primaries and proceed to select any one of many well qualified Democrat leaders to unite the party. O and C just had the best money machines, not necessarily the best qualifications. It may be time to look around further at the real list of qualified leaders, not just those with the most money.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Miata7 votes for Biden as a potential Dem candidate to be chosen at their stalemated convention. Any others care to list who they would prefer? What if Powell could be persuaded to switch and run against those who dismissed his council because he was not hawk enough? If I understand him right his view was to have a Department of Defense, not a Department of War for waging preemptive wars that had nothing to preempt.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh Mary!
Dick

BTW, it is "equate," I'll leave you to sort out equivocate on your own. And, have you ever attempted the exudation of veneer, even peripherally?

Posted by: richhed | March 29, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Baracains and McCHills

Whatever they do, look for a return to winner-take-all primaries in the post-Dean DNC era.

Posted by: cswriter | March 28, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

LET MY PEOPLE VOTE: Patrick Leahy is an Obama supporter. His intentions are obvious. I would have accepted his suggestion if he was impartial. Leahy represents Vermont a small state with a population just over half-a-million. He is saying to about 70 million people that their voice don't count.[ (Pennsylvania (>12 million), West Virginia (>1.8 million), Kentucky (>4 million), Oregon (3.7 million), Indiana (> 6 million), Guam (0.17 million), Florida (>18 million), Michigan (>10 million) , North Carolina (8.8 million), Puerto Rico (3.9 million ), South Dakota (0.7 million ), Montana (0.9 million)]. That is against the American spirit. That is undemocratic. Let the people vote. Let their voices be heard including that of Florida and Michigan. Have the courage to accept the mandate of the people instead of taking sides and spinning the process. Give people some respect.

Posted by: sfrancis1 | March 28, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Biden !!!

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Dick,

Svengali is an apt term to describe Obama; some people are very drawn to this style, others are, frankly, leery. We also know that charisma can, but shouldn't, be the character trait that gives a Presidential contender the thumbs up; it is not necessarily indicative of their ability to lead a nation.

Equivocating Nixon to Clinton is an aspersion.

King ran with the dream out of conviction, selflessness and passion and ignited a movement which was nourished by the support and managerial dedication of both whites and blacks.

I don't see much of a correlation between King and Obama; Obama exudes a shallow peripheral veneer that is arrogant, not humble like King. King would never have disenfranchised brothers.

Obama amassed votes based on division. From the get-go, he knew the traditional Democratic base would not be his, so he went about creating a new one: a structure made from new untested parts. There's absolutely no way to gauge whether this fragile structure would hold up in Nov. Obviously, it's already showing signs that it won't.

You know the "three little pigs:" one made a house of mud and straw, one made a house of sticks and the other one planned and laboriously built his house of brick and mortar. And when the wolf huffed and puffed, all the little pigs' houses came down, except for brick and mortar pig, cause he outsmarted the wolf, turning him into dinner.

The moral of the story is intelligent planning and foresight combined with hard work will make us victorious over even our most ferocious enemy-the big bad wolf!

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Recalculate the numbers without the Superdelegates. Move the convention up to just after the last June primaries. I neither Obama nor Clinton have the needed recalculated numbers, absent the Supers, release the delegates, including a 50/50 split from Fl and Mi, and select any of a number of other well qualified Democrats, by acclamation if possible, who could unite the party. Neither O nor C could do that at this point. It's time to start focusing on McCain, not each other. Waiting until August for the convention is just plain silly...and self-defeating.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 28, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

As far as followers go, how about Clintonistas and Obamanians?!

Posted by: earmoore | March 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm....

Hillary is more a partnership gal, Obama a svengali.
It would seem after the last eight years we all would want to opt for government in partnership...

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 03:47 PM

Allow me to amend my prior observation and note that if truth is the first casualty in politics, reason is the second.

There is no evidence I'm aware of to adduce Ms. Clinton is a "partnership gal," unless, of course, one counts going along with the current administration on a few critical votes. That aside, I think there is a difference between one who articulates a vision and asks people to join in achieving that vision and one who has a detailed plan for my future. I've worked for and with both of those kinds of people. Personally, I call the first type leaders; the second managers. I feel I've been managed for quite a while - certainly longer than 8 years.

I am reminded periodically that this issue recurs and we have some general evidence for personal decisions. For example, Martin Luther King, jr. "I have a dream" and Richard M. Nixon "I have a plan."

And, "svengali," really there is no Guinness Book of World Records entry for "backhand aspersion casting."
Dick

Posted by: richhed | March 28, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what world Charles is living in, but in the world I've been living in, there has always been a high value placed on each person's individual right to vote; it's been written into the constitution, and it's been the historical mainstay of this democracy. For blacks and women the right is relatively short lived in historical terms. SO, DON'T TELL ME THAT IT'S SELF-CENTERED.

It's pretty ironic that it took Obama supporters this long to figure it all out...did they turn their backs on their brothers who couldn't vote in FL/MI?

Did they take the freedom to vote express to save them from being disenfranchised like their grandparents were?

Did they non-violently picket to give them the right again?

NO, THEY DID NOTHING. NOTHING.

NO, THEIR SVENGALI HASN'T LIFTED A FINGER TO HELP THE BROTHERS IN FL/MI.

THIS IS SELF-CENTERED.

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

In looking at this string and what is happening in the DEM camp, it is obvious that we are doomed if ANY democrat is elected. No one - to include the DEM candidates - cares about anything other then self-centeredness nor do they have any clue to what is going outside of the little world they are in.

Posted by: Charles07971 | March 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The ballot needs a NO column and the highest net yes wins. A Dem disenchanted with their nominee could vote against McCain without indicating support for their party's nominee. A way to cast an honest vote...against your greater evil directly. Your party wins but the candidate gets the message that the support is for the party,m not the candidate.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 28, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richhed | March 28, 2008 03:19 PM

"Truth is the first casualty of any political campaign.

To the nice person who avers that politics is not a game, I would have to concur. If it were a game there would be actual rules and a winner could be established in fact, not in opinion. We have actually reached the point where even the vote count doesn't yield an agreed upon winner. Clearly, not a game."


Clearly not a game to millions of Americans, who are showing up in record numbers-- they want to be saved..in another quasi-religious coming-out for Obama-- Why wouldn't it resonate; people want to be led. That's the difference in their appeal: Hillary is more a partnership gal, Obama a svengali.
It would seem after the last eight years we all would want to opt for government in partnership...


Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To the Media: Stop picking our Presidents

The press elected Bush in 2000 and in 2004, so we have them to thank. History doesn't lie.

Now, we're going to allow them to pick again in 2008?

"The media powerhouses of our country have completely hijacked this presidential election. It is a shame when five or six gigantic private companies have the ability to throw things so far one way or the other. They are all in bed with each other, too. The saddest part is that most Americans do not understand the steady brainwashing they are receiving. I am not a conspiracy theorist kind of guy, but from what I have been observing, our media systems must have something up their sleeves. I am lucky enough to use both the Internet and the mass media outlets to get my news, but most Americans do not.

http://media.www.wcuquad.com/media/storage/paper676/news/2008/03/03/OpEd/To.The.Media.Stop.Picking.Our.Presidents-3247959.shtml

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

So keep on doing what you do best Obamamaniacs....The truth hurts

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 01:53 PM
======
Truth is the first casualty of any political campaign.

To the nice person who avers that politics is not a game, I would have to concur. If it were a game there would be actual rules and a winner could be established in fact, not in opinion. We have actually reached the point where even the vote count doesn't yield an agreed upon winner. Clearly, not a game.

To svreader: ceteris paribus, I don't care whether you can spell or not. However, you offer an allusion that requires some knowledge of how goose liver is processed and expect a sympathetic understanding of that as a metaphor for how some voters acquire (news, facts, opinions). It would be lovely, having embarked on such a noble escapade on our behalf, if you troubled yourself to look up the frickin' word. Maybe that's not necessary in the "nucular" age, nonetheless, failure to do so vitiates your argument and reinforces the opinion you are a pompous fool. That opinion has only been reinforced on reading additional posts.
Dick


Posted by: richhed | March 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I was an Obama, Richardson, Dodd, McCain voter for over a year now. I prefer the term Independent to Obamacain. As for McClinton, I think the proper term is bitterite.

McCain is too conservative and Obama is too liberal but I will happily vote for either because I believe that they believe in something beyond just themselves. They are running for President, so obviously they are all a bit self-centered. It's seeing beyond the self part I'm into. To sum up: McCain voted for Iraq because he believed in it, Obama spoke out against it because that is what he believed and Clinton voted for it because she thought it would make her President. I can accept the first two positions, but reject the third. The political vote on farm subsidies or treatment of hedge fund manager pay I don't have a problem with. But on issues that fundamentally affect the nation's future I at least want the decision maker to weigh something beyond a poll.

And no, I don't support Bush for not following polls. You need the intellectual heft to actually weigh two opinions. Since he can't do that, he is automatically disqualified.

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

No matter what any reporter, columnist, pundit, political hack, superdelegate etc believes there is a simply huge number of us who will NOT vote for Obama. It does not mean we will all vote Republican come fall either. I do not like the three choices right now. Clinton is the only one of the three I will support at all and then vote for. If that is not an option in the fall, I will vote Libertarian. There will be more than two choices - can't you people understand that. I am not a sheep and I do not just "fall in line" and do as I am told. I think for myself and put country before party every time and this time Obama has me terrified.

Posted by: ellenlawson | March 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I think we need to be reminded here that the disenfranchisement of millions of voters is not a game. There is nothing petty about that.

FORGET HILLARY-- votes for her don't count!


Big Tent Democrat says,

"Too many in the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and Obama supporting blogs believe that their demonization of Hillary Clinton has had no ill effects on Barack Obama's image among the half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. They are wrong. At this point, without the active and sincere support by Hillary Clinton of his potential presidential run against John McCain, Obama has no chance in November. And vice versa of course."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/28/BL2008032801169_4.html?hpid=topnews


So keep on doing what you do best Obamamaniacs....The truth hurts

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I think we all need to be reminded-- the process of electing someone to the office of the Presidency of the United States IS NOT A GAME.

Any Democrat who would capitulate to voting for a Republican out of spite that their favored candidate did not win the nomination is not a Democrat.

Obama will win the nomination because he continues to lead in delegate and super delegate tallies, and Clinton does not have time to make that discrepancy up.

Dems- honestly. Do you want another 4 years of Bush? I thought not. Stop these petty threats.

If you're upset with whichever Dem wins the nomination, here's an idea- vote for Nader. Vote for Cynthia McKinney. But please- don't throw your principles and ideals out the window because you "don't like" either Hillary or Barack.

My name for McCain supporters or McCain threateners or McCain switchers?:
McPigs.

Posted by: cocomango420 | March 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Let's look at the race so far. The media just came out slapping Obama on the back for getting thru the Wright flack. What a soldier!

When you consider that the media has paved him a yellow brick road, cushioned each fall with more attacks on Hillary, if we look at this without colored lenses, it's Hillary who has endured--- tied him despite a full court press to defeat her.

Does this make Obama a resilent, viable candidate? Well, I've yet to see anything resembling what Hillary has withstood. Does his ability to attract Jewish, Latino, female and working class voters, the other 45%, look promising at this point in the race. NO! These people are digging in.

Clinton has the true base, minus 20% African Americans. Take off the blinders, dump the white/Clinton bias.

Raising dollars is not indicative of whether you have shown a TRUE ability to be President. Dean proved that. Who'd want him as President, he can't run the DNC; does anyone believe for a minute that he would have made a good President?
He's totally been AWOL during this entire count the vote debacle.

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Put me down as one to never vote Obama...not because I have much against him, just that his supporters are pure jerks. The liberal kooks have taken over the shop, just like the neocons took over their shop and destroyed it. History repeats...

Posted by: ebabin | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I think that poll from democrats was likely half true. Many of Obama's supporters would support McCain over Clinton. However, for most, it would likely not be so much out of spite. McCain has reputation for combating the politics as usual and trying to reach compromises. Some issues he has done this on include tobacco: he wanted to hike the tobacco tax over $1 per pack & use that money to help prevent child/teenaged smoking. McCain brokered a deal with US sen. from Wisconsin Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. Both parties hated the bill and McCain stood up to both sides in compromise with moderates. McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but supports the rights of states to choose how marriage is defined in that particular state. McCain has stood in the middle and took grief from both parties on the immigration compromise he helped to broker, but was defeated. McCain was one of the key organizers in the "gang of 14" that helped break a stalemate between Bush/Frist & Daschle/Reid over judicial nominees while still saving the filibuster. You see, McCain's record matches Obama's rhetoric. Obama & Clinton have very liberal voting records, and many of Obama's supporters like McCain's independent streak!

However, Clinton's supporters are follow-the-line type Democrats and would likely vote for Obama. However, McCain would win the independent vote & win over the Reagan dems. by good margins vs. Clinton.

McCain is sitting pretty right now either way, although Obama would be a tougher general election opponent than would Clinton.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The issue isn't whether most regular Democrats will come together, they will. Whether it is Obama or Clinton, the hardline Dems will be behind them becasue they know that it is crucial to have a Democrat appoint the next Supreme Court Justice and to get us out of Iraq we need a dem in the White House not McCain with Liberman as either Secy of State or Defense.

The issue is the Reagan Democrats and Hispanics. What will they do. The white males who are basically Democrats but went with Reagan, those over 50 and making under $50,000. They are the ones that will most likely not come back to the party if Obama is the candidate and they make up the difference in Ohio, NJ and PA. Also Hispanics voted 40% for Bush last time. We need them to vote bigger Democratic this time. It doesn't look like Obama can get their votes. Despite Bill Richardson's endorsement. He couldn't even get them to vote for him over Hillary.

So for Democrats it is who can win. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton, whoever is the candidate, but I am not sure these two crucial groups will and Obama has to prove he can get them or he will lose the nomination.

Getting more young people in California, MA., New York and the blue states will only give him bigger tallies there- it won't help him win in the states we need. Getting a larger African American vote in North and South Carolina or Mississippi won't win him those states either they will go Republican in November.

Posted by: peterdc | March 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Michael Gerson was in Paris yesterday, ie 27 March 2008, to speak about his very interesting book "Heroic Conservatism : what future ?".

I could not agree more with what he told his French audience. Basically, Gerson share his view that it may be the case that Hillary Clinton is so much convinced that she is entitled to the nomination, so much convinced that she was born to rule at any cost that she'd rather "bring down the building with her".

As a French America-watcher, I was listening to Monsieur Gerson from the back of the auditorium and I was so impressed with his analysis. From a French point of view, it is very much obvious that Madame Hillary Clinton would rather see her Democratic rival perish than vote for him. I am convinced that she would NEVER vote for him should Monsieur Barack Obama ultimately win the nomination.

Monsieur Gerson also said that he was convinced that Obama will actually be the Democratic nominee - a prospect favored by a majority of the French people according to all polls here. Her tears in the run-up to Super Tuesday were just so faked and hypocritical.

Hillary Clinton is scary.

Posted by: danielmugerin | March 28, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Drindl

Boring to you, facts.
Screed to you, facts.

Not one Obama supporter can face the FACTS of this race with a rational response.

The fact that by far surpasses any misspeak of either candidate, is the fact that Obama isn't counting the votes.

And this fact will defeat him in Nov.
Period.


Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

ANY Democrats who, in a fit of pique because their preferred candidate doesn't get the nod, throws their vote to McCan't should immediately and thoroughly Cheney themselves. I'm for Obama because I don't think Clinton can win the general election, but if it comes down to voting for her or ANY Republicant, she'll get my vote. Save the drama for your mamma, and vote for the best candidate even if he's got a weird name or is despised by half of U.S. citizens.

Posted by: irae | March 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The goal is to win the White House. Everything else is secondary, including who sits in the chair.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The Dems should move their convention up to just after the last primary votes are cast. Convene with a split delegation from Fl and Mi, release the delegates from their pledges and if neither O nor C secure the needed numbers consider others who could unite the party. The Dems have many well qualified leaders who could do what neither O nor C can now do...bridge the gap they have created. I would be doing everything I could to persuade Powell to switch and run against those who dismissed his wisdom and council earlier. President Powell. Has kind of nice ring to it. In any event, why wait until August. Current circumstances make that a handicap.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The ballot needs a NO column and the highest net yes wins so all those Dems who say they can't vote for Obama or Clinton could still support their party by voting no against McCain without indicating endorsement of the one they could never vote for. A way to cast an honest vote. How refreshing. Why do we have to say we want yucky parsnips to say we don't want yucky broccoli? It's dishonest.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

'Stuff it Drindl!

Folks this race is 45% to 45% right now and this anti-Hillary blast for her to get out, is not at all comparable to any other candidate who has left the race..'

shove it yourself, buddy. you post the same boring screed over and over.. that's what i don't want to talk about, or hear about.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Let's cut to the truth for a change...


Time's Mark Halperin agrees that the media coverage is hurting Hillary:

"Fact #1: For more than a month, Hillary Clinton's only chance to win the nomination has been to find a way to disqualify Barack Obama as a stable, acceptable choice in the minds of superdelegates. ('Tonya Harding in the conservatory with a kitchen sink' is not a new reality.)

"Fact #2: The media has -- once again -- largely declared the race for the Democratic nomination over, giving Clinton next to no chance to prevail.

"Fact #3: In recent days, the Obama campaign has used e-mails and conference calls to engage in its most negative and personal assaults on Clinton since the campaign began.

"If Obama has the nomination wrapped up, why is his campaign going after Clinton so hard?"

Interesting question indeed.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/28/BL2008032801169_3.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

According to what I've read both Houses should end up being DFL controlled, so that would essentially make McCain a hamstrung (lameduck) President for four years.

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

In November, if Senator Obama is the nominee, my vote for President will remain blank; however, I will vote. It is important to vote Democratic for the House and Senate; so, there will be "damage control" of four years of John McCain's administration.

John McCain (dead eyes) will be the next President of the United States. He can say and do anything before November; and, it won't make a difference in the outcome of this election.

Posted by: kathleen4500 | March 28, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

In November, if Senator Obama is the nominee, my vote for President will remain blank; however, I will vote. It is important to vote Democratic for the House and Senate; so, there will be "damage control" of four years of John McCain's administration.

John McCain (dead eyes) will be the next President of the United States. He can say and do anything before November; and, it won't make a difference in the outcome of this election.

Posted by: kathleen4500 | March 28, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Drindl doesn't want to talk about this.

Stuff it Drindl!

Folks this race is 45% to 45% right now and this anti-Hillary blast for her to get out, is not at all comparable to any other candidate who has left the race..

Why isn't the media talking about that?

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton manages to steal the race, the party will be so divided that Bloomberg (sp?) will run and it'll be a whole new ballgame.
If (I'd argue "when") Obama wins, the party will not be nearly as divided, and there's a much better chance that 1. Bloomberg will stand down and 2. the dems will unite for the greater good.

Posted by: lucyisadog2000 | March 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Let's hear about 'The Surge' again, how great it's working.. the thing that's truly sad about what's happening in Iraq is that it is exactly what everyone who was against the war said would happen. The structure and the history made it inevitable. Even Dick Cheney knew it in the first Gulf War, which is why they didn't go after Saddam then. But the lure of the oil and the fat contracts was too great. Anyway, no one in Cheney or Bush's family is dying and they're making huge profits, so what the hey? They can always move to Dubai..

"On Thursday, medical officials in Basra said the toll in the fighting there had risen to about 100 dead and 500 wounded, including civilians, militiamen and members of the security forces. An Iraqi employee of The New York Times, driving on the main road between Basra and Nasiriya, observed numerous civilian cars with coffins strapped to the roofs, apparently heading to Shiite cemeteries to the north.

Violence also broke out in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kirkuk, Baquba and other cities. In Baghdad, where explosions shook the city throughout the day, American officials said 11 rockets struck the Green Zone, killing an unidentified American government worker, the second this week."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

The Shia Maliki is trying to eliminate his competition in the coming election -- the Shia Moqtada Sadr. Except his troops aren't up to it, and as usual, the US is taking over:

"Iraq's government has extended by 10 days a deadline for Shia militiamen fighting troops in the southern city of Basra to hand over their weapons.

More than 130 people have been killed and 350 injured since a clampdown on militias began in Basra on Tuesday.

US-led forces joined the battle for the first time overnight, bombing Shia positions, the UK military said.

Iraq's parliament is set for emergency talks on the crisis, which has also brought a three-day curfew in Baghdad."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I'm a very strong Hillary supporter, and I agree with an earlier post about the media bias. The reason that some Hillary supporters WILL vote for McCain is because of the way that she has been treated in this election process.

How many times has the media danced on her grave - before New Hampshire, Texas? She hasn't been given a fair shot.

Neither of the candidates have enough delegates to win the nomination. With such a close race, why are people calling for her to quit? People say that she seems "entitled." Well, she is entitled. She's entitled to compete.

Huckabee hung around until McCain won the nomination. If Hillary were a man, would there be the same calls for her to quit? If both candidates were men of the same race, who would you vote for?

Posted by: dc210 | March 28, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Oh, you mean instead of being called draft dodgers, we'd be called the Clinton Connivers, runaways, deserters, out-casts-- of the DFL, oh my!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

After Hill crushes Obama in PA, the cult for him will be silent for awhile, just like they were when the Wright story broke.
The fact is, the race isn't over, personally I think there is more coming out about Obama that we know, for example. www.obamatruth.org.
Wait until O'Reilly gets a hold of this video, he will be slaughtered in the general election and the superdelegates know it.

Posted by: blevins20061 | March 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Agreed, people are acting childish. I would compare this to the declaration, sometimes heard among liberals, that if (fill in the blank) wins "I'm moving to Canada."

Posted by: thompsmd | March 28, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Can you illuciate what does "the right thing" imply?

It's Clinton supporters who would defect, and the reason is given above. While Obama is being coronated, she's been deposed.

Why don't they have a poll that accurately measures that?

I think it's obvious: you've got a virtual entourage, from every direction, DFL legislators, pundits, DFL House leaders, Obama supporters demanding that she get OUT.

WHY? The race is not over. What are they afaid of, if Obama has it SO wrapped up?

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

28 percent of Clinton supporters and 19 percent of Obama supporters need to count to ten and take a deep breath. And then, consider doing the right thing, rather than acting like petulant children.

Posted by: jp1954 | March 28, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Here's another mythbuster in the fine print of the Gallup Poll that the media is too lazy to bring to the public's attention:

"Black Democratic voters, regardless of whom they support, seem prepared to remain quite loyal to the Democratic Party. 15% of Blacks who support Clinton would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and only 10% of Blacks who support Obama would vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

In other words, there LITTLE APPARENT RISK of losing a substantial proportion of Black voters regardless of who the nominee is."

But you didn't see MSNBC report that , did you?

Next time you hear ANY media imply the Black voters will desert the Democratic Party if Clinton gets the nomination, CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

And consider that media source lazy and unreliable in their reporting.

Blacks will vote Democratic Party, no matter who the nominee is.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | March 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

On the assumption that some of you are actually interested in the economy, and think this thread has played out the string, I will go back to my threadjack.

The "Economist" article at
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10881318
is a good place to begin.

An excerpt:

"Existing rules on capital adequacy require banks to put some capital aside for each asset. If the market leads to losses, the chances are they will have enough capital to cope. Yet this rule sets up a perverse incentive to create structures free of the capital burden--such as credits that last 364 days, and hence do not count as "permanent". The hundreds of billions of dollars in the shadow banking system--the notorious SIVs and conduits that have caused the banks so much pain--have been warehoused there to get round the rules. Spain's banking regulator prudently said that such vehicles could be created, but only if the banks put capital aside. So far the country has escaped the damage seen elsewhere. When reformed capital-adequacy rules are introduced, this is an area that will need to be monitored rigorously."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Media crowning Obama?

Sure looks that way. This is why Clinton supporters may very well switch in Nov. This hasn't been a campaign, it's been a coronation. This is not about bad feelings, it's about simple truths, and in an election one of the most basic of those, is having the votes counted. How could DEMS forget this? YET, this is a NON-STORY for the media. WHY isn't their more of a public outcry?
This lastest article by Kurtz says it all (first page anyway)? I'd like to read it but it's blocking me?? Honest!
SMILE!! Anyway here are two links to Big Tent and Kurtz.


Open Season on Hillary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=topnews

Obama Clinton Rules-

Let me put it bluntly, the dirtiest politics practiced in this campaign was Barack Obama's blocking of the Michigan and Florida revotes. There is nothing uglier in politics, nothing dirtier, than blocking voters' chances to vote. The stain on Barack Obama for this will not wash away with me. (BTW, I am not saying Clinton would not have done the same thing, I THINK she would have. But she did not.) Especially since I believe it would have helped Obama in the general election.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/26/10312/3012

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I have read cursory articles about Dodd-Frank, of course. From those, I tentatively think it is about ten times too big, and actually intended to "bail out" to many loans, too many borrowers, and too many lenders.

So I am looking for more depth, if you have any recommendations.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Threadjack notice:

Has anyone read "Dodd-Frank"? I have not, and before I could even assess whether the Ds are merely politicizing the foreclosures, I would need to understand "D-F".

Does anyone here claim familiarity with it?

Does anyone have a cite to an article that analyzes pros and cons?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

privatization of government has become an expensive disaster...

"Government auditors said yesterday that the Pentagon relies too much on contractors who often work alongside their government counterparts, cost more and sometimes take on responsibilities they are not supposed to.

The Government Accountability Office said that as the government's workforce has shrunk, its demand for services has mushroomed and procurement deals have become more complex and hard to manage. That has forced agencies to hire more contractors. Last year, the Defense Department spent $158.3 billion on services--a 76 percent increase over the past decade, and more than what it spends on supplies, equipment and major weapons systems, according to the report.

The Bush years haven't been kind to olde-timey conservative principles like small, limited government that respects individual freedom or skepticism about casually using force abroad, but the modern GOP hasn't forgotten all of its roots. The notion of privatizing government functions and eliminating tax revenue have more than persisted, they have become the apotheosis of Republican government, the absolute rigid ideological framework from which no deviation can be tolerated. It is hard to imagine a recent instance when Republican leaders have not taken the most maximalist possible approach to handing over important functions to allies in the private sector."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

the press will go on and on about Rev. Wright but he's nothing compared to the guy who controls the reichwing--Rev. Moon -- whom the press won't touch -- because he owns them!

Bad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American Kingdom. Author John Gorenfeld

Imagine someone with a net worth approaching Warren Buffet's, the international reach of a rock superstar, who enjoys the same access to the conservative elite as the most successful K-Street lobbyist, and worst of all, sharing the fringe messianic delusions of someone like David Koresh all rolled into one power-mad cult leader. Now imagine that that individual successfully buys their way into the heart of the GOP, with the oft stated goal of destroying both Christianity and representative government. Well, stop imagining: that's a decent synopsis of Sun-myung Moon, protected darling of the religious right.

Even though he does have this stunning sort of international reach and influence, people just tune it out, maybe because it does sound so ludicrous. It is a shock to realize the conservative movement has gone this far off the rails. Perhaps a simpler aspect of the scandal to write about would be the moral emptiness of Washington conservatives helping to keep kids in an emotionally abusive cult that is literally obsessed with ending Christianity and democracy. -- John Gorenfeld (Blog)

It's old news that dominionist zealots have taken over a big chunk of the Republican Party. But what's amazing is the media -- along with so-called moderate conservative commentators -- have in large part let a guy as twisted as Moon do it in the wide open for over two decades. It's under that self-imposed, multi-decadal media embargo that "Father" Moon and his "True Family" (Moon's term for his nuclear family) along with the "36 Families" (Moon's name for the 36 families he has 'perfected' and which function as the core of his empire) have infiltrated a surprising number of key nooks and crannies in the GOP.

"...the [Unification] church has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration... "Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don't want to publicize the extent of the church's involvement," says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. (Source -- U.S. News & World Report, 3/27/89""

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

This will sort itself out over time. There will be a few who will hold a grudge if there fav candidate does not win but over time most will see the obvious contrast between McCain and any Democrat. Voting for McCain is a vote to continue Bush policies. Yuk.

Posted by: zb95 | March 28, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Concatenating hopefuls names like this shows bad taste, plagiate, childish wordplay and at its best boulevard writ, even I could come up with this sort of name game.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | March 28, 2008 4:59 AM | Report abuse

The rest of Americans will base our decision on a far different set of criteria.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 07:39 PM

What criteria Dr. svreader PhD?

Your incessant barrage of inane lies, smears, and whining?

Get a job Doc. Other than republo-troll I mean.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 28, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

I voted for -- and even contributed -- to McCain in his 2000 primary run.

I could NOT vote for McCain at this time given his stunning ignorance of basic facts in Iraq.

I will vote for Obama if I have the chance. It's hard to imagine, at this point, voting for Clinton.

Posted by: dogmo | March 28, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Comment: Question: Given all we have learned about Obama in the last weeks, not just Wright, but his lies about his community work, his parents meeting at Selma, his nonexistent professorship, his so called legislative accomplishments, that he supposedly sponsored, but was really someone else's work and on and on. Lies little and big that have been discovered. Then he says he didn't hear the remarks on those clips shown over and over, then he admits he did hear "some" outrageous remarks and now, because the Wright furor hasn't died down, Obama is giving a speech tomorrow wherein he "suggests" he would have left had Wright not retired.

I remember thinking during George W's term, just how gullible people are. First we have those stupid people who voted for him, then those who supported him throughout his term. So...we are all breathing a sigh of relief, it is almost over. And, GUESS WHAT, we're going to get another serial liar in the White House. Hooray!! If anybody and tell me why Obama would lie about the nonexistent professorship or his fake community work he supposedly did in Chicago or ,this is a good one, why he would lie about when and where his parents met, I would be very interested. Worse yet, he has nowhere near the policy knowledge or the toughness of Hillary. WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE HIM PRESIDENT?

Posted by: celested9 | March 28, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

Use the term ObamaWrites for those like me who will write in Obama if he is not on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

Posted by: doggs | March 28, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Those who predict the dems will fall in line are wrong. It the experience, stupid. Does America want or need another young, inexperienced person at the helm? With all that is going on? I dare say, not. If not, people will get what they pay/vote for, and it won't be pretty.

Fall in line, baloney. They know NOT of what they speak.

O Bama, oh no. O Clinton, oh yeah. O McCain, oh shucks, only if I have to.

Posted by: skinsfanmoyo | March 28, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

These numbers should prompt another thought.

3) There are those of us who are just so damn furious at the press for their biased coverage, and their overt drooling over Obama, and the way that he has been treated with kid gloves, the way he was not vetted until just recently, the way the press just kept talking glowingly about how enraptured they were by his speeches day after day, that they forgot to do their job and investigate the guy, but never failed to jump all over every word Clinton said, pretty much muzzling her and prohibiting her from running an aggressive, normal, competitive campaign.

I saw you on "Hardball" today, and I sat mumbling or yelling at the TV this same response to all of you. Everyday, the press ponders this same 'ol question -- as Chris whines day in, day out, about whether Hillary is going to rip the party apart. And it is such a joke -- the american people are used to campaigns, we can handle a good fight, that is what makes politics great, but it is the pro-Obama press that frets about the race continuing, scared that their little golden boy might lose if it goes on too long. Is that the only story y'all can come up with? This is the way it is supposed to work. Campaigns are scrappy fights. The press needs to stop being wimps and acting like babies. Anyone who has been around long enough to enjoy a few campaigns knows that everything that is happening is typical -- it has not been rough or dirty -- and it is nothing compared to what the republicans are going to throw at us.

Please quit covering this same 'ol dead storyline everyday. Let the race go forward. Let them battle it out. And QUIT being so biased. And please tell Chris Matthews I said this! I used to love the guy, but I can't stand him anymore because of this reason -- what a disappointment he has been.

Posted by: monique4hillary | March 28, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

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

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

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

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

STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

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

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

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

Posted by: Logan6 | March 28, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I prefer the monikers in the second post although, oddly, uphillary and downhillary both seem applicable.

People seem to have lost their sense of irony, no?

Posted by: Enough | March 28, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Bondjedi,
Again the name calling- what is the matter with you Obamites? The constant derision of a really good candidate on the other side- starting from day one with implications of moodiness, decieptfulness, whininess, etc.
I am a Clinton supporter who will back whomever the Dem nominee is, this time- just gotta' get the right wing out of power- but I have to say- it has been the supporter of Obama, who have truly acted entitled and patronizing toward everyone else- that have made it hard to want to support he guy. I started out happy with all the candidates, chose based on record and whom I thought would be able to implement the policies I wanted the best. I have been a liberal and a Democrat since age 13 and have been very involved in the party- working for J. Jackson before I could vote. But as time has gone on and you all have been so vitriolic- it has caused a good deal of resentment in me. Particularly since the seeming majority of his supporters have either been previously unengaged or have voted on the other side of issues- the lack of a consistent philosophical belief behind supporting him is troubling- but when it is paired with arrogance on the part of his supporters- it is very hard to take.

I know the response will be something about how the Clintons have run the campaign- let's be honest- both sides have been playing politics since the beginning- what do you think having advocates make the Clintons appear racist based on comments (fairytale speech) clearly were not- thank you Donna Brazille- was about? It was about creating a large enough AA margin in SC to save his candidacy, which had lost Nevada and NH at that point. There have been many mysogonysitc comments as well from his campaign, and even a few from him ("whining", "in a bad mood", etc.) The point is, neither of them has been playing very nicely, although this is not as bad as campaigns in the past (yet).

I will vote for him, I will work for him, but please calm down the rhetoric- because you are clearly losing potential supporters.
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 28, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters who vote for McCain are Nobamas.

Obama supporters who vote for McCain are Downhillaries.


Posted by: Enough | March 28, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters who vote for McCain are Nobamas.

Obama supporters who vote for McCain are Uphillaries.


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

Once we elect a President, there is no practical way to replace him if we find out that we've made a bad choice.

Its a basic flaw in our system.

We can't afford to make the mistake of electing someone who doesn't know what they're doing, but thinks they do.

Barry Obama is not only a bad choice, but a dangerous one, because he's exactly like Bush in that regard.

In both the State and US Senate, Barry Obama has been a huge dissapointment.

He likes running for office.

He doesn't like the day to day grind of doing the job.

Earlier in the race, a Clinton/Obama ticket would have been a sure winner and given him the management and mentoring that he needs to grow into a good leader.

Neither he, nor his supporters, realize just how badly he needs a strong manager and mentor, and how much damage he could do without one.

Both Obama and his supporters are too clever for their own good.

He can "get over" on people, but he can't deliver the goods.

His supporters have acted like spoiled children.

He is not Presidential material at the present time.

Its an open question as to whether he might be in the future.

Like many other Democrats, I cannot vote for him in good faith.

His supporters have been so nasty and have shown such zeal throwing Bill Clinton "under the bus" that they have destroyed any goodwill that we mainstream Democrats may have towards him or them.

The best thing for the Democratic Party, at this point, will be for him to be soundly defeated in the next primaries, or for one of the many scandals he's currently involved in to take him out of the race.

I do not see him having the maturity to accept the VP slot without being soundly defeated first, and with all the damage he and his supporters have done to the Democratic Party, to his credibility, and to theirs, it may not be a very good idea to have him on ticket in any capacity.

There's no way he can be elected president, but he may very well take the Democratic Party down with him to defeat.

For the good of the country, I hope that does not happen.

As much as I like and admire Senator Clinton, if Obama is the Presidential candidate, there is no way in the world I or most other mainstream Democrats can support him.

If forced to make the decision, we will always choose country over party.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Obamacains and McClintons are fine. The only other more apt categories I could put these people in are "Pouters" and "Blackmailers".

There are some people who may end up deeply disenchanted when their candidate loses, and they may continue to stay away from politics all the way into November. My guess, however, is that most will forget the hurt with time and return to vote Democrat. Of course, if this fight stretches all the way to August and the convention ends up being an acrimonious disaster, this leaves a fairly short amount of time to get over the anger, and a higher percentage of people may carry through with their threats.

Many other people in this poll, however, are probably less pouters and more savvy manipulators. Anyone taking a poll knows how it will be used and what messages their answers send. Saying that they will vote for McCain is a threat that is meant to blackmail others into supporting their candidate. I'm skeptical that such tactics work, but the threat of voters abandoning the party in November is enough to get superdelegates wringing their hands.

These blackmailers, too, I imagine will largely return to vote Democrat in the fall.

Of course, McCain has faced many of the same threats. Many conservatives and evangelicals in the run-up to McCain's nomination vowed that they would not vote for him in November, and many are still questioning whether or not they will vote for him. It remains to be seen if McCain can win those voters over before November, but he is having a devilish time raising money so far, and the disenchantment of these groups may play a part.

Unlike the ideological opposition to McCain from conservatives and evangelicals, however, the threats from Obamacains and McClintons are less rooted in political viewpoints and more rooted in loyalties to political personalities. Two big personalities are lined up in battle, and people have taken sides and refuse at the moment to reconcile with each other when the battle is done. At the end of the day, however, Clinton's and Obama's policy positions are remarkably alike, so it is hard to see voters running away from an ideologically similar candidate in Obama or Clinton to someone like McCain who, although not satisfying to conservatives, is far more hawkish and conservative than either of the Democrats are.

Posted by: blert | March 27, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

NRO speaks

Picking Over That Counterintuitive NBC/WSJ Poll

The Wall Street Journal poll is generating buzz. But I have a lingering skepticism about its counterintuitive results -- that Hillary Clinton has seen her favorable numbers drop in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright scandal more than Barack Obama.


NBC's Chuck Todd writes, "In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup."

But is the oversample included in the sample as a whole? In response to the question of what race you are, the polls says 11 percent said "African American." But the sample size for African-Americans was 177. They had 700 initial respondents, then another 100 to enlarge the African-American sample. That puts them at either 22 percent of the sample (177 out of 800) or 25.2 percent of the sample (177 out of 700), which either way is larger than the usual 13 percent of the general population, or 11 percent of the 2004 electorate (according to exit polls).

If your sample doubles the percentage of African-Americans who usually show up on Election Day, wouldn't we expect Barack Obama, the candidate who is winning an overwhelming share of the African-American vote, to do well compared to other polls? And wouldn't this hide any Wright fallout?

If Hart/McInturff say that 11 percent of their respondent pool was African-American -- and the extra were only used for questions specifically aimed at measuring African-American opinion -- then all is well, more or less. But note that even with the oversample, the margin of error on questions to that respondent pool is still +/- 7.4 percent, higher than most regular polls.

Beyond that, this poll is generally out of step with other results. (After Wright, Obama's favorables among white voters were essentially unchanged, and his unfavorable rating went up 2 percent? Really? And 16 percent of whites describe their feelings toward Jeremiah Wright himself, not Obama, as "neutral"? When asked about their feelings toward Jeremiah Wright, 49 percent of whites say they don't know the name or aren't sure?)

As Michael Barone notes, in Rasmussen, Obama's unfavorables jumped after the Wright and his favorables slid; in the daily tracking poll, McCain has beaten Obama by at least six points since March 17 and leads by 10 yesterday. SurveyUSA shows Obama losing Ohio by 7 to McCain, losing Kentucky by 36, Missouri by 14, Minnesota by 1, a tie in Massachusetts. With one exception, the Pennsylvania numbers look terrible for Obama.


03/27 10:45 AM

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmJkZDYzY2FhNGZkYjhkNDUzNjRkMTMyZTFlOGE4Y2Y=

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Evidently the pollster is being called on the "oversample" aspect of the poll.

Here's the original statement:

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup


Here's his disclaimer that he in fact didn't "oversample."

What 'oversample' means Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:56 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Polls
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Hart/McInturff, the group that conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, explains what "oversample" means.

TO: NBC News And The Wall Street Journal
FROM: Hart/McInturff
DATE: March 27, 2008
RE: Sample For March 24-25 Survey

As you know, the sample for the March 24-25 poll on race included an "oversample" of 100 African American voters. There has been some confusion as to exactly how these extra interviews were integrated into the survey; we hope this memorandum will clear up any misconceptions.

The main sample for the survey was a cross section of 700 registered voters nationally. As is the case with all of our usual polls, this sample is statistically representative of voters across the country, accurately reflecting the gender, age, educational, geographical, and racial makeup of the electorate. The column in the topline document labeled "All Voters", as well as nearly all of the subgroups listed in the survey crosstabs, are among these cross section of 700. Eleven percent (11%) of these interviews -- or 77 interviews -- were with African Americans, which accurately reflects African Americans' proportion of the electorate. Thus, African Americans are NOT over-represented in our national sample.

In addition to this national cross section, we interviewed an extra 100 African Americans to analyze the opinions of this group with a greater degree of statistical reliability. We combined these 100 only with the 77 African Americans that naturally fell into our national sample, for a total of 177 interviews with African Americans; these extra interviews were not combined with the full national sample of 700. The column in the topline document labeled "African Americans" shows the responses of these 177 respondents, as do the subgroups in the crosstabs for African Americans, African-American men, and African-American women.

The table below shows the margins of error for the three groups whose responses are shown in the topline document:

National cross section of voters: 700 interviews, +/- 3.7%
White voters: 520 interviews, +/- 4.3%
African-American voters: 177 interviews, +/- 7.4%


Anyone want to comment?


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/827746.aspx

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I can assure you that I am a lifelong liberal, and the Rethugs repulse me just as much as Obama zombies like you do.

I would however understand that as a zombie, your senses are closed to the total hatred shown to Mrs Clinton by Obama pimps in the media and on forums like this.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporter here. Been a Democrat all my life, but I come from New England, where we have a long history of voting for moderate Republicans like John Chaffee and Olympia Snowe. So does that make me a potential McCain voter if Obama wins the nom? At this point, I doubt it. I'll most likely vote for Obama, but reluctantly -- because (a) I really do think he is unprepared at this time and (b) he will lose to McCain anyway. I thought he had a good chance of winning until the Wright you-know-what hit the fan. Obama's proponents are deluding themselves if they don't think that he will be thoroughly Swift Boated and Willie Hortoned with what's already come out about Wright, and with who knows what more is to come. So, Obama may lose narrowly, or he may lose big, but he will most assuredly lose. It really is breathtaking to me that all of this has come to pass, in a year in which we should have won easily. Of course, I should say I'm still hoping that Hillary wins big in Pennsylvania, and follows that with wins in Indiana and North Carolina, which would really show that Obama's unelectable, and maybe the superdelegates will come to their senses and put the candidate who is most qualified and most electable over the top for the nomination, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: rmh625 | March 27, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I can assure you that I am a lifelong liberal, and the Rethugs repulse me just as much as Obama zombies like you do.

I would however understand that as a zombie, your senses are closed to the total hatred shown to Mrs Clinton by Obama pimps in the media and on forums like this.
======================

We know, dear. We know.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I can assure you that I am a lifelong liberal, and the Rethugs repulse me just as much as Obama zombies like you do.

I would however understand that as a zombie, your senses are closed to the total hatred shown to Mrs Clinton by Obama pimps in the media and on forums like this.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

STOP the infighting. Start realizing that your candidate for the Nom MAY lose. Either Obama or Clinton would make a far far better president than McCain. Vote for POLICIES. I am tired of watching Hillary supporters call Obama a good orator but without merit. Tired of listening to Obama supporters call Hillary a demonic witch. Tired of what seems to be a lot of first time voters, who only got off their butts to vote in the first place because they liked ONE person and ONE person only. Cry babies all of you! Whah Whah Whah, my candidate didnt win so now I am not going to vote or even worse for for McCain???? WOW. INSANE. Policies people, realize that even if you hate Hillary, or hate Obama, that their policies best represent your views. For any Dem to consider voting for McCain i ask you this: How do you feel about the appointment of conservative judges to the bench to overturn Roe V Wade? How do you feel about the Privatization of Social Security? How do you feel about the prospect of a war with Iran? How do you feel about stringing the Iraq war out for years and years on end? How do you feel about even greater corporate and special interest control of our democracy? If you want universal health care, how do you feel about the contrast with McCain wanting to take away Employer backed health care? I could go ON and On with this list. POLICIES people. Stop the Hating and start finding some UNITY. The only way the Dems could lose the general election (Considering 2 to 1 voter turnout for Dems over Repubs) is if any one of you Dems act like babies and choose not to vote if your candidate doesn't get the NOM. Find some unity and insure progressives regain the White House.

Posted by: feastorafamine | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I can assure you that I am a lifelong liberal, and the Rethugs repulse me just as much as Obama zombies like you do.

I would however understand that as a zombie, your senses are closed to the total hatred shown to Mrs Clinton by Obama pimps in the media and on forums like this.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

.
...
.


first things first: shut down halliburton, bechtel, kbr, blackwater, dyncorp's involvement in IRAQ...


conscript the contractors and make them work for GSA at GS scale wages,


as a first step, seperate the thieves from the money....simple eh?

.


it's a national security issue. we don't get what we pay for. and I don't remember paying to have IRAQ's infrastructure destroyed so the citizenry couldn't protest the oil theft do you?...


take a bite out of crime, elect someone who's been there before,


and prevailed....


been on the receiving end of _this_ level of dishonesty, and held their own...

.
and prevailed against the ugliness.

The Clintons, the Carters, The Gores, Prince Charles


put their money where their mouths are, they invest their time and money trying to make the world a

better place.

anyone saying different is a liar or and a republican,

and probablygettingblownby thepresident.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a slick attorney/politician just as ruthless and cunning as any of them. He proves that every day with the way he runs his campaign - calling for Hillary to quit when it isn't over yet (even though the MEDIA has made that judgement, gee I wonder why), opposing revotes in FL and MI and having his campaign workers lock Clinton supporters out of the caucuses in Texas (which was hardly noted on TV news programs but appeared on the internet. In addition, he lied re his relationship with Rev Wright and Rezko and then backpedaled when caught. This is a guy with great changes???? Give me a break. I will never vote for him and I used to be (until now) a democrat.

Posted by: consignjp | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

STOP the infighting. Start realizing that your candidate for the Nom MAY lose. Either Obama or Clinton would make a far far better president than McCain. Vote for POLICIES. I am tired of watching Hillary supporters call Obama a good orator but without merit. Tired of listening to Obama supporters call Hillary a demonic witch. Tired of what seems to be a lot of first time voters, who only got off their butts to vote in the first place because they liked ONE person and ONE person only. Cry babies all of you! Whah Whah Whah, my candidate didnt win so now I am not going to vote or even worse for for McCain???? WOW. INSANE. Policies people, realize that even if you hate Hillary, or hate Obama, that their policies best represent your views. For any Dem to consider voting for McCain i ask you this: How do you feel about the appointment of conservative judges to the bench to overturn Roe V Wade? How do you feel about the Privatization of Social Security? How do you feel about the prospect of a war with Iran? How do you feel about stringing the Iraq war out for years and years on end? How do you feel about even greater corporate and special interest control of our democracy? If you want universal health care, how do you feel about the contrast with McCain wanting to take away Employer backed health care? I could go ON and On with this list. POLICIES people. Stop the Hating and start finding some UNITY. The only way the Dems could lose the general election (Considering 2 to 1 voter turnout for Dems over Repubs) is if any one of you Dems act like babies and choose not to vote if your candidate doesn't get the NOM. Find some unity and insure progressives regain the White House.

Posted by: feastorafamine | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I can assure you that I am a lifelong liberal, and the Rethugs repulse me just as much as Obama zombies like you do.

I would however understand that as a zombie, your senses are closed to the total hatred shown to Mrs Clinton by Obama pimps in the media and on forums like this.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

The entire day CNN quoted the infamous
NBC-WSJ poll claiming it showed Hillary's favorability down and Obama standing firm without adding the caveat, BTW, the poll we're referring to "oversampled" African Americans.


CNN failed to indicate that the poll "oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

And there sitll doing it 9:00PM CST.

It was a Hart-McInturff survey that included 700 people.
USA Today, CNN and the FIX all relayed the poll results without revealing the caveat to their viewers.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

America already have a name for Obama's supporters who would take McCain over Hillary: FOOLS.

Posted by: jorge.costas.crt | March 27, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

America already have a name for Obama's supporters who would take McCain over Hillary: FOOLS.

Posted by: jorge.costas.crt | March 27, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Can't vote for a woman: Misogynocrats
Can't end the war: Neocrat
Can't vote for a minority: Closet Republicans


Posted by: ron.ainsworth | March 27, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I still like DOPES - or Defacers Of Proboscises & Eventual Spoilers

I am a 53-year-old, white female who has voted democratic since I supported McGovern in '72 - my first election. Now it's my son's first time voting and I hope and pray that we all pull it together in time to ensure that we do not have four more years of hawkish, corporate-owned Republicans in office.

We recently saw a Stephen Colbert show, during which Mr. Colbert describes the climate surrounding the '72 election, which left the democratic party "Alone, Again, Naturally":

electionhttp://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=163320

He also peruses the scrapbook of "Crushing Democratic Disappointments" and reminds us that we ultimately elected Richard Nixon!!!!! And we all know how that turned out.

I feel sick to my stomach at the thought that we might, once again, find that our party is able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. ='(

Posted by: glennaday | March 27, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater - I am a lifelong proud liberal. However, at this point, I find Obama cult zombies like you just as repulsive as I do the abominable Rethugs.

I grew up knowing that you expect hate from the Rethugs. The vitriol and sexism from Obama zombies to Sen Clinton was worse.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

My. my, my.

all the faux-Dems have their trans-knickers in a twist tonight!

Romney as VP will end any hope of Indy swing to McSame.

March madness indeed.

April showers to come! Who'll be washed away?

Who'll remain to flower in May?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

As a former Democrat, I have many friends who were shocked when I left the party. I stay in close contact with them and many of them have vowed to not only NOT vote for a dangerously empty suit such as Obama for president, they will seriously consider leaving the party for good.

They are tired of the latte-lapping liberal do-nothings who are so out of touch with the average American.

They are sickened by their total lack of backbone which is epitomized by Nancy Pelosi, a politician who took it upon herself to thwart the desire of the majority of Democrats to hold George W. Bush accountable for his near destruction of the Constitution.

Many of these Democrats are as angry at Pelosi and her faction of the party as they are with George W. Bush, and rightly so, I believe.

They are sick and tired of the Bananaback tendency of the party to talk about change, as Obama does now and as the Democrats did in 2006, and then come up with every lame excuse for not getting any change legislated.

Many of these mature Democrats have told me they are fed up with Pelosi and her spineless and feckless followers, and they will never vote for Obama for president.

They say they will leave the party permanently if the party goes for an untested fraud.

I tell them to truly review the things they believe in and ask themselves if the Democratic Party as represented by the Nancy Pelosi crowd even remotely represents them. Many quickly and forcefully, say no! And they have been vaguely aware of this for some time, but now it is becoming clearer and clearer to them.

When I suggest to them that Nancy Pelosi, just as she thumbed her nose at the majority of Democrats over impeachment, is going to unilaterally take it upon herself to force the selection of her guy, Obama, by using the power given to her as Speaker they go livid.

To many of these soon to be former Democrats, it's gone well beyond the issue of Barack as an untried and untested phony . It has gotten to the point they do not want to be associated with such a gutless party. They are not going to wait around to be viciously thrown under the bus like the young Obananuts have done to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | March 27, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

gthstonesman,

Your argument might carry some weight if it was not one-sided. You assume that Obama will win win the majority of the pledged delegates, and the Superdelegates will affirm the vote of the people and all will be fine. First, if the superdelegates voted according to the will of the people, a number of Obama superdelegates would need to switch to Hillary (Kerry, Kenndy...)So, you expect Hillar voters to fall-in-line and support Obama while giving Obama supporters an out if as you put it, "the Superdelegates were to overturn the will of the people (which they won't) then you would actually have quite a problem on your hands." You feel that "African American voters would obviously not support Clinton as they would feel (rightly) that the election was stolen by the party elites." I feel Hillary will have the election stolen from her if FL & MI delegates are not seated. If Obama had any balls, he would not be afraid to seat fellow democrats.

Finally, your argument that the Clinton backers would have no basis for being upset because they lost fair and square. Again I remind you of FL & MI. Why is Obama afraid to include all the states in this process" That is a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 27, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Republican voting Obama: McObama
Republican voting Clinton: McClinton

Obama supporter voting Republican if Hillary gets the nomination: BarracCain
Clinton supporter voting Republican if Obama gets the nomination: HurriCain

Posted by: arbit123 | March 27, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

As an independent and moderate who usually votes for the Democrat in Presidential races, I have just one thing to say:
Draft Al Gore.

Posted by: thelastmoderate | March 27, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I've been making calls for the Clinton campaign all across the country - and even before the Wright story broke - 100% of the people I spoke with who were voting for Barack said they would vote for HIllary in the general. On the other hand, rarely did I talk to a Hillary supporter who would vote for Barack. Her core base of women don't like him. I'm sorry - but I think the party is gonna get a one-two punch unless Hillary gets the nomination. 1) the Republicans are going to use Barack's association with Wright to galvanize their voters 2) Older, white women would go with McCain or not vote than vote for Obama. Nancy and Howard should look in to this unless they want four-more-years-of-the-same-McCain.

Posted by: jenx1 | March 27, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Between Mr. "I wasn't present in the church when those comments were made" and Mrs. "We took cover from sniper fire until we could get to our base", no wonder people are second guessing these two weak candidates. No matter how much the media tries to disguise the fact that Obama is a fraud, you can only put lipstick on a pig for so long until the truth comes out. Don't think that Clinton is going down without a fight either-all the way to Denver. So then we have McCain who IS NOT LYING when he says he has the Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Prisoner of War Medal and Vietnam Campaign Medals going up against Obama's 20 years as a member in good standing with racist Rev. Wright. Whose chances do you like?

Posted by: Digitalman08 | March 27, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I think you meant "Be careful NOT to put. . ."

Posted by: iai | March 27, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi wrote:
We already have a name for Clinton supporters who would take McCain over Obama: Whiny Spoiled Brats.

Dear Idiot: That's the reason why! Dips like YOU. You're the problem. Slam dunking the Clinton crowd will only get Obama beat. Go someplace and find a brain.

Posted by: lounatick8 | March 27, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

.
...
.


first things first: shut down halliburton, bechtel, kbr, blackwater, dyncorp's involvement in IRAQ...


conscript the contractors and make them work for GSA at GS scale wages,


as a first step, seperate the thieves from the money....simple eh?

.


it's a national security issue. we don't get what we pay for. and I don't remember paying to have IRAQ's infrastructure destroyed so the citizenry couldn't protest the oil theft do you?...


take a bite out of crime, elect someone who's been there before,


and prevailed....


been on the receiving end of _this_ level of dishonesty, and held their own...

.
and prevailed against the ugliness.

The Clintons, the Carters, The Gores, Prince Charles


put their money where their mouths are, they invest their time and money trying to make the world a

better place.

anyone saying different is a liar or and a republican,

and probablygettingblownby thepresident.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I think it's telling of the current state of this country's political process that these numbers are so high, even this far out from a general election. How could any Democrat with the faintest sense of what's going on even kid themselves about pulling for the other team?

I guess people get sucked into "election drama," rather than voting on actual issues. How about calling them the "Sound Bite Bloc"?

Posted by: jr_cville | March 27, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"The people who will get disenfranchised are simply new voters. Young voters, black voters, female voters, etc." --thecrisis

Thanks for reminding me about this. I'm living on a college campus, so I forget that not all voters are 19-year-olds who can't form their own opinions. You won't believe how many times I've heard "If Obama doesn't get the nom, I'm voting for McCain!" Shut up, you morons! This is why we're going to be in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Posted by: megantron | March 27, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"Obama cult zombies are on the same scale as the pre-1860 confederates - those morons wanted to keep slavery for ever, while the Obam cult zomies want to put down women for ever."

IF I was an HRC supporter, this statement would be more than enough to make me feel ashamed about my position. Please tell me that intcamd1 is an R so that I don't need to feel ashamed about being a D.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 27, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

gthstonesman - As a Obama cult zombie, you should speak just for your fellow brain dead zombies.

As I said in a post above I could never be in the same tent with you abomiable idiots.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

neither Obama nor Hillary


created the current polarization between supporters...


it's a republican spin

created thing....anyone saying otherwise is a liar or a pollster making money off of a republican slanted poll...


trying to get the sheep to move in a particular direction so that they can be sheared....


Obama will be republican backed if he appears more usable than Hillary.


Right now, he has republican support because they don't want anyone in the whitehouse with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, that can take down their house of corruption that the last 8 years of opportunity have and has afforded them...


Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Blackwater, KBR, DynCorp, CACI, Computer Sciences Corp., Bechtel, Exxon Mobil, Chevron


and others would not like to have to work for a living,


or have their books examined by impartial parties...


this drek about Hillary or the baaaa man or neither is garbage...a who cares that can be remedied by acknowledging the source


the republicans and their spin machine.


period.

those who would not vote for Hillary or O BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAA man


and instead vote for Mc Cain,

were going to vote for Mc Cain anyway,

they're simply infiltrators in Democratic camps...


if you know any


fire them with extreme predjudice,


just kidding, fire them and eat their pets.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I just hate Barack Obama-

I am a gay male 49 yrs old, MFA Degree- and have been a democrat since Jimmy Carter-like clockwork I have pulled the lever for every Dem running snce 1976.

NOT FOR BARACK THOUGH-HE will DIVIDE THE COUNTRY MORE THAN ANYONE-
wake up Dems and stop running bad contenders- kerry, modale, dukais and now Obama- the one know one knows.

Posted by: DwayneWhitman | March 27, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

It is not unsual for there to be crossover votes in a presidential election, especially when you have a moderate republican.

It amazes me that Obama supporters will not support Hillary, but they are convinced all Clinton supporters will rally around Obama. Really?

Posted by: Vze2sr66 | March 27, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

My feeling is that more Clinton voters will vote for Mac. More Obama voters will stay home because they don't like old people. Black supporters are not going to vote GOP. Usually 10 percent of dems vote GOP (I think). The question is will Obama drive a larger number over (wright, Race, exp, and CandC test) are all things that may drive dems to stay at home or go to the GOP. Hillary is just a B so that trumps everything.

Obama would have been a much stronger candidate in 4-8 years.

Posted by: mul | March 27, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

These are big mega companies that control our media:

In 2004, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

Now tell me that they haven't been manipulating this coming election and trying to see to it that McCain gets elected. We like to think we live in a democracy but the fact that we are fed only what the media wants us to be fed, leaves that in serious doubt. Very sad and will only get worse. Google "who owns the media" and you get some idea of just how few mega companies control the media and just how many different views you get - in 2004 it was six.

Posted by: consignjp | March 27, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The difference is the Clinton backers would ultimately support Obama once she finally agreed to drop out. They are just blowing hot air right now because they are angry that everyone is asking her to step down and concede the race to Obama. Once the primaries are over and Obama has won the majority of the pledged delegates, the Superdelegates will affirm the vote of the people and all will be fine. The Clinton backers would have no basis for being upset because they lost fair and square.

If, however, the Superdelegates were to overturn the will of the people (which they won't) then you would actually have quite a problem on your hands. The African American voters would obviously not support Clinton as they would feel (rightly) that the election was stolen by the party elites. The Democrats could risk losing this all-important vote for good if this happened. Some would support McCain out of spite and others would just avoid the polls for the foreseeable future. The young voters would be turned off to the process and would no doubt stay away for years to come. The Independents would fall in line behind McCain because, let's face it, he is just more appealing to Indies than Hillary is.

Bottom line - many of the Obama voters actually would avoid voting Democrat (many like me would actively support McCain), while the same Hillary voters would probably accept the Obama nomination in a relatively short time.

Posted by: gthstonesman | March 27, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters are so arrogant they assume anyone who posts anything negative about him is a paid staffer posting prepared talking points.

Perhaps what's really going on is that the pro-Obama posters are.

Obama's use of "astro-turf" (fake grass-roots) is legendary.

Already there are reports that women who have been "fainting" at his rallies are paid to put on an act as part of the show.

one thing is for sure.

The more Obama's supporters post personal attacks on individual anti-Obama posters, the more they discredit their candidate and the more hardened enemies they create.

Like Obama himself, they think of themselves as far more clever than they are.

The most annoying thing of all is their constant attempts to justify their blocking of the votes of voters in Florida and Michigan.

It shows how insecure they are about their chances in a fair fight.

If Obama's the candidate, Democrats will lose, and mainstream Democrats will never forget or forgive what the cult of Obama has done to the memory of Bill Clinton's Presidency, the disrespect they have shown Senator Hillary Clinton, and the damage the cult of Obama has done to the Democratic Party.

Obama's supporters claim that Hillary will "do anything to win" is laughable in the context of the kind of "dirty tricks" campaign Barry Obama has run, and the fact that he only won in Chicago by using legal tricks to force every other candidate off the ballot.

America will send him back to Chicago where he belongs.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

390 years ago the first Black Man stepped ashore in Virginia as a slave. That year was 1619. In 2009, this great nation, the most powerful nation on earth will be lead by a Black Man for the first time in it's history. The entire world is watching this election. The promise of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation will be fulfilled. Dr. King's Dream will have been fulfilled. Good Democrats all...don't let your feelings toward either Democratic candidate cloud the greater issue, the fulfillment of the American Dream.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

390 years ago the first Black Man stepped ashore in Virginia as a slave. That year was 1619. In 2009, this great nation, the most powerful nation on earth will be lead by a Black Man for the first time in it's history. The entire world is watching this election. The promise of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation will be fulfilled. Dr. King's Dream will have been fulfilled. Good Democrats all...don't let your feelings toward either Democratic candidate cloud the greater issue, the fulfillment of the American Dream.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

390 years ago the first Black Man stepped ashore in Virginia as a slave. That year was 1619. In 2009, this great nation, the most powerful nation on earth will be lead by a Black Man for the first time in it's history. The entire world is watching this election. The promise of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation will be fulfilled. Dr. King's Dream will have been fulfilled. Good Democrats all...don't let your feelings toward either Democratic candidate cloud the greater issue, the fulfillment of the American Dream.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

390 years ago the first Black Man stepped ashore in Virginia as a slave. That year was 1619. In 2009, this great nation, the most powerful nation on earth will be lead by a Black Man for the first time in it's history. The entire world is watching this election. The promise of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation will be fulfilled. Dr. King's Dream will have been fulfilled. Good Democrats all...don't let your feelings toward either Democratic candidate cloud the greater issue, the fulfillment of the American Dream.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

At the begining of the Primaries, I was torn between Clinton and Obama. Even though I ended up voting for Obama in the Potomac Primary, I - at that point in time - had no grudges or ill feeling toward Hillary. But as the primaries progressed I was sickened by her style of campaigning - of winning at all cost. If that's the kind of trait I wanted in a President I would be one of those died-in-the-wool supporters of Bush. If Clinton steals the nomination, I will not vote for her but neither will I vote for McCain. I will either vote for a third party or do a write-in. And I have voted Democratic in every election. But Hillary doesn't represent the Democratic values I thought the party stood for. She is killing the party and our country.

Posted by: dre7861 | March 27, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

This is not going to happen. Check out Mark Blumenthal's excellent article on the pollster.com website which includes a link to a 2000 Pew Poll about how Bush had been badly damaged by his primary race with McCain. Once the nomination is settled, Democrats will be unified against McCain. So will Republicans, but they're outnumbered.

Posted by: polsaa | March 27, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Mickey Mouse could have Hillary's voters lined up around the block in a hurricane if the alternative was a McCain presidency. So much drama with the Clinton lackeys, nobody believes you will vote McCain!

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of the Twentieth Century and I greatly admire his wife Hillary. But if Obama has the most pledged delegages, the most popular votes, and the majority of the states... he has won. All Democrats need to rally around Obama in November. This nation cannot survive another war, another four years of McBush.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of the Twentieth Century and I greatly admire his wife Hillary. But if Obama has the most pledged delegages, the most popular votes, and the majority of the states... he has won. All Democrats need to rally around Obama in November. This nation cannot survive another war, another four years of McBush.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of the Twentieth Century and I greatly admire his wife Hillary. But if Obama has the most pledged delegages, the most popular votes, and the majority of the states... he has won. All Democrats need to rally around Obama in November. This nation cannot survive another war, another four years of McBush.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of the Twentieth Century and I greatly admire his wife Hillary. But if Obama has the most pledged delegages, the most popular votes, and the majority of the states... he has won. All Democrats need to rally around Obama in November. This nation cannot survive another war, another four years of McBush.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | March 27, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I always thought Obama's statement that he could get Hillary's voters but she couldn't get his was dubious. This just confirms my suspicion.

Posted by: Vze2sr66 | March 27, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

How about DOPES, or Defacers Of Proboscises & Eventual Spoilers"?

Origin of the phrase to "cut off your nose to spite your face" from Wikipedia - :

The phrase is believed[citation needed] to have originated from a (probably fictional) event that was said to have taken place in AD 867: Viking pirates from Sjaelland and Uppsala landed in Scotland and raided the monastery of Coldingham. When news of the raid reached Aebbe the Younger, the Mother Superior, she gathered her nuns together and urged them to disfigure themselves, that they might be unappealing to the Vikings. In this way, they hoped to protect their chastity. St. Aebbe accomplished this by cutting off her nose and upper lip.[2] The nuns proceeded to do the same. The Viking raiders were so disgusted by the scene that they burned the entire building to the ground.

Although the nuns believed their actions to be justified (indeed, Aebbe was canonized), the expression has since come to refer to pointlessly self-destructive actions motivated purely by malevolence. For example, if a man is mad at his wife, he may burn down their house to punish her. Of course, this would be an example of cutting off his nose to spite his face, as in the process of burning down her house he would also be destroying his home, along with all his personal possessions.

Posted by: glennaday | March 27, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

NObama has divided the Democratic Party and I am not sure either candidate can bring it back together. Anyway, for most conservative Democrats, McCain is not that hard to swallow. Only the "left-wing" of the Democratic Party is truly against him. But, then the "lefties" don't have a problem with "God d*mn America" either!!

Posted by: paris1969 | March 27, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters think they're being cute by editing other people's to reverse their meaning and then reposting them.

All it does is show how incredibly immature they are.

We don't want overgrown children running our country.

We've had enough of that the past seven years." Posted by: svreade

Like leader like follower. Do you think it is mature to lie? Do you think it mature to name call and disrespect other citizens with your nose in the air? How mature is Bill? Not very. Neither is his wife if you were not so blinded you would see that.

Every Clinton supporter's comments I read are filled with the libel she told them. That is provable in a court of law, unlike your statements.

I wonder how many best selling books you have written, if you have won a Pulitzer or Nobel peace prize, if you have years of service to your country in any capacity or a renown scientist or attorney. I wonder if you have any degree at all.

Mature people pay their bills. Hillary did not. Mature people do not fudge on their filing. She did. Mature people do not need a filing extension when running for president, they get it done on time. Snow stopped Hillary in PA? Heaven help us if there were a national emergency in a blizzard if snow causes her to be lax on her election requirements.

Mature people do not "misspeak" due to being sleep deprived. They do not break down in tears when they lose a contest and whine "the boys are beating me up" and complain how hard they work.

They do demean voters calling Iran a non-issue of "fantasy" and "make up". If Hillary were a mature adult she would not have entered the race, knowing that citizens do not want Bill back in DC. She and you are so vain glory all you can do is tear down other human beings. Sad you are.

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

I for one will not change my position in the fall--if Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for McCain.

I don't vote based on party; I vote base on the candidate I believe will do the best job. While I vote for the democrat candidates more often than not, I voted for republican when I believed they were the better candidate.

McCain is not a bad man. Democrats have a long history with him--so much so the ultra conservatives hate him.

If given a choice between Clinton and McCain, I choose McCain.

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

Hillary voted to authorize the war. Get angry, change the subject, skip lines in your post to push others off the screen...Hillary still voted to authorize the war. She has already lost this nomination. Who will have to tell her?

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I hope to heaven that Frank Newport is right. I support Obama, have contributed to his campaign, and will be greatly disappointed if Clinton turns out to be the Democratic candidate. But if she gets the nomination, I will work just as enthusiastically for her as I would have for Obama. Politics is not the place for sour grapes. It's also not the place for cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Posted by: wkorn | March 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters have got too much sense to vote for such an inexperienced guy as Obama to such an important job.

Obama supporters will be too busy playing the role of victims to even vote.

Posted by: Couzensjanet | March 27, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

There's already a name of those who support Obama with a cult-like mentality, regardless of his qualifications. These people are called Obamabots.

I voted for Clinton in the primaries, and I will definitely vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

I don't find appealing Obama's tactics of constantly hurling negative attacks against Clinton, and of dismissing the voters of MI and FL in his zealous way to get to the White House.

Posted by: enrike2000 | March 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I call them marginal Democrats, and they do need lots of attention between now and Election Day, especially here in Florida. In the online American Reporter, I noted after the Fla. primary that the GOP primary vote (remember that Dems have many more registered voters here that the GOP does) .was substantially greater as a percentage of its registered voters than the Democratic vote. However, many misinterpreted this as merely the by product of the fact that the candidates didn't show up here. That was not the case. We live in an age where a candidate is lucky in visiting a state if he can speak to 100,000 people and shake 10,000 hands. The fact that there were televised debates in Miami and St. Petersburg, and many others that occurred before the Jan. 29 primary, is more meaningful than the absence of candidate visits here. What really happened was that anger about the fact that votes weren't going to be counted kept these "marginal Democrats" from coming to the polls. They are people who like "blue dog" or "yellow dog" conservative Democrats have always reserved some consnguinity for conservative Republicans. There was huge interest in the Democratic race in Florida, and one angry form that interest took was simply not to participate
The conservative Democrats who did not participate in the primary are unlikely to support either candidate in the general election, and peering through this demographic window, it's clkear to me that John McCain will win Florida in 2008 due tio these same Democrats. So it's very important that we know who they are, try to reduce their impact and bring them back into the fold.

Here was my conclusion about the issue on Feb. 1, from The American Reporter:


On Tuesday, it meant that about 160,000 fewer Democrats than Republicans voted in their respective party's primary in a state where a difference of 537 stolen votes decided the presidency in 2000. Now, in 2008, the most exciting politics in a century has profoundly reinvigorated the American people's age-old passion for politics. That is driving millions of new voters to polls and caucuses in other states.

In Florida, though, the number of voters registered in all parties for the 2008 presidential primary fell by 230,737. Until Tuesday, Democrats had a edge of 4.14 million to the GOP's 3.8 million, or 311,000 potential voters; 1.9 million opted out of the two-party system and became independents. Since there was an exciting and absolute historic race and there are more Democrats, more should have voted; instead, a lot of Democrats - probably the most marginal ones - stayed home.

Should Democrats believe they are going to coax those absent marginal Democrats back to the polls when the race is a match-up between Hillary Clinton and John McCain? When their votes on the selection of those nominees didn't count? Don't even think about it. The DNC has handed Florida to John McCain,. and the White House with it; Hillary cannot overcome the fact that men detest her and that women who might have rejected a Romney or a Huckabee will warm to John McCain. God bless him; it could have been worse.

Joe Shea
Editor-in-Chief
The American Reporter

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

Between Mr. "I wasn't present in the church when those comments were made" and Mrs. "We took cover from sniper fire until we could get to our base", no wonder people are second guessing these two weak candidates. No matter how much the media tries to disguise the fact that Obama is a fraud, you can only put lipstick on a pig for so long until the truth comes out. Don't think that Clinton is going down without a fight-all the way to Denver either. So then we have McCain who ISN'T LYING when he says he has the Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Prisoner of War Medal and Vietnam Campaign Medals going up against Obama's 20 years as a member in good standing with racist Rev. Wright. Whose chances do you like?

Posted by: Digitalman08 | March 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

gmund --

Thanks for letting the world see how some Americans decide on who they want running their country.

The rest of Americans will base our decision on a far different set of criteria.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obamamaniac, however, I will vote for Billary. There is no way I could vote for continuation of what we have now, NO WAY!

Posted by: jalehw | March 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Certainly not my daughter, but I would trust Hillary with my son. She's wound so tight her jaw snaps open when she crosses her legs. Looks like she has not had any since Reagan was in the White House.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

C-Creators of False Economy Boom which is blowing up now
L-Lewensky Monica
I-Inside Terror Bush's WAR Supporters
N-NAFTA Creators
T-Traders of Own Party, Country people
O-Office Sex
N-Negetivity
S-Sex Sex Sex and More of it this time from ?

1. Nope. Bill is already saying that President nominees needs to go thru this.

2. She is just showing Jeans of "Entitlement of White House". Does Hillary know White House is not someones house?

3. I am surprise why Bill is not in sex offenders list and he is eagarly waiting to do this PLEASURES legislatively this time. Chelsey and Hillary seems to agree.

4. SEX LIES and SCANDALS.

5. All prepared groups and her speeches has no meaning

6. 3AM Ad, Bosnia, Lewinsky, Falling back on Wright, Falling back on FL, MI, Re-defining Pledge deligates, Playing by COLOR, Dumping Bill Richardson after all Latinos voted, Not opening Taxes, Bluffing on NAFTA, etc etc makes a TRUE CLINTON and surprisingly 40% FOOLS VOTE for them to legislate WHITE HOUSE SEX.


Hillary negotiated with Soudi Oil King, pro NAFTA, Monica etc.

Hillary was right there when Bill was in PLEASURES.

Hillary supported "Terror Dick Fox Osama Bush"'s terror plan.

Hillary betrayed Bill Richardson calling him ZERO after all LATINOS voted for her in primaries.

Hillary sarcastic laugh when asked if she fooled votes with 3AM ad.

McS(h)ame wants 100 years of war ~ 60,000 US Navy lives and 10 million Iraqi Deaths.

Bush helped install Mussharaf's Dictator rule throwing out Democracy, Legal System in Pakistan where as he claims IRAQ needs Democracy.

09/11/2008 is set date for Bushes IRAN WAR.

US Citizen still feels COLOR matters more than Bread and Butter.

Good Luck World Leader and Current Hate of Humanity.

1. Clinton BOMBED countries 7 times day before each Monica's court appearance.

2. Bush FOX shows "Terror Level" from Yellow to Orange when Bush Laden OIL Co. needs

3. Evangelists are eating their bread soaked in Navy and Iraqi BLOOD

4. Republicans want Iraqi war and IRAN war and $6 GAS

5. Hillary negotiated Monica, Wright, Kosovo, NAFTA

6. Hillary ABUSED Bill Richardson's support and after all Hispanics voted, she dumped him in the dissert

7. Hillary has more NO than YES of Voters

8. McS(h)ame can DIE any day and leaving control to Maniacs (one of them will be VP like Dick)

9. Bill Clinton wants FOOLS to vote Hillary and legislate his next round of PLEASURES


OPTION 1:
=========
32% Still support $4 GAS and ready for $6 GAS, continuation of IRAQ war, IRAN WAR from 9/11/08 and "Terror FOX Dick Osama Bush".

OPTION 2:
=========
Legislate Bill Clintons White House PLEASURES this time as they used Bill Richardson so long to capture all Hispanic votes telling them that Borders will be open and NOW Calling Bill Richardson's support does not matter and ZERO as all Hispanics VOTED.

OPTION 3:
=========
Evangelicals eating Bread soaked in Blood of Navy men in IRAQ and Iraqi blood and pay $4 for Bush OIL Company.

This guy looks to be happy paying $4 gas and asking all of you to support "Terror Fox Dick Bush Laden"'s plan of IRAN war so you can pay $6 GAS and let your kids die in IRAQ/IRAN for nothing.

WAKE UP AMERICA. DON't listen anymore to Granny's.


TRUE CHANGE. from Terror Osama Fox Bush, Sex Clintons, Dirty Dick Chains.

I know 32% AMERICA Still wants IRAQ War but I hope atleast they know that means their Bread is soaked in Navy blood and Iraqi blood yet the GAS did not reach them rather Bush OIL co is selling it for $4 and plans for $6 after IRAN.

Bill still looks sexy and looking forward for his wifes Whitehouse where he can get another round of legislated PLEASURES.

FYI, Bush claims he is bringing Iraq to democracy. He made Pakistan go out of democracy into Milatary ruler's hand (Mussharraf) and making the latest Democratic results mean nothing and costing thousands of lives and making more enemies of USA from both Iraq and Pakistan and still not letting the benifit GAS Juices flow all the way to supporters (YOU).


Bush: Terror Master
McSame: 100 Years more of Bush
Hillary: Supports Bill's Sex in White House once more

Late 90s: Bill's Bedtime stories
Early 2000: Bush Terror plots
Late 2000: Bush selling Oil at $4.00 to same m0r0ns who voted for him.


Nothing of above matters as Bush/USA is going to **** WAR **** on Iran on 09/11/2008 or close to that.

Hillary is only fishing for FOOLS. If you are, please VOTE Hillary. If you are American, VOTE at your Will.

Hillary: I am experienced. McSame is more than me. Obama has a 2002 Speech. If she wins on that, don't you think McSame can use the same to ask her to Cleanup whitehouse from Bill's mess?

Hillary kept pushing Dream Ticket (She in TOP although She is in bottom in all aspects) and after rejection, she rejected herself that that is too early.


Lets be a FAIR GOOD IDEAL WORLD LEADER again.

Posted by: BrownShirtGeorge | March 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

The shallowness of Obama's supporters thoughts and reasoning processes makes trying to have an intelligent discussion with them like trying to swim laps in a kiddie-pool.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Some of us happen to think that ANYBODY who would vote for Obama, D or R, is a total space cadet. They don't need a name, they need a shrink.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

And why does Hillary wear those awful pant suits and constantly gesticulate with the arm not holding the mike? Does she really think nobody will notice that she is short and fat?

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I know alot of mothers who wouldn't trust H. Clinton with their daughters let alone this nation.

Posted by: MissClarty | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

TheodoreRoosevelt --

I think Al would be great, but he'd have to take a heck of a pay cut.

He's a general partner at Kleiner Perkins.

Its the most exciting job in the world.

And you don't have to take guff from anybody.

He can do even more good for the world at KPCB than he can as President of the US.

Whenever he wants to get something done, he can get it done a lot faster.

He even gets to make people rich in the process.

Its a great job.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't think those numbers will hold up until Nov. Most Dems who are paying attention would never vote for McCain. There are just too many fundamental differences between McCain and any Democrat -- the war in Iraq, potential bombing of Iran, conservative appointements to Supreme Court, tax policy, and much much more.

Posted by: zb95 | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton v. Obama campaign is merely a fight over who gets the power. They forget the party and those millions of poor and downtrodden masses that they tell us they are running to help. One can't help being cynical and understanding why so many Democrats will vote for the candidate of the other party when their candidate loses. Why should they be more loyal than those two elitists? A pox on both their houses!

Posted by: mhr614 | March 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

part of the


"vileness," is repulsive scammer based.


during the 1972 McGovern Nixon challenge, McGovern was considered the stronger challenger


and so the repulisive scammers used character assassination to defeat McGovern, much as you see Hillary being attacked now...

Hubert Humphrey was put forward as "the more reasonable," what they really meant was Hubert was the "more defeatable,"


Obama is the weaker candidate.

SEARCH on 1972 KARL ROVE, McGovern.


Plus for every degree of anger between people voting for either Hillary or Obama the repulsive scammers can count on a swing vote or a non vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.


I would say that about 40 PERCENT of the VILENESS and INNUENDO from posters here is repulsive scammer based.


I recognize a lot of the posters as being repulsive scammers, you can tell from their mode of attack....


it's usually spin and "appeal to emotion," very little logic


just name calling and playground tactics...slime, innuendo, impugning character,

EXAMPLES: purple lips, ankleless Annie


that kind of thing.


it's what they do. They have been doing it here for the last 4 years.


as bushCO and CRONY _supporters_

just because george w. is gone doesn't mean bushCO and CRONYs disappears.


the BUSH FAMILIES AND SAUDIS

Carlyle Group is going to buy part of Booze-Allen-Hamilton and Sprint

Rumsfelds' Bechtel is still a heavy player in the world of Consulting/Contracting

Cheneys Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater is going gangbuster and just got two new congressional lobbyists

LOOK:
Among the Womble Carlyle lobbyists

representing Blackwater

are: John Mashburn, former general counsel and policy director for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.,

who is the top

Republican


on the Senate ?Budget? Committee;

and Mark Harkins, who was chief of staff to

Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.,

chairman of the Investigations [ ha ha ha !!!] and

???Oversight???

subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.

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

Now that we find out that Rev Wright has spewed hate speech about Italians in his past speeches. I beleive that only has a few ethic groups left to spead hate. I don't for a second beleive that Obama is not influenced by this horrible man. As Hillary said you can't choose your family, but you can choose your Pastor. Although I am against the war, I will vote for McCain if my other choice is Obama.

"A typical white" (Barack's own words)Italian American

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

I am a HUGE Clinton fan and I WILL NOT vote for Obama ever!

Its Hillary 08 or McCain 08!


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

Hillary's goosesteppers WILL vote for Obama in November, they just don't know it yet. Where else can they go? Stay home? Vote for McCain? Vote for Nader? Please. You are all being taken for granted, just like the party has done to Blacks for generations! How does it feel?

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

Personally I still think that if the rulers of the Democrat party are smart, when all hell breaks loose and the fighting at the convention gets to be worse then 1968, that Al Gore will get the nod, and he'll take Obama for V.P..

No love lost between the clintons and gore, and is the most sensable and realistic choice they cand do.

Obama and Clinton will in all likelyhood loose to mcCain with all the ammunition they have given him with this Democratic party IMPLOSIAN.

Posted by: TheodoreRoosevelt | March 27, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

when it comes to it, the Oblintons will stick to the Democratic party

surely we don't hate one another so much that we'd elect McCain.

Posted by: saralatham | March 27, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

look around. come out of your middle school playground popularity contest and look at what is going on.


Hillary is going through McGovern treatment and


Obama is the new Hubert Humphrey...who will either lose to McCain or be restrained so that he is ineffective if he gets the nomination..


JFK was killed


Jimmy Carter was backstabbed.

Bill Clinton persevered and built the economy back up....he withstood these people for 8 years....and the GOP ers don't want any more


MONEY interruptus


take them down, remove them from power permanently and pass legislation that requires them to be just as responsible for their felonious behavior as you have to be...


arrest them for treason, and execute the sentence when found guilty


. let them feel your love.....


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

What is this an Obama love fest forumn? Most of you are nothing but a bunch of bullies which is exactly what you loath so much about the Bushies.

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

That's funny, bondjedi.

We have a name for people who will not support Obama when Clinton loses; it's douche bags.

All the best,

joe k.

Posted by: coupland12 | March 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted to authorize the war. Why should the R's not have some company?

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

let's be honest here.


Obama is using the repulsive scammer drum beat

he is taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook, he's using the results of the repulsives relentlessly hammering the AMERICAN CITIZENS about the head and shoulders for 16 years with their cover story....for why it's allright for them to have homosexual love fests in the whitehouse on a regular basis, but Bill Clinton is a bad person

think I'm a whacko, nut case ? good prove me wrong


SEARCH on Jeff Gannon, Guckert, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, are gay

Obama has been taking a ride off of the Repulsive scammers work

as his own.

"The Clintons,"

the only Democrats to defeat the Repulsives SCAMMERS on their home turf


in the last 60 years


have been getting hammered by limp RUSHING BOUGHT


and numerous other Repulsive Scammers for 16 years.

GOP ers hate losing money and it going to the people....


GOP ers hate not being able to charge their business expenses to the people...

who is going to make out in IRAQ ????


SAUDI UAE KUWIAT bushCo and CRONYs and war profiteers


will AMERICANS see that money ?????


how are you doing AMERICA ????


can you feel the love as the GOP ers call you


welfare cases ?????

as they take home the lions share of the FISCAL BUDGET to their families...

and you lose your homes ????

look around. come out of your middle school playground popularity contest and look at what is going on.


Hillary is going through McGovern treatment and


Obama is the new Hubert Humphrey...who will either lose to McCain or be restrained so that he is ineffective if he gets the nomination..


Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I make spelling errors.

Obama makes grave errors of judgement.

His supporters refuse to open their eyes.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

You mean there are Democrats who would vote for a Bush third term?

Posted by: kwoodgr | March 27, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

May I humbly suggest that these two groups of DINOs should be know by the appropriate names:

Racists

Sexists

let's be GREAT in '08 !

Posted by: the.royal.pant | March 27, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

People who vote for Republicans are very angry right now. They feel somewhat responsible for our brothers and sisters dying in Iraq, and they should, but that does not mean that because you voted for a warmonger in the last few elections that you have to continue to do so.

Republicans:
Stop feeling so bad and stop voting for GOP'er just because you keep hearing the word "team" associated with them. This is not Football, your votes can help decide whether our brothers and sisters fight and die for causes that all Americans believe in and support.

Do not let your guilt get in the way of your intelligence!
By the way, where are the centrist Republicans? Why does the GOP have to have a big rubber stamp as a constituency?

I would rather have a "inexperienced" Democrat wasting a billion on helping the poor or disabled or uneducated, than have a neo-con Republican blow a billion on killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and thousands of US service men and women.

In the last 8 years or so Republicans have shown me that they will do anything and everything in their power to keep you from retaining an opinion based on the facts that their incompetence is comprised of.

Posted by: getcentered | March 27, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Dear svreader,

How can you expect us to take you seriously if you can't even spell foie gras?

Kindly ask Camp Clinton not to send you off on menial tasks. You are evidently not up to them.

Dick

Posted by: richhed | March 27, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

C-Creators of False Economy Boom which is blowing up now
L-Lewensky Monica
I-Inside Terror Bush's WAR Supporters
N-NAFTA Creators
T-Traders of Own Party, Country people
O-Office Sex
N-Negetivity
S-Sex Sex Sex and More of it this time from ?

1. Nope. Bill is already saying that President nominees needs to go thru this.

2. She is just showing Jeans of "Entitlement of White House". Does Hillary know White House is not someones house?

3. I am surprise why Bill is not in sex offenders list and he is eagarly waiting to do this PLEASURES legislatively this time. Chelsey and Hillary seems to agree.

4. SEX LIES and SCANDALS.

5. All prepared groups and her speeches has no meaning

6. 3AM Ad, Bosnia, Lewinsky, Falling back on Wright, Falling back on FL, MI, Re-defining Pledge deligates, Playing by COLOR, Dumping Bill Richardson after all Latinos voted, Not opening Taxes, Bluffing on NAFTA, etc etc makes a TRUE CLINTON and surprisingly 40% FOOLS VOTE for them to legislate WHITE HOUSE SEX.

Bill Clinton BOMBED outside countries 7 times day before every time Monica appeared before Court.

Hillary negotiated with Soudi Oil King, pro NAFTA, Monica etc.

Hillary was right there when Bill was in PLEASURES.

Hillary supported "Terror Dick Fox Osama Bush"'s terror plan.

Hillary betrayed Bill Richardson calling him ZERO after all LATINOS voted for her in primaries.

Hillary sarcastic laugh when asked if she fooled votes with 3AM ad.

McS(h)ame wants 100 years of war ~ 60,000 US Navy lives and 10 million Iraqi Deaths.

Bush helped install Mussharaf's Dictator rule throwing out Democracy, Legal System in Pakistan where as he claims IRAQ needs Democracy.

09/11/2008 is set date for Bushes IRAN WAR.

US Citizen still feels COLOR matters more than Bread and Butter.

Good Luck World Leader and Current Hate of Humanity.

1. Clinton BOMBED countries 7 times day before each Monica's court appearance.

2. Bush FOX shows "Terror Level" from Yellow to Orange when Bush Laden OIL Co. needs

3. Evangelists are eating their bread soaked in Navy and Iraqi BLOOD

4. Republicans want Iraqi war and IRAN war and $6 GAS

5. Hillary negotiated Monica, Wright, Kosovo, NAFTA

6. Hillary ABUSED Bill Richardson's support and after all Hispanics voted, she dumped him in the dissert

7. Hillary has more NO than YES of Voters

8. McS(h)ame can DIE any day and leaving control to Maniacs (one of them will be VP like Dick)

9. Bill Clinton wants FOOLS to vote Hillary and legislate his next round of PLEASURES

10. Amen. American in the CLOSET can only view American media which does not do NEWS (facts) but does Propeganda showing unrelated things as if related.

OPTION 1:
=========
32% Still support $4 GAS and ready for $6 GAS, continuation of IRAQ war, IRAN WAR from 9/11/08 and "Terror FOX Dick Osama Bush".

OPTION 2:
=========
Legislate Bill Clintons White House PLEASURES this time as they used Bill Richardson so long to capture all Hispanic votes telling them that Borders will be open and NOW Calling Bill Richardson's support does not matter and ZERO as all Hispanics VOTED.

OPTION 3:
=========
AMERICAN should continue to sit in Closet like SCARED KITTEN eating Bread soaked in Blood of Navy men in IRAQ and Iraqi blood and pay $4 for Bush OIL Company.

Is this all a Citizen of WORLD Leader GOT?


This guy looks to be happy paying $4 gas and asking all of you to support "Terror Fox Dick Bush Laden"'s plan of IRAN war so you can pay $6 GAS and let your kids die in IRAQ/IRAN for nothing.

WAKE UP AMERICA. DON't listen anymore to Granny's.

COLOR, RACE is no issue anymore across world but here at WORLD LEADER because we still have too many BABY BOOMER still living.

TRUE CHANGE.


from Terror Osama Fox Bush,
Sex Clintons, Dirty Dick Chains.

Lets be a FAIR GOOD IDEAL WORLD LEADER again.

I know 32% AMERICA Still wants IRAQ War but I hope atleast they know that means their Bread is soaked in Navy blood and Iraqi blood yet the GAS did not reach them rather Bush OIL co is selling it for $4 and plans for $6 after IRAN.


Only one issue you did not mention is

"If OBAMA is not Nominee, All these Black Votes will not show up and rather take rest"

SO, Aftermath of Obama is DEMS Loose CERTAINLY in 2008 if it is not OBAMA.

OBAMA has 2008 in his hands both for himself, his team, his democrats, fellow GOPs who vote him, INDs who vote him and the REST OF THE WORLD is waiting for AMERICAN to WAKE UP and VOTE WISELY but not for $6 GAS from Terror Bush or another round of Sex Movies from Clinton.

Bill still looks sexy and looking forward for his wifes Whitehouse where he can get another round of legislated PLEASURES.

There is nothing new that every possible way GOP and Clintons are attacking Obama.

If you open Clintons and McS(h)ame's Church records etc, you will know more about them too. I wonder if they are even Christian (meaning do they even go to Church).

Obama's records are very open and ofcourse any of this generation Human being will have some dark spots in the resume due to influences which were not stopped by earlier generation (Clintons and McS(h)ame's and Terror Bushes). Go look you child's records and concede that your child will have to go thru this in future and what would be your answer should be for Obama.

About COLOR: C'mon, do you want $6 GAS, More Whitehouse sex, American Cuffin gifts from Iraq and "World seeing USA as Terror sponsering state"?

FYI, Bush claims he is bringing Iraq to democracy. He made Pakistan go out of democracy into Milatary ruler's hand (Mussharraf) and making the latest Democratic results mean nothing and costing thousands of lives and making more enemies of USA from both Iraq and Pakistan and still not letting the benifit GAS Juices flow all the way to supporters (YOU).

GROW UP.


Hillary HAS ???

She copied Obama's Senate VOTING !!!

If she has experience and Obama doesn't,
I BEG you to explain why you voted exactly same?

She is only fishing for FOOLS. If you are, please VOTE Hillary.

If you are American, VOTE at your Will.


*******

How to Stop Bill in the Hillary White house which could mostly be woman as they are voting?

*******

OR IS IT THE WILL OF VOTER ?

IS HE ALREADY PRE-SCREENING in the Primaries?

Do you want the WORLD To know once again that you VOTED for "IT"?

Bush: Terror Master
McSame: 100 Years more of Bush
Hillary: Supports Bill's Sex in White House once more

You Choose. Now do you want COLOR or more of Terror and Sex and $6.00 Gas, Semon'ed Skirts?

Third world countries which are more religious are accepting COLOR already.

Nothing of above matters as Bush/USA is going to **** WAR **** on Iran on 09/11/2008 or close to that.

If you kill people, you make enemies.

Hillary: I am experienced. McSame is more than me. Obama has a 2002 Speech.

If she wins on that, don't you think McSame can use the same to ask her to Cleanup whitehouse from Bill's mess?

Atleast from 2005, Most Experienced Hillary voted exactly like Obama.

Does it mean Obama is a Jewel and needs no s"Experience" to think Good and Judge right?

Hillary kept pushing Dream Ticket and after rejection, she rejected herself that that is too early.

OH. MY. GOD.

How low you take yourself to BELIEVE in her.

Wake up World Leader. If you do not choose your leader right, World will leave you to WEST.

Late 90s: Bill's Bedtime stories
Early 2000: Bush Terror plots
Late 2000: Bush selling Oil at $4.00 to same m0r0ns who voted for him.

Posted by: BrownShirtGeorge | March 27, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

bfjam--That will never do for the simple reason the Hillary would still be inn second place. Until she is finally convinced that the superdelegates will not give it to her, the mud will continue to fly. BTW, I sure feel sorry for whoever ends up telling her.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure that

KBR, BLACKWATER, DynCorp, CACI, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Halliburton and their subsidiaries....such as


Diebold of the last elections voting machines makers...

hope you, "The People," don't get it that Hillary isn't the


bad guys and that the last 16 years of making up garbage about "the Clintons," hasn't been for naught...


is there a Polarization that is unsolvable....hardly.

would the republicans like to create that ???? certainly.


but, they'd be satisfied with an O baaaaaaaa man that they could control if McCain didn't follow their lead...


who would they hate worse than anyone in the world to be president ????


Hillary Clinton?


why, she knows what's going on.


she probably would require that Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel and other companies had their books examined....if she has a brain.


one doesn't make deals with crab grass or termites


it doesn't work.


Omama is shure the termites are her imagination....

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I think this poll s probably not far off; most of the people who are claiming it can't be true are Obama cult zombies. However at this pont, it is impossible to see a situation where I can be in the same tent as these crazies. Obama cult zombies are on the same scale as the pre-1860 confederates - those morons wanted to keep slavery for ever, while the Obam cult zomies want to put down women for ever.

Fa better that the democratc party is split than to see Obama throned, to the wishes of these zombies.

The only downside to a McCain win is that the supreme court is gone to the far right for the next 25 years, but even that prospect is more appealing than seeing the Obama zombies gloat.

Posted by: intcamd1 | March 27, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama-NOT!

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

Can always tell a Clinton supporter. The say things like; "Polls suggest that African-Americans are not the ones dividing the Democratic Party. If anything, it's the latte liberals."

How about Clinton Parrots? Seems apt to me from what I have heard them say around the web.

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

Obama supporters think they're being cute by editing other people's to reverse their meaning and then reposting them.

All it does is show how incredibly immature they are.

We don't want overgrown children running our country.

We've had enough of that the past seven years.

This isn't a high-school football game.

This is the most important job in the world.

We need the most qualified leader we can get.

That person is Hillary Clinton.

We'll go with McCain as a backup choice if Obama manages to get the nomination before people wake up to how much of an arrogant phony he is.

His supporters remind me of stoned college students.

Its not a pretty sight.

The're not as clever as they think they are and neither is he.

His chickens are coming home to roost.

We not going to elect him to anything.

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

I am an Obama-Not!

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

Hillary and Bill are in denial. Why not focus on the remaining primaries, see how it shakes out, seat the Michigan and Florida folks 50-50 and call it a day. Why wreck your party's chances in November by biting the hands that created you. The more Hillary rants, the more I like Obama.

Posted by: bfjam | March 27, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

O'Johnny Girls
O'Johnny Guys

Posted by: washingtonpost | March 27, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Also, what I find totally absurd are people who continually scream about the last 8 years and then blindly support someone who chants "change" without putting forth what these changes will be. As bad as these people think things are now,they don't seem to grasp that "change for change sake" could be much worse. What is it you want to change? The economy? Then why aren't you also pointing your finger at the Democratic Congress who have done nothing to make any of the issues at stake any better. If you know your history and political science, you would know that domestic issues are mainly taken care of by Congress. And the War in Iraq? Yes, I believe it was a huge mistake, but we're there now, and the reality of it is that the withdrawal has to be done in a very carefully planned manner. Obama really does think like he's a fictional character in a fantasy land. He is clueless about so many issues, people. He is treated like a rock star. Yeah, that makes our Nation look credible.

Both political parties have been p is s poor. I don't want the kind of change Obama is going to bring to our Nation. Two wrongs never make a right, and Obama doesn't have a clue. Both of our political parties need a cleansing and complete overhaul. And our campaigns need to be shortened to about 3 months of campaigning. This is ridiculous how long the campaigning goes on and all of the millions of dollars being spent. We have Hollywood picking our candidates now more than ever. This is sick. A cleansing is definitely needed. But Obama....God help us if he is all we've got to rely on. Sink.

Posted by: goldmdm | March 27, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

hollypots: I am not a Democrat. I will not vote for a pathological liar with narcissistic personality to be president. Anyone who has been burned by someone like her, does not need a psychologist degree to diagnose her mental condition. I will spare you the list of personality traits. Google it. Re-watch her chuckling over dodging sniper bullets. Then listen to their excuse: she was in danger, there was sniper fire in the hills. Then listen again how she said: "that is what I said and that is what happened". Then re-listen to her insist there was no greeting ceremony.

We have suffered 8 years of Clintons and 8 of Bush insanity. Not again. Not ever. If I were agreed to cluster bombs in civilian areas and bombing Iran, I might vote McCain based on Obama's praise of him. I did not study him, due his stance on the issues and much too old to be president.

Obama is my 2nd choice behind Cynthia McKinney, for two reasons: no vote to Patriot Act and impeach Bush/Cheney. Other than that I am okay with Obama's voting records and admire the work he has done on behalf of our veterans. He is green enough for me, against FISA and wire tapping and in favor of Net Neutrality. He has common sense wisdom or logic. I do not know why I use the word "common", hardly evident in government or among citizens.

Posted by: alyceclover | March 27, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The Obamabots are again showing their total lack of regard for anyone that doesn't support Obama. Well ... guess what, Obama folks, you can whine and throw insults and attack and do all of your other hypocritical stuff, but Obama is not going to be the next President.

Posted by: mo897 | March 27, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Once the votes in Maine were counted, it was over. Has been ever since. This is all following an easily predicted script: Obama has sealed his lead of delegates and overall vote. Florida and Michigan change nothing. It boils to this: Do the superdelegates have the guts to pass over a Black man who played by the rules? Under any circumstances, for any real or perceived reason, do they have the political gravitas to do that? We all know the answer.

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

Race is still NOT ON. It is over. There is no way Hillary "sniper-fire" Clinton can win nomination.

Besides, she is a crook and a liar. She will not relase her tax returns, guaranteed! Few weeks ago her sleazy camp manager said she will release her tax returns before April 15. Now they are saying at least 3 days before PA primary. In another couple of weeks they will say on April 22, and then right after April 22.

After April 22, if she still decide not to droip out, she will say, "Sorry suckers, my accountant's computer got a flu, and all the tax info being scrubbed on that machine for the past 14 months are gone. So you will have to give me another 14 months before I can get them ready".

Release your tax returns now.
Let us see who paid you for your senator votes.
Let us see whom you paid to murder Vince Foster.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 27, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

To the Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama because he lacks experience, did you say the same thing when Bill Clinton ran for President. I mean, how does being governor of Arkansas prepare you for running the most powerful country in the world?

There's a long way to November. To be honest, I think Senator McCain is a decent guy--that's to the Republican's credit. However, it will be interesting to see how many "senior moments" he has during the Presidential debates against either of the Democrats highly intelligent challengers. Plus, it will be interesting to see who Senator McCain selects as a VP candidate--a more important choice because of his age. Despite the anger, I don't know many Dems who would vote for Mitt Romney over either candidate.

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

I expect in this very protracted primary season while feelings are running so high, we all feel that we could not possibly vote for the other candidate--I know I do.

But come election day when we are faced with a choice between that senile old warmonger--who doesn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni, but definitely does know that he wants to bomb Iran--and whichever Democrat we end up with, we'll all vote for the Dem. Half of us will, of course, be holding our nose. That's the way it goes.

Posted by: nicekid | March 27, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

##########

Other than a few of the republicans who have written some racist comments here, this has been the most civilized WaPo blog on the Obama_Clinton race - perhaps we will come together.

We don't really have a choice - do we?

##########

Posted by: imright | March 27, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Svreader, you don't represent anyone but Clinton staffers. Go back to fantasy land where you came from.

Posted by: tasteblind | March 27, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure that the


POLARITY BETWEEN Hillary and the Baaaaa man camps is


contrived and created by republicans.

the republicans represent the corporate voice...


and not necessarily of AMERICA.


.
they can sell their message easily to people that don't expect to be misled by their handlers.

just like no one really expects that bush would fabricate a war, so he could occupy IRAQ...


however anyone examining the evidence would come to the conclusion that the "polarity," is a creation of republican propagandists


and the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism,


unless you include the whithouse as the true source of the terrorism...


that is if you have sense enough to unzip your pants to take a leak, if you're wearing pants...


it's that obvious.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters.
Come on over to Fox news with me. At least they are balanced toward the two Dems. They hate them both equally and give both hell equally. They don't bash just Hillary. I don't watch the Obama networks, MSNBC or CNN anymore. I never thought I would say this but it is true.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

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

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

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

People are really, really, angry about it.

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

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

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

It's about Obama's lies.

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

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

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

He's like a human chameleon.

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

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

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Couple that with 8 years of failure by conservatives and you have a cocktail for a beatdown. How is John McCain going to inspire the voter turnout for his party? His great speeches? Conservative talk radio? His flip-flop talk express bus overstuffed with Lobbyists? We all love to engage in punditry but the facts are the facts. Repubs do not have the votes to win. Outside of a total collapse (And I mean TOTAL colapse, not merely a split of the electorate)the Dem party they can offer up a broccoli f-art in a jar and still gain the White House. What planet are you conservatives living on?"

Since when were Americans so afraid of competition? Why does the "media" want to portray Democrats as defectors?

Opps you're right, they call liberals "traitors" all the time.........tell you what.......

I would rather have a "inexperienced" Democrat wasting a billion on helping the poor or disabled or uneducated, than have a neo-con Republican blow a billion on killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and thousands of US service men and women.

In the last 8 years or so Republicans have shown me that they will do anything and everything in their power to keep you from retaining an opinion based on the facts that their incompetence is comprised of.

The deception metastasizes as the months and causalities mount. The President who was never deigned to go to Dover Air Force Base to salute the fallen who are coming home says no photographs of their coffins can be permitted because that would hurt the feelings of the families. This is false, tragically false; the real reason is that day after day the photos would starkly reveal the price of Bush's folly.

Posted by: getcentered | March 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The problem seems to be that the Democrats have come up with TWO candidates from the extreme left of the party, with the result that even some Democrats find unacceptable. How do they ever expect the whole country to vote for them in November?

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

One poster wrote "Be ready for 3 solid months (give or take) of videos of anti-American Wright....". Yes, and get ready for 3 solid months of McCain's little ditty, "Bomb Iran" (sung to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys). IS THAT WHAT YOU ALL WANT???? At last count, Pastor Wright was not running for President. Unfortunately, McCain is. Say what you will about Obama's choice of churches. I do not want John McCain answering any phones in the White House. We need to end the war, not make it worse!

Posted by: mydog2 | March 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

oh, and I nominate Obamanauts and Hilliacs

Posted by: lvansloten | March 27, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Case Number: BC304174, Peter F Paul VS William Jefferson Clinton, court date in Los Angeles, 04/25/2008. Hillary was effective in getting her name removed as a defendant during the lawsuit that was filed 10/14/2003. She was indeed guilty of campaign finance non-disclosure and Paul is offering new evidence. Why does not the media make this front page news? I guess, they too want a 3rd term for Bill~lots of excitement with a soap opera presidency.

Senator Clinton has already voted yes to the Iran Resolution, despite cautions from Russian and China not to invade. We are in debt to China to pay for Iraq, how does she and McCain expect to pay for Iran. Obama is aware that our troops are low. The government has been whispering about bringing back the draft that even Bill dodged in Viet Nam war days.

I do not want my grandchildren being forced to kill or be killed~especially for illegal wars such as Iraq that feather the pockets of people like Cheney, Bush and yes, Bill Clinton. See: Dubai and Bill biz partnership.

Senator Clinton has lead her fawning fans to believe she will fight special interests in DC that Obama is giving "...aid and care to" "like the Republicans". She already said in an early debate she will continue to take lobbyists money because "like it or not those lobbyists are real Americans."

I am not clear on if Hoffman-La Roche are "real Americans." They are only one of the pharmeceutical companies that contributes to her. $10,000. in 2004 and again in 2006.

They were fined for price fixing, in trouble with an FDA approval on Bird Flu Vaccine. Hillary's mandatory with government penalty health INSURANCE does not make health CARE affordable. She promises "hard work" to rid DC of her pharmaceutical friends...sigh.

It discriminates against college students who can not afford her outrageous premiums and still stay in school. It also discriminates against segments of the population that use alternative methods of healing not covered by mainstream insurance.

She should have bowed out gracefully when she ran out of money, rather than destroy a democratic election by pulling the wool over her voters eyes. No decent person that thinks would vote to put Bill back in DC.

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

It isn't whether she wins the nom that upsets me, it's how she's going about it.

They're waging this like it's a lawsuit. Distraction, deception, disparagement, with holding key documents as long as possible, then dumping as much as possible in order to overwhelm, then appealing any decisions that they don't like to higher authority.

Sheesh. They're going to litigate themselves right through their entire reign.

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

I will not vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances. I will not 'fall into line' or 'unite against McCain'. I may find a 3rd party candidate who is less offensive to me than Obama, or I may vote for McCain, I'd have to see who is on the ballot in my state. I'm so sick of the deception and lies and trickery of the last 8 years, and I will not vote for a sleazy, deceptive, or dishonest candidate.

And I am a hardcore Democrat who crossed party lines under a similar situation in a local election last year, so do not doubt my sincerity. And that I know countless others like me, who will do the same.

Posted by: bryangb86 | March 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

richardb1

looks like a repubblingcan to me...


a sellor of position....


the old line is if something is repeated oft enough it becomes the truth.

I don't see what you see, so you must be selling or ignorant.


howzzat richardb1


what's your response?


who's Zalmay? who's Richard Perle, Armitage, what's the connection between

Panama, Iran, Ecuador, Iraq, Afghanistan ???


no clue?


it figures.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I've told everyone I know that I will support the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that ends up being. Any other position after 8 years of Bush is ASININE.

Posted by: shawngust | March 27, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Definitely not Obama.
I prefer not to make a person President of this great Nation, who has incredibly poor judgment, as to sit in a Church pew for 20 years and counting, listening to a lunatic preacher spewing hatred against our government and against white people to an audience of African Americans standing and applauding to these paranoid, blistering rants against our Nation and Caucasians. Obama can "spin it" any way he wants, but only those who believed "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit" was an accurate statement can also believe that Obama's personal background makes him credible to be the President of the United States of America. The fact that any American would consider voting for this guy, who is either a racist, anti-American government and anti-Semite himself or, at the very least, has extremely poor judgment. He gives a "speech" to talk about racial relations in our Nation but never addressed the actual problem, never taking responsibility for his actions (or non-actions) over the past 20 years. He loves to give speeches and be fawned over. I expect "a lot more" from the President of our Nation. So, either Hillary wins the nomination or, yes, I will vote for McCain in a heartbeat. And if Hillary does get the nomination and chooses Obama as her VP, I would never vote for that ticket either -- I don't want Obama just a "heartbeat away from the Presidency either. I don't believe he has spoken many truths at all since he began, but he likes to throw uplifting chants out there, which make people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Nothing could be further from reality with Obama. He's much further to the left than he is putting out in his campaign. Even one of his own campaign persons said that Obama won't be able to just pull the troops out of Iraq if he is President, but that he just says that during the campaign. I couldn't believe she said that, but she did revealing that Obama is basically lying to make his campaign more uplifting. He is a total fraud and, even worse, one without any experience. He has done absolutely nothing to warrant running for the highest office in the Western World. The most significant piece of information about Obama is that he supported a racist, anti_American, anti-Semite preacher and church for 20+ years. The rest is just empty speeches. No thanks.

Posted by: goldmdm | March 27, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Well, all you Rush devotees will be mighty sad....

Hillary just said that none of her supporters should vote for McCain regardless of what happens and Obama said he's open to revotes in Fl and Mi.

I can hear Rush crying now.

Oh what will you Rush-nuts do for fun now??

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse


.
If hussein doesn't get to steal the nomination, his supporters will, no doubt, riot and burn Watts and other major centers of "uncle" jerry's hatred. Meanwhile, the Hillary supporters will find somebody that isn't a disciple of a racist hate-monger to vote for. None of this will be a surprise to anybody but the naive hussein supporters.

So, Dems, let's finally get real and nominate the ONLY person that should have been considered initially: GORE. Millions of people will vote to RE-ELECT the person we elected president in 2000. GORE will be a SLAM DUNK WIN FOR THE DEMS.

.

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

The odds on Obama winning the Democratic nomination are now very strong. The only thing likely to upend that prediction is the revelation of truly and unexpectedly damaging information about him--and by that I certainly don't mean the fact that he's been a member of Rev. Wright's congregation. And in such a case (assuming this is before the Convention), the Democrats will either turn to Hillary or will draft Gore. (The Gore option applies only if Hillary herself has not been fatally damaged by the mudslinging she and her people are currently doing or if new Clinton scandals erupt.)

There is, of course, the possibility that Hillary and her supporters among the party poohbahs will contrive to grab the nomination away from Obama by various corrupt-politics maneuvers rather than as a result of a massive stumble by Obama himself. If some kind of a "steal" occurs, then yes indeed, there will be a convention as tumultuous and bloody as Chicago '68. And Obama's core supporters--black people, young people, and upscale liberals--will either defect to McCain (or some protest candidate) or stay home in November. (I remember 1968 very well--and I voted for Dick Gregory after what the Hump and Mayor Daly did to us Bobby/McCarthy/McGovern people.)

My sense is now that many Obama supporters are telling pollsters they'd vote for McCain under circumstances that resemble the steadling-the-convention scenario outlined here. If Obama should lose fair-and-square, through some (as yet unperceived) fault of his own, then we'll unite behind whoever the party nominates because we really do know how horrendous the price of another 4-8 years of a Republican president is going to be.

As for the Clinton people who say they'd vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, my guess is that several factors are at play. First and foremost is the frustration and disappointment of people who have been committed to a candidate who now appears headed for defeat. At this point in any hard-fought campaign it's normal to expect to hear such blowing-off-of-steam. But there probably are some Hillaryites who are getting dug into their intransigence. I suspect that they break down into these camps:

1. Hardcore feminists, mostly 40 and older, for whom Hillary's entitlement to the presidency, as a woman, is non-negotiable and the single issue on which they are voting.

2. Whites and Latinos (and Asians?) who harbor deep-down fears of blacks and/or deep-dyed racial prejudice against blacks. I would expect that most of these people are older-generation and blue-collar.

3. A relatively small minority of Jews and fundamentalist Christians who fear that under Obama's Muslim ancestry lurks some kind of crypto-Islamic menace and/or insufficient zeal for Israel. These are the kind of people who are susceptible to scare-mongering about what our old friend "JakeD" likes to smear as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama."

I think that we can see evidence of all three of those single-issue anti-Obama voters active on this and other blogs.

Posted by: jm917 | March 27, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

hey chris


SEARCH on Zalmay Khalilzad, Hamid Karzai, unocal, chevron, taliban, helms, cheney, rice

SEARCH on Trans Afghanistan Pipeline, Taliban, Crawford, Unocal, Houston

you'll find that a deal for the Trans Afghanistan pipeline

valued at $13 TRILLION was solidified in Houston Court TEXAS, that would have allowed an Argentinian company development rights, and profited the Taliban was voided


by the invasion of IRAQ, when bushes dawg Unocal / Chevron lost in court...


you are simply put "another ignorant of what is going on AMERICAN,"


or a liar....which is it?


Grenada was about drugs....and unrecorded profits from them going to the CIA members who were willing to follow the bush cheney lead into felon hood...


want to verify that ????


SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, cocaine, Letter of Understanding


read the letter of understanding, it allows the CIA to drug traffick in AFGHANINSTAN and central and south AMERICAN w/o recording profits and remaining immune from prosecution for those activities...


AFGHANISTAN supplied 93 PERCENT of the worlds HEROIN Last year...2007

it's a fact, an UNDENIABLE REPORTED ON FACT !!!!!!!!


that's about $342 BILLION DOLLARS IN UNRECORDED PROFIT....for bushCO and CRONYs...


pull your head out learn to be an informed citizens not a parrot parrot parrot...how about reporting the truth,


not the MC_CORPORATE LINE


how about making sure your country wins.


.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

My family and I have been saying for months that if Obama is the nominee, we will vote for McCain, as have most of our Democratic friends.

What you fail to note in your post is that 41% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, meaning that 13% will probably not vote at all, whereas 28% of Obama voters will not vote for Clinton, indicating that 9% will not vote at all. These numbers are very telling if one considers that several months ago, the entitled, hubristic, cynical, patronizing Mr. Obama went on the airwaves and declared that most Clinton supporters would vote for him, whereas most of his supporters would not vote for Hillary. Like so many other things he has said and done, he was simply wrong as are his very vitriolic supporters. I think of your first two highly offensive posters in this blog. So far, Hillary and Obama have almost evenly split the popular vote, so why do these very offensive Obama supporters keep insisting that she drop out? The race is still on, folks, and she will prevail and will be our first Madam President.

Posted by: feliciaczin | March 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

My family and I have been saying for months that if Obama is the nominee, we will vote for McCain, as have most of our Democratic friends.

What you fail to note in your post is that 41% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, meaning that 13% will probably not vote at all, whereas 28% of Obama voters will not vote for Clinton, indicating that 9% will not vote at all. These numbers are very telling if one considers that several months ago, the entitled, hubristic, cynical, patronizing Mr. Obama went on the airwaves and declared that most Clinton supporters would vote for him, whereas most of his supporters would not vote for Hillary. Like so many other things he has said and done, he was simply wrong as are his very vitriolic supporters. I think of your first two highly offensive posters in this blog. So far, Hillary and Obama have almost evenly split the popular vote, so why do these very offensive Obama supporters keep insisting that she drop out? The race is still on, folks, and she will prevail and will be our first Madam President.

Posted by: feliciaczin | March 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I'll deal with these sock puppets by going to another paper and create a host of aliases and Ctrl V my rants -- oh, sorry svreader. Looks like you have done that already.

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

....however it was Michell Obama who fist said when asked by Diane Sawyer if she would support Senator Clinton if she won the nominee and she said no....

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

um. not true.

She said she'd have to think about it.
Perfectly good American answer.

I'm sure you just had a hyperbolic moment.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to destroy Hillary. She and Bill are doing that on their own, along with a pattern of dodging, deception and mis speaking which is called lying beyond the Beltway. And there are many Americans who are tired of a dynasty or a third time for Bill, which a lot of Hillary backers are really seeking.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | March 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

How about a poll on how many people are sick of the media sicking supporters of the candidates one against the other? Let's unite against our common enemy.


The media. >:-D

E pluribus unum, and all that.

Posted by: treetopflyer | March 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Post convention when tempers cool and teamwork flourishes
Posted by: dkummer1 | March 27, 2008 06:47 P

and all you dems are going to eat a big smelly pie of dung....yum!

Posted by: vinnieceskins | March 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again, I will not vote for anybody, and I mean anybody, who voted for and supported the Iraq War. Period.

If you want a second reason for Hillary, she is so many pockets she has lost count.

If you want a third reason, she is disingenuous to the point of pathological.

You got that one, Clinton Democrats? (Registered Democrat signing in here.)

Posted by: richardb1 | March 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing about these Democrats for McCain, but I haven't met one yet. Are you sure they exist? I support Obama, as do most of my friends, but we'll all vote for Clinton if she ends up the nominee. After 8 years of Bush, you can bet on that.

Posted by: irratical | March 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

It's like the old Red Sox, isn't it? Every year, April would look great and then October would come around and you'd realize that they were going to blow it again. And you'd resign yourself and endure the postmortem (you can't win on pitchers alone/they don't have any pitching, blah, blah, blah.)

And then, much to everyone's surprise, including their own, one year they had a bunch of team players who went out and played their hearts out and were happy. And they won! I just don't see the same happy ending for the Dems, though. Frankly, I'd rather vote for Manny and Ortiz at this point. At least they know they're playing on the same team.

Posted by: newcanoes | March 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should just get out of the race. She's destroying the party and America's chances to finally get a stand-up president.

Obama '08

Posted by: nezbangi | March 27, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

neither Obama nor Hillary


created the current polarization between supporters...

it's a republican spin


created thing....anyone saying otherwise is a liar or a pollster making money off of a republican slanted poll...

trying to get the sheep to move in a particular direction so that they can be sheared....


Obama will be republican backed if he appears more usable than Hillary.


Right now, he has republican support because they don't want anyone in the whitehouse with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, that can take down their house of corruption that the last 8 years of opportunity have and has afforded them...


Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Blackwater, KBR, DynCorp, CACI, Computer Sciences Corp., Bechtel, Exxon Mobil, Chevron


and others would not like to have to work for a living,


or have their books examined by impartial parties...


this drek about Hillary or the baaaa man or neither is garbage...a who cares that can be remedied by acknowledging the source


the republicans and their spin machine.


period.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Post convention when tempers cool and teamwork flourishes..the Dems will set out to beat McBush. Kennedy Johnson did it and so can Obama and Clinton. They don't necessarily have to be on the same ticket to loyally and enthusiastically support the nominee. Besides, does anyone truely believe Hillary or Obama would not vote for the nomine over McBush. End the Iraq War NOW!

Posted by: dkummer1 | March 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"If Not Clinton or Obama, Who?
The Fix | If favored candidate loses nomination, poll shows some supporters will not vote Democrat."

Chris--You need to complain to your headline writer that they are falling into the right-wing trap of using "Democrat" rather than "Democratic," which would be correct in this context.
Thanks,
Laurie Larson

Posted by: lalava1953 | March 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Post convention when tempers cool and teamwork flourishes..the Dems will set out to beat McBush. Kennedy Johnson did it and so can Obama and Clinton. they don't necessarily have to be on the same ticket to loyally and enthusiastically support the nominee. Besides, does anyone truely believe Hillary or Obama would not vote for the nomine over McBush. End the Iraq War NOW!

Posted by: dkummer1 | March 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The best term to describe both the Obamacain and the McClinton is Jackass. The Jackass is not only the symbol of the party but an apt description of both of these groups of idiots.

Posted by: w_matthew_robinson | March 27, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Would these polled "Democrats" really prefer that John McCain nominate the next Supreme Court justices? C'mon people! Either Clinton or Obama would be immeasurably better than McCain.

Posted by: observant1 | March 27, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

If you're an Obama supporter who can't bring yourself to vote for Clinton if she is the eventual nominee or vice versa, do the rest of us a favor: exercise your right not to vote in the general election.

Presumably, you are an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter because you share your candidate's beliefs. Voting for a Republican presidential candidate who does not share your beliefs to demonstrate your dislike of the Democratic Party's nominee is downright stupid.

Posted by: exco | March 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have already lost the White House. I will not vote for Obama no matter what. He is not qualified, plain and simple. He is just two years out of the Illinois State Senate. McCain is the evil I know and he is not an idealogue. Clinton has been screwed by the press, campaign mistakes (not unlike Kerry) and by the left wing of the Democratic Party who hate the Clintons, and I include Howard Dean in this, as he replaced Terry McAulife (a Clinton supporter) as head of the DNC, and Dean has proceeded to bankrupt the DNC. If Hillary took all the delegates in the states she won, she would have the nomination and we would be on our way to the White House. The Democrats will lose Florida and Michigan, so they can't win the White House. Dean is a genuis! But, having said that, my focus is to work to get my representative elected (to replace a Republican) and forget about the national election. Like it or not, it's President McCain. The left wing will be happy because Obama will get the nomination. But he will lose 40 states (since he can't even win a big Democratic state in a Democratic primary except his own) and Hillary can run again in 2012. The left wing candidate has NEVER won an election (1972, McGovern).

Posted by: xplanes | March 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

To say nothing of the Rush Limbaugh listeners who've voted for Hillary in Texas and/or Ohio at his suggestion. I do also agree with the argument that part of this reaction comes from the heated nature of this primary contest between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: jschreiber1 | March 27, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama the racist and idiot ! Those who support him are no better than him.

Obama's Lie's

www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/15919/4101

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | March 27, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hussein Osama Saddam should be deported to Kenya for his continuing hate crimes against the white people of AmeriKKKA!

Posted by: vinnieceskins | March 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many Democrats would rather vote for McCain than their second-choice Democrat. (At least that's how people feel today). Tempers are flared up right now. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. Not even close. But is she better than McCain? Of course!!! I think most people are aligned with the personalities and character of the candidates, because their positions are largely similar. (Their tactics are very different, however). The bottom line is that whichever candidate wins fairly should have the support of the party. And voting for the Republican out of spite sounds like a child having a tantrum. (Grow up!!!) In November, I think most Dems will vote for the party's candidate and those that don't -- let them join the Republican party! We don't need or want them, particularly since they're putting their own animosity before the good of the country (and the world).

Posted by: hollypots | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

These despicable, hate-filled posts by Obama supporters are making it impossible for Obama to gain our support.

Obama cannot get the votes will not reach the 2025 needed for the nomination.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: krm22201 | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

there is no parity no even coverage of candidates...


the president has been having a gay man spend the night at the whithouse for 2 years


and it never shows up on the front or the back pages of the Washington Post...

You hear about Bill Clintons liason with a consenting heterosexual

for 16 years...


with the strongest disparagers people with the morality of slime mold...


what gives???

Posted by: a_bigone | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

How bitter do you consider yourself over the Democratic Nomination?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1983

.

Posted by: PollM | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

TALVES wrote, "it was Michell Obama who fist said when asked by Diane Sawyer if she would support Senator Clinton if she won the nominee and she said no."

First time I have heard this and I am surprised the news media did not make a big deal out of her comments.

I could not support Obama if his wife will not support Hillary.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

For all your lefties out there:

People have made - and for many good reasons - accusations that the last 8 years have been not the brightest and shiniest of America's history and change is the chant of the moment.

Change to what?

Both of the socialists running on the left are serving members of the senate.

They both regale us with their "vision" and ability to unite.

Fine.

Exactly what legislation have they authored and created bi-partisan support which has passed and will help America oout of its "quagmire?"

Answer? Zip. None. Nada.

Unless, of course, you count the imaginary role obama had in certain legislation.

Which is almost as rich as hillary pretending to have been under sniper fire.

At least obama stole the thunder of mice - not men.

Good grief, they are both so immersed in their personal ego trips, they haven't voted in months - let alone crafted legislation.

And I think they were hire to do that.

Face it - they are hacks. They will both do anything and say anything to get elected. Their biggest accomplishment is that they claim to not be republicans.

Well, I suppose they have agreed to at least tell the truth on that one.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | March 27, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

It cracks me up everytime I see an Obama supoporter posting:

"Obama is so full of good ideas and Hillary has none"

Obama got those ideas from Hillary

He can't do a press conference because there is not teleprompter, so his speeches while inspirational are a crutch and pretty soon, it won't be speech time anymore

he doesn't have the mettle

Posted by: lndlouis | March 27, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the correct numbers were here displayed on the democrats' poll. Last night NBC News wrongly stated that "about 20% for each side would not vote for the other candidate." That is blatantly misleading. The poll shows that nearly 30% of Clinton backers would not vote obama, while nearly 20% of obamanites would not vote Clinton. I'm in the 30% bracket.

Posted by: familynet | March 27, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I think vishu's got it right and matthewteaman is the idiot. Now go somewhere and stop bothering us.

Posted by: TALVES | March 27, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Neither Obama nor Clinton can remove the chasm they gave created. The Dem convention needs to release the delegates, seat split numbers from Fl and Mi and select a candidate who could be chosen by acclamation to run against McCain. O and C are not cast in stone as the only choice. I would use every skill I have to persuade Powell to switch and run against those who dismissed his wisdom and experience. He and one of many others would be their dream team. But, there are many well qualified Democrats who would be better, at this point, than either Obama or Clinton. They have destroyed each other beyond recovery.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 27, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

If you are still looking for a name of those folks that go with their candidate or McCain. How about "Mavericrates?" (McCain being always known as "a Maverick.")

Posted by: cqgarling | March 27, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many Democrats would rather vote for McCain than their second-choice Democrat. (At least that's how people feel today). Tempers are flared up right now. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. Not even close. But is she better than McCain? Of course!!! I think most people are aligned with the personalities and character of the candidates, because their positions are largely similar. (Their tactics are very different, however). The bottom line is that whichever candidate wins fairly should have the support of the party. And voting for the Republican out of spite sounds like a child having a tantrum. (Grow up!!!) In November, I think most Dems will vote for the party's candidate and those that don't -- let them join the Republican party! We don't need or want them, particularly since they're putting their own animosity before the good of the country (and the world).

Posted by: hollypots | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many Democrats would rather vote for McCain than their second-choice Democrat. (At least that's how people feel today). Tempers are flared up right now. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. Not even close. But is she better than McCain? Of course!!! I think most people are aligned with the personalities and character of the candidates, because their positions are largely similar. (Their tactics are very different, however). The bottom line is that whichever candidate wins fairly should have the support of the party. And voting for the Republican out of spite sounds like a child having a tantrum. (Grow up!!!) In November, I think most Dems will vote for the party's candidate and those that don't -- let them join the Republican party! We don't need or want them, particularly since they're putting their own animosity before the good of the country (and the world).

Posted by: hollypots | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many Democrats would rather vote for McCain than their second-choice Democrat. (At least that's how people feel today). Tempers are flared up right now. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. Not even close. But is she better than McCain? Of course!!! I think most people are aligned with the personalities and character of the candidates, because their positions are largely similar. (Their tactics are very different, however). The bottom line is that whichever candidate wins fairly should have the support of the party. And voting for the Republican out of spite sounds like a child having a tantrum. (Grow up!!!) In November, I think most Dems will vote for the party's candidate and those that don't -- let them join the Republican party! We don't need or want them, particularly since they're putting their own animosity before the good of the country (and the world).

Posted by: hollypots | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many Democrats would rather vote for McCain than their second-choice Democrat. (At least that's how people feel today). Tempers are flared up right now. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. Not even close. But is she better than McCain? Of course!!! I think most people are aligned with the personalities and character of the candidates, because their positions are largely similar. (Their tactics are very different, however). The bottom line is that whichever candidate wins fairly should have the support of the party. And voting for the Republican out of spite sounds like a child having a tantrum. (Grow up!!!) In November, I think most Dems will vote for the party's candidate and those that don't -- let them join the Republican party! We don't need or want them, particularly since they're putting their own animosity before the good of the country (and the world).

Posted by: hollypots | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis said: "Sorry Harlemboy but that's just wrong. My wife and I, as well as almost my entire immediate family (mom, dad, sister, etc) are all educated 'latte liberal' white folks who support Obama for obvious reasons. But we'll all vote for Hillary if she somehow becomes the nominee. My aunt, however, supports Clinton but says she'll vote McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nod."

Your aunt is not the only one. The Wright controversy might turn out to be "death by a thousand cuts" for Obama as more and more details are revealed about Jeremiah Wright. A lot of conservative Democrats, most of whom support Hillary in the primary, will not vote for Obama.

So, your comment suggests that Hillary is more electable than Obama, which is what I believe.

Posted by: harlemboy | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

How about: citizens? Informed citizens versus gullible citizens? Senator Clinton has gloated over "creating enough doubt" about Obama that her followers believe every lie she and Bill tells them. It is possible she has smeared his name and defamed his character to the point that her followers will not vote for Obama. Sad, they do not know that whatever she accuses Obama is her own crimes.

Newly registered 19 year olds do not want a Bush/Clinton dynasty in DC. Many will not vote at all if Obama is not the Democrat bid. The Republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama will vote McCain. The Republicans who crossed over to vote Clinton see her as an easy win for McCain so they were trying to help Obama lose in popular votes. They will vote McCain.

The voters who do not want an impeached, lying, disbarred, womanizing man of low morals and zero integrity back in DC will not vote for a much toted "co-presidency" with him as her close personal adviser; illegal it seems if anyone thought about the spouse of a two term pres running for the job. But whoever can think with all of Clintons kitchen stink dominating the news.

Those who were oppossed to Iraq will vote Nadar of McKinney before they vote Clinton.

If the media ever reports on Bill's trial beginning on 4/25 perhaps voters would be more informed and recall the Clinton year scandals. Hillary has effectively handed McCain a win, unless she apologizes for her lies, smears and tells her followers the truth about herself. That is no guarantee, because a number of her voters are bigoted against biracial citizens.

Posted by: alyceclover | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I think its going to be a long hot summer of riots and national Upheaval across the country, the democatic party will no longer be a viable national party, Bill Clinton and his family will leave the country and be hidden somewhere overseas, because he will be too chicken to get involved in the real fights. His family is all talk, just a lot of hot wind hidding behind the secret service, thats the only reason he is so mouthy. But, I really doubt a lot more than 19% of Senator Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary. She is pretty much killing the party for up and coming young democrats, and really positioning John McCain for 4 more years of a Republican whitehouse. As a democrat, I would vote for John McCain before I voted for Hillary.

Posted by: dbremner | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I think its going to be a long hot summer of riots and national Upheaval across the country, the democatic party will no longer be a viable national party, Bill Clinton and his family will leave the country and be hidden somewhere overseas, because he will be too chicken to get involved in the real fights. His family is all talk, just a lot of hot wind hidding behind the secret service, thats the only reason he is so mouthy. But, I really doubt a lot more than 19% of Senator Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary. She is pretty much killing the party for up and coming young democrats, and really positioning John McCain for 4 more years of a Republican whitehouse. As a democrat, I would vote for John McCain before I voted for Hillary.

Posted by: dbremner | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I think its going to be a long hot summer of riots and national Upheaval across the country, the democatic party will no longer be a viable national party, Bill Clinton and his family will leave the country and be hidden somewhere overseas, because he will be too chicken to get involved in the real fights. His family is all talk, just a lot of hot wind hidding behind the secret service, thats the only reason he is so mouthy. But, I really doubt a lot more than 19% of Senator Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary. She is pretty much killing the party for up and coming young democrats, and really positioning John McCain for 4 more years of a Republican whitehouse. As a democrat, I would vote for John McCain before I voted for Hillary.

Posted by: dbremner | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Whenever svreader gets called out, he runs away like the gutless punk he is, and his same ad nauseam remarks make their way onto this board via his aliases. newagent99, lylepink, lndlouis. Do you use the same sock puppets in Columbus, svreader, for your cowardly attacks on Clinton? Hmmmm?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I think its going to be a long hot summer of riots and national Upheaval across the country, the democatic party will no longer be a viable national party, Bill Clinton and his family will leave the country and be hidden somewhere overseas, because he will be too chicken to get involved in the real fights. His family is all talk, just a lot of hot wind hidding behind the secret service, thats the only reason he is so mouthy. But, I really doubt a lot more than 19% of Senator Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary. She is pretty much killing the party for up and coming young democrats, and really positioning John McCain for 4 more years of a Republican whitehouse. As a democrat, I would vote for John McCain before I voted for Hillary.

Posted by: dbremner | March 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm one of those Obama fans that flirted with threatening to bolt to Sen. McCain if Mrs. Clinton manages to steal this nomination. But all I had to do is to go onto his website to be reminded this is no "maverick" centrist. John McCain is a conservative Republican, pledged to continue the failed Iraq strategy and wedded to the failed Bush economic strategies. And need I remind you: SUPREME COURT?? A general election campaign focusing on the real differences between John McCain and ANY democrat is going to bring all but the most masochistic dems back to the fold.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Rev Racist Wright, Barack HUSSEIN'S mentor, the gift that keeps on giving....

Enjoy the video all you Marxist Democrats!

'Garlic Noses': Discovered Eulogy by Reverend Wright Rife With Stereotypes

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=68604

Posted by: vinnieceskins | March 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hilary Clinton began the whole nasty attacks when she realised that she couldn't get what she wanted; she should have been booted out at the very beginning..it's just gone from bad to worse since then.
It's obvious that she doesn't want a Democrat to win the election unless it's herself. GET RID OF HER...SHE'S DESTROYING ANY CHANCE OD DEFEATING THE REPUBLICANS.

Posted by: pathina
=======================================

You Obamanites are such liars or so dumb you don't even know you're liars. John Edwards and Barack Obama started this negativity in the MSNBC debate, a** holes. Tell the truth for a change.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I never voted for a party. I vote for the good of the country. I could really see Hillary fcuk up this country royally if she were the Prez. G Waterboarding B would not be half bad as Hillary.

If not Obama, there's no other choice but McCain.

Posted by: jellybean1 | March 27, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Ok, if you like Obama or Hilary fine but to go with McCain over either one of the other two, well I have a good name for that "IDIOT"!!!!!

Posted by: pav1028 | March 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I'd take a 2nd term of Jimmy Carter over a 3rd term of Bush any time!

Liberals beat the Nazis (Repugnicans didn't want to get involved) and led successful occupations creating strong allies. All conservatives give us is recession, needless war and record outsourcing. Middle class suffering while writing blank checks to Halliburton. Meanwhile there are more terrorists than ever our military is strained to the point where we couldn't respond to a real threat and we're less safe. By any standard America is doing worse than it was 8 years ago.

Taxes? I think 4 bucks a gallon is worse than any tax Clinton or Jimmy Carter ever imposed --not that I'm paying any less in taxes than when Clinton was in office. The tax cuts for millionaires didn't create jobs or bring our GDP up or anything except set us further in debt to countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Way to go, cons. You had your chance --now step aside and let the grown-ups run the country again.

Posted by: shanon1 | March 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I never voted for a party. I vote for the good of the country. I could really see Hillary fcuk up this country royally if she were the Prez. G Waterboarding B would not half bad as Hillary. And McCain is definitely better than Hillary - there's no contest there.

If not Obama, there's no choice but McCain.

Posted by: jellybean1 | March 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

This endless hourly update of who "thinks" what is mostly irrelevant. Some Obama followers will likely not vote at all, some Clinton followers, ditto. But when push comes to shove, when the argument is keep those rosaries off my ovaries...who gets to be nominated to the Supreme Court over the next five years... it becomes clear that liberal males, moderate males,& the majority of female voters will not vote for The Ancient Mariner whose ideological tendencies are toward meddling with personal and women's rights, appointing Ayatollahs to the court, and forgetting what he said he meant the day before.

Posted by: rpmcestmoicoxnet | March 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a huge Clinton supporter but I had said for the beginning I would support whoever the nominee is however it was Michell Obama who fist said when asked by Diane Sawyer if she would support Senator Clinton if she won the nominee and she said no. So much for unifying the party. Those two do not deserve to be in the White House. Vote Clinton.

Posted by: TALVES | March 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Make way, Democrats ... for MR. GLOBAL WARMING! (Back to that ambulance-chasing, Pretty Boy!)

Posted by: sawargos | March 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I never vote for a party. I vote for the good of the country. I could really see Hillary fcuk up this country royally if she were the Prez. G Waterboarding B would not half bad as Hillary. And McCain is definitely better than Hillary - there's no contest there.

If not Obama, there's no choice but McCain.

Posted by: jellybean1 | March 27, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why no one seems to notice that almost 30% of Clinton supporters will will vote for McCain. That probably means even more will just not vote at all.

Clinton's demographic are all people who traditionaly vote in every election (Senior Citizens, Women, Regan Democrates, and $50k and under unionized employees).

Obama's demographic are ultra liberal elitists, Blacks, and Students. Traditionaly most students do not vote. So part of Obama's 20% won't usually vote anyway.

What that means is if Obama gets the nomination (and he probably will if the media doesn't stop kissing his feet)he will never be able to capture the Democratic base and will loose the General Election.

Obama has no chance of winning! What a waste of a perfect opportunity to win back the White House. It makes me sick!

Posted by: rusty1492 | March 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"A new Gallup poll shows a significant number of supporters of both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) would not vote for the other Democrat in the general election should their favored candidate lose the nomination. These folks say they would instead back Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)."

This is insane. When election day arrives, it's hard for me to believe many Clinton supporters would vote for McCain out of spite.

While Clinton has become an embarrassment to her party and her desperate subterfuge pitiful and pathetic, most of her positions closely mirror those of Obama, and not those of McCain (McBush). The longer she slings the mud and attempts to damage Obama's candidacy, the worse it will be for anyone that can't wait for the Bush years to end.

Posted by: MilwGonzo | March 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Clinton will have any trouble polishing off McCain. She got rid of all the other old white men going for the dems pretty handily. I think the Obama (young, cute, smooth) phenomenon took her by surprise, since she is none of the above. But if you visualize her one-in-one in debates with McCain, with her smarts, and her willingness to study-up and her openness to ideas, and her policies, then I dems will go for her.

She got her experience the way generations and generations of women got their experience, and although that is not what I hope for the future generations, the playing field was NOT LEVEL for her. She's done what she needed to do, and if it isn't always a pretty picture, well, neither was LBJ, neither was Truman, and other presidents that we now honor, despite their flaws.

Moreover, she won a second term in NY, when she was originally a carpetbagger. Yes, she "brought home the bacon" for that state. But isn't that what we are asking, in terms of the US ecomony? To get a little of our own back in world markets, to be competitive? That shows she has the ability to win the national election, and, more importantly, to run this country.

Posted by: ingbermr | March 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Gallup's closer look at the data
(from Gallup's site):
Across the board, the data show that Democratic support in the general election is more at risk among some subgroups of voters than among others. In particular, independent voters who lean Democratic are more likely than any other subgroup tested to say they would vote for McCain if their candidate does not gain the nomination. Additionally, conservative Democrats appear to be less attached to the party than are liberal Democrats, and more willing to say they would vote for McCain if their candidate is not the nominee.

Almost 4 out of 10 voters in these two groups who support Clinton say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. The percentages are still high, but about 10 points lower, for voters in these groups who support Obama when asked about a McCain-Clinton contest.

These findings are not necessarily surprising, but underscore Democrats' vulnerability with voters who are positioned somewhat more in the middle of the political or ideological spectrum. This may also reflect McCain's strong appeal to independent voters, who may not need much nudging to shift their vote from a Democratic candidate to McCain.

Posted by: AKafir | March 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

If you go to CNN, one of the journalists have thoroughly investigated the story, and found the full sermon with Rev Wright that shows what Obama's "spiritual advisor" thinks of "the institution of goverment" and how this is seen in the new/old testement.

Here are the ones that is still the topic of conversation, because people are trying to keep controversy going for their own agenda, but these are largely unedited, so that you can get the full context. Other sermons can be found in their entirety at the church website, if they still sell due to the ugly things purchasers have done with prior material.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/


It doesn't matter what the current vote count is.

There's no way America can be the same after this.

Its not going to go away, until we are face up to how we all attribute to racism, sexism, ageism, and other bias'.

I'm white, and I've never been exposed to anything outside my closed reality.

It's extremely disturbing to hear something I don't understand.

I never knew such this type of indignation existed in the 21st century.

He sounds like a human who is angry with an institution that preys on people, regardless of race, sex: all to gain/keep more power and money.

Its interesting.

It makes Obama electable, and it opens my eyes to new things, that's for sure.

Have a great Day!
:)

Changed original post by: svreader | March 27, 2008 05:33 PM

Posted by: 4taz | March 27, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton supporter who at this point would probably vote for McCain over Obama at the general election. I just don't trust Obama's judgment after this whole pastor debacle and Canada/NAFTA situation.

Posted by: brilevy | March 27, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I've got another name for Obamaites.... CULT MEMBERS.
They are wacked!

Posted by: newagent99 | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Randy - you sound like an idiot. Coincidence?

http://think.mtv.com/briantrich/

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

If you go to CNN, one of the journalists have thoroughly investigated the story, and found the full sermon with Rev Wright that shows what Obama's "spiritual advisor" thinks of "the institution of goverment" and how this is seen in the new/old testement.

Here are the ones that is still the topic of conversation, because people are trying to keep controversy going for their own agenda, but these are largely unedited, so that you can get the full context. Other sermons can be found in their entirety at the church website, if they still sell due to the ugly things purchasers have done with prior material.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/


It doesn't matter what the current vote count is.

There's no way America can be the same after this.

Its not going to go away, until we are face up to how we all attribute to racism, sexism, ageism, and other bias'.

I'm white, and I've never been exposed to anything outside my closed reality.

It's extremely disturbing to hear something I don't understand.

I never knew such this type of indignation existed in the 21st century.

He sounds like a human who is angry with an institution that preys on people, regardless of race, sex, to gain power and money.

Its interesting.

It makes Obama electable, and it opens my eyes to new things, that's for sure.

Have a great Day!
:)

Changed original post by: svreader | March 27, 2008 05:33 PM

Posted by: 4taz | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I've got another name for Obamaites.... CULT MEMBERS.
They are wacked!

Posted by: newagent99 | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Each person should vote for whom they want in November.

What's the problem?

The fact that an Obama supporter won't vote for Hillary or a Hillary supporter won't vote for Obama or a Huckabee supporter won't vote for McCain... SO WHAT?

Why do you think that will in any way effect anyone else's vote?

We vote for whom we believe will best serve this nation (and no doubt our own interests).

We sound like a nation of petulant children.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Obamavericks Versus the Clinstigators!!

hilarious!!!

the rest are super lame.

great blog chris keep it up

Posted by: dahl | March 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

We already have a name for ObamaCains... OBAMANATION!

YOU RACE HATING, BIGOT LOVING, GOD DAMNING AMERICANS!

You know, I kinda of hope that you know nothing inspirational idoits get exactly the nominee you want.

Then we will choose "WHO WE WANT!"

Obama's a joke...

Posted by: randymk1 | March 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

archiesboy wrote, "Any Democrat petulant enough to vote for McCain *for any reason whatsoever* simply doesn't understand what calamitous damage he or she is doing."

Archie,

Will you vote for Hillary when she is nominated at the convention?

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The numbers may be wrong, but it is very likely that old feminist women will not vote for Obama who has dashed their hopes and some proud African Americans will not vote for Clinton after getting bruished by the Clintons. But I doubt if they will vote for McCain though.

Posted by: rosetee | March 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Once Obama comes to his senses, backs out of this race or accepts the VP slot, we can take on McCain and win. Obama should not be in this race - two years in the Senate is laughable. Without doubt, if Obama takes the nomination, the Democrats will lose the election. He will divide the Party as a result. Tragic, but typical. The disdain by Obama supporters for Clinton rivals the disdain of Limbuagh, Coulter and Hannity combined. It should come as no surprise that these voters would cast their support for McCain - they are a casebook study of disillusioned idealists.

Posted by: tfburke19 | March 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were any more effete, he'd be Pee Wee Herman.
Obama's as sissified as the press.
They were made for each other.

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

LOL. Impressive argument!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

For John McCain to win the White House he must win 2 of the following 3: FL, PA, OH, and win 2of this second tier 3; CO, MIZZ, VA. National votes don't matter at all; I think McCain has much stronger shot at what I believe he needs against Obama; here's why: FL is almost a given for McCain due to Crist's support, who has ungodly popularity ratings, especially if Crist is VP (I don't think he will be however). Ohio and PA are blue-collar states; I'm not saying McCain will win one or both of them, but it is an easier path for him against Obama than Hillary. McCain should have CO rather easily, especially if Romney were VP (heavy Mormon concentration in CO), due to CO being neighbor to AZ, and heavy Hispanic population that views McCain favorably and has supported Hillary overwhelmingly on the Dem side (there is some Black vs Brown animosity; I don't know much about it, but it appears obvious - that will help McCain if Obama is nominee). VA has been trending Blue, but is a center-right state. Advocates for Obama will point to Jim Webb and Mark Warner and Tim Kaine as to why its in play, and it is in play, but Jim Webb, outside his Iraq stance, is perhaps more conservative than McCain and Warner and Kaine are moderates, like McCain. Obama is far left, the most liberal senator in the US; that just won't play in VA. Missouri should be in play; there are factors for either candidate.

But overall, I think McCain has a good shot to carry the states he needs to beat Obama, and will be helped in that by making Obama play defense in what are usually safe blue states like NJ and CA; McCain won't win those two, but he'll make it impossible for Obama to just take those two for granted. This will be a fun electoral college fight; there will be some interesting twists from the norm of 2000 and 2004 in this one.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | March 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Presidential campaigns should be about ideas. It is also the basis on which we should select the winner.

Hillary has none. Obama has come-up with some good ideas. We don't know if he will implement them or implement them well, but he has some ideas.

Hillary is still in the race know it all too well. That is why I will not vote for her in November (if she wins the nomination).

I don't know if Hillary supporters can argue along the same lines.

Posted by: nirajtrivedi | March 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Democrats, by and large, may "fall back in line", but what about those independent voters that actually decide elections?Everyone seems to keep working under the assumption that the country is split in half, rather than in thirds...

Posted by: dippinkind | March 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112- Your right about the pew poll, but there are three other polls that show Hillary ahead of Obama against McCain. I encourage all of the politics junkies to go to www.pollster.com, they publish the stats from all of the polls not just 1.

Whenever I think of voting for Obama I come back to Bill Clinton being accused of being a racist, and Rev Wright.

Posted by: boothe | March 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama - you better shut up Pastor Wright, you know you spiritual mentor.

He's got the Italians in an uproar now, seems he made some disparaging remarks (i know, i'm shocked too) about the Italians and printed a Hamas Manifesto

you better put a cork in his mouth

I have gone my whole life never racially degrading anyone, and I am starting to get annoyed

enuf already - Shut That Man Up, we are already on a loosing course because of him

Posted by: lndlouis | March 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

It is not irrational to think that if Obama is the nominee, some Clinton supporters will vote for McCain. I happen to be one of them.
Obama has TMFTC "too many faults to count", not the least of which is the fact he is the most divisive and unqualified candidate in recent history.

Obamaites seem to see the world in black and white (oops, just for clarification it's not always about race you know).

Posted by: alee21 | March 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Any Democrat petulant enough to vote for McCain *for any reason whatsoever* simply doesn't understand what calamitous damage he or she is doing. It is indeed putting the nation and the world under a third Bush term. Such a person can only be described as a complete and total political imbecile.

McCain is already having *senior moments* that give me cold chills. The man's cancer may recur. God knows who he'd pick for VP. And I say that his years under torture warped his view of the world and of the nature of war. This man wants *payback*, and the world can't afford to allow him to have it.

Posted by: archiesboy | March 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Let me make this simple for you. I am a Clinton supporter who will never vote for Obama and this is why.

1) He is not prepared to be President. I simply don't buy into the hype.
2) If elected, it is likely that he will fail as President
3) A failed Obama presidency would get few initiatives accomplished, delay health care and other reform for another 20 years, reduce Democrats in congress and, as a result, we will probably not have another Democratic president for 8 years after he leaves office.

Obama will not suddenly become prepared to be President by November.

So, I am not some fickle, emotional voter. I mean exactly what I say. I will never vote for Obama and I will never vote Republican but I can vote for Nader or simply stay home in protest.

Posted by: lpeter59 | March 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: johninfresno | March 27, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The Obama supporters already assume he is the nominee and are waiting for Hillary to drop out. Hillary has said, she will take this fight to the convention if FL and MI are not seated. Obama supporters are expecting Hillary voters to fall in line for Obama.

If Hillary wins the nomination at the convention, are the Obama supporters on this blog ready to fall-in-line and vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I am for Hillary because she is the best qualified and because Obama is not. Also, with the media bias we voters haven't been given the whole story on Obama.

Obama simply cannot win in November:

1) Obama said his parents met at the Selma march, Reality: he was born 4 years before that.

2) Obama said he was a constitutional law professor Reality: Just didn't happen.


3) Obama said he spoke fluent Indonesian as a child Reality: His teachers there say no


4) Obama said he was involved in community asbestos and housing project for the poor Reality: Didn't happen and this was the basis for Obama and Michelle's claims that he was a community activist in Chicago. Which both he and Michelle Obama have been saying this year.


5) Obama said in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white Reality: Didn't happen. Both Life and Ebony say there was no such article.


So the Lie Meter is 5 Obama 1 Hillary. (the Bosnia Flap)

Posted by: celested9 | March 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

SWINGBAGGERS

Posted by: MRJOHNHOLLIS | March 27, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Furthermore, Pelozi is a disgrace to women. I think she must be one of those women who can't stand to see another woman advance.

Posted by: vienna12 | March 27, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately neither Clinton or Obama have the qualifications to be Commander in Chief. Obama came out of no where and other than his speech making ability he hasn't got a clue. Clinton has experience as the wife of a President who happened to serve 2 terms.

McCain is by no means perfect, but he has experience in foreign policy, dealing with heads of state, and is an honorable and respected individual and a known quantity. Presidents are only as good as the individuals they choose to serve with and for them. McCains self admitted lacking (he should keep his mouth shut) in the area of economic policy will be compensated by the selection of a strong secretary of the treasury and a team of strong economic advisors.

The country needs someone that understands whats going on in the world and not afraid to make tough decisions. Clinton would be better off auditioning for a slot on The View. Obama can go around the country and make wonderful however meaningless speeches and maybe spend a little more time in The Senate doing the job he was elected for instead of campaigning the last 2 years.

Posted by: ziggy1 | March 27, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying candidates SHOULD, lie, I'm saying politics seems to demand that politicians present a picture of themselves which may be more as the public wishes than as they themselves wish. Think of the great presidents we would have been denied if we insisted on absolute transparenc--just for starters, FDR.

Posted by: ingbermr | March 27, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

How about Obamnons and Clinnots?

Posted by: robbery021 | March 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Hilary Clinton began the whole nasty attacks when she realised that she couldn't get what she wanted; she should have been booted out at the very beginning..it's just gone from bad to worse since then.
It's obvious that she doesn't want a Democrat to win the election unless it's herself. GET RID OF HER...SHE'S DESTROYING ANY CHANCE OD DEFEATING THE REPUBLICANS.

Posted by: pathina | March 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I for one will definitely vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I have never voted for a Republican before, but I will take a right wing Republican any day when compared to Obama, who is nothing but the left wing's slightly more intelligent version of W! Atleast I know where McCain stands on the issues (even if I disagree with him on most of the things he stands for).

Posted by: e2w2 | March 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Any Democrat petulant enough to vote for McCain for *any reason whatsoever* is a complete and total political imbecile. This is like Sadam Hussein burning the oil fields when he couldn't have them for himself.

Posted by: archiesboy | March 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Once again I am living through a "hate Clinton, any Clinton" phase. I am sick of the irrational Clinton haters in this country. My decision is irrevocable, regardless of what Chris Cilizza and other Post reporters (Abramowich) (sp?) think-- that all Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. Forget it. I will not vote for the first time in my adult life if Obama idiot is the nominee. I am an old gal so have at me. I had hoped that before I died this country would have a woman president. No, only inexperienced men seem to fit the bill for the misogynists in this country, still a majority. The only candidate who can effectively face the world leaders is Hillary but no, she is only a woman so she won't do for the USA. Obamania and Bushmania. Cute male wins!!!

Posted by: vienna12 | March 27, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary also seems to have a problem with the truth. 35 years of political power would do that to anyone. Anyone. She's human alright, as she says, but still wouldn't know the actual truth if it bit her in the cankle.

The wind is blowing strong against her today. Perhaps she'll do the right thing, which would be quite good for her tarnished rep.

Posted by: robertell | March 27, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I am a Clinton supporter who couldn't vote for Obama. One reason and one reason only. He and Edwards started the negativity in the MSNBC debate. He talks one way and acts another. I was not an original Hillary supporter. I just can't see how Dems. can be this dumb to nominate Obama. I will vote for McCain, instead of not voting, because it will take two votes to replace mine. The one he lost and the one McCain gains. I just don't want to see this liberal to be president.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 27, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Even democrats can cast McCain as Bush third term, in fact he is not. He and Bush has never been close. On the other hand, Obama will be cast by republicans as an America hating, tax increasing, experience lacking, national security weakening, Rezko befriending, totally unelectable radical black liberal. If Iraq situation keep improving this fall, McCain WILL BE president, unless the democrats can find someone who CAN defeat McCain.

Posted by: work2play | March 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were any more effete, he'd be Pee Wee Herman.

Obama's as sissified as the press.

They were made for each other.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | March 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama will lose the electoral college vote by a huge margin. With Obama as the candidate, even California comes into play for McCain.

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

I. Don't. Think. So.

New (today) PPIC poll in California:

Obama 49 - McCain 40
Clinton 46 - McCain 43

Favorable/unfavorable ratings:
Obama 61-34 (+27)
McCain 49-45 (+4)
Clinton 45-52 (-7)

New Pew Research poll (March 19-22) shows the race unchanged versus a month ago:

Obama 49, Clinton 39.

Pew also reports the following head to head match ups:

Obama 49 - McCain 43
Clinton 49 - McCain 44

Repubs are PRAYIN before their icons of Rush that the Dems self destruct and they are out in force pretending to be Hillary or Barack supporters who will NEVER vote for the other, but history says otherwise.

All will be well in Nov and Dems will vote for their nominee....yes, even you who think otherwise now. The human conscience is a powerful thing. We prefer integrity to the meanness and self-destructive impulse of revenge.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

As a registered Democrat, I will vote for the Democratic nominee provided s/he won fairly (without undue or unfair influence from the superdelegates). I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination squarely and fairly. The differences between the two candidates on issues are minimal anyway. Some people on this blog are indicating that they will vote for one, but not the other. It is their absolute right, but then they may want to change their affiliation to Independent or Republican. The oxymoron of American politics has been the term "Reagan Democrats." Those people were simply Republican.

Posted by: dupagnem | March 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"You see, sometimes there are advantages to living in a solid blue state, knowing that the Greedy Ol' Party won't be able to take advantage of us true liberals sticking a thumb in the eye of a DLC republican-wannabe."

Repulican wannabe and that is why her voters will not mind voting republican and will not vote for Obama. McCain is far preferable to the older and conservative democrats than Obama.

Posted by: AKafir | March 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, the Dems in their circular firing squad fashion have left two standing to be their nominee...a woman who couldn't get elected prez if she were running unopposed and very flawed black man.

As a result of their infinite stupidity, the Dems have handed the GOP 4-8 more years of the incompetence and corruption we've endured under the Bush administration debacle.

Posted by: checkered1 | March 27, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

As if the world needed more statistical proof that the "damn the party" Clinton fanatics were more petty and manipulative and less team-oriented than the Obama supporters.

I'm afraid the Clinton backers are just following her game plan -- which is to root for McCain to win in the fall so that Hillary can challenge him in 2012. Because after all, nothing is more important than having the first woman president right here, right now, and it has to be her or we will never have one. And besides, the White House is her God-given right, don't we all know that yet?

Posted by: B2O2 | March 27, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

WADR, the numbers in question represent the fact that Dems are a bit whiney on a relative basis. Repubs don't think, Dems over think. But I wouldn't worry about it, they'll all line up in December. We're just seeing a bit of a feminist backlash from Hillary's, well, flameout. She's simply not the best candidate. People can spin it to justify their gripe, sexism, anti-Clintonism, etc. If she'd run a decent race, and I'd bet ya a hand truck they'll be book after book after book as to why she failed, she would have won. She panicked when she got behind, in her first real political race, and as with many solutions, made things worse. I, simply, don't think that Hillary knows who she is.

Posted by: robertell | March 27, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Despite what they cry today, Hillary backers would not vote R in the fall. Nor would Obama backers.

A more interesting poll would be, what would they do if the Super Delegates take a pass on both and nominate someone else. Say Gore or Edwards? What then?

If an election were held tomorrow, I doubt either candidate for the nomination would prevail. Unless they are Stupid instead of Super, this scenario may play out.

A pox on both their houses!

Posted by: cwcrosby42 | March 27, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, there's a spelling error in your front page subhead for this post:

"If favored candidate loses nomination, poll shows some supporters will not vote Democrat[sic]."

That should be 'Democratic'- would you write 'will not vote Republic' or 'will not vote Republican' if you were talking about the vast majority of voters this fall?

ps- I am not 'dailykos', please sign me in as 'pearls before swine'

Posted by: dailykos1 | March 27, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Be ready for 3 solid months (give or take) of videos of anti-American Wright, his quotes and his pictures with Farrakhan, et al along side pictures of Obama sitting in his pew and Wright presiding over Obama's wedding. Couple that with Obama's ranking as the MOST LIBERAL Senator and his "prescription" of MORE regulation and higher taxes for this economy; and you can see the strikes that will be made against him. Couple that with McCain's favorability ratings and moderate views vs Obama's far left views; and I am, even in this year, not sure I would count McCain out in November. McCain will carry 40% or more of Hispanics against Obama, will be stronger in Ohio and PA against Obama than would be against Hillary, will have very very popular Gov. Crist securing him FL either through his campaigning or being VP. Finally, let's remember an important statistic, over the years its been proven a lot of whites will SAY they'd vote for a Black candidate so as not to appear racist or biased, but do not mean it. There may be some "squishiness" to Obama's polling numbers, particularly among non-Dems in southern and western states due to that polling fact.

Put all this together, and I wouldn't be so confident in Obama taking the oath of office in November against McCain. McCain may well be the ONE Republican who ever could have had a chance in this 2008 election; and his chances don't appear so bad as of now.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | March 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Count me in as a Hillary supporter who will either sit out the election (for the first time in my life--having always voted for the Democratic candidate--even when I had to hold my nose and pull the lever because he was not my ideal). I have no confidence in Barack Obama--he is completely untested, has no record of accomplishment, is too conciliatory and has demonstrated no real capacity to lead. Hillary may get my write-in vote--or I'll just move on down the ticket to the other races. A DNC bond holder--contributing every month to the party for the last two years, I'm so fed up with my party, that I've cancelled ALL my monthly contributions to the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC. A "50 state strategy" that includes just 48 of the 50 states is not credible.

Posted by: JamesDC | March 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

So, to answer the original question, if Hillary does not get the Democratic nomination, then, as November approaches, I would have to see how it is going. I would have to vote AGAINST McCain (not FOR Obama) if it appears necessary.

Posted by: ingbermr | March 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

svreader writes:

"My mom's in Florida and the whole state feels that way."

How does she know? Is she a pollster or God?

"Every mainstream Democrat I know is angry."

How angry is he?

Posted by: jac13 | March 27, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, Fix. This FixCam post inspired at least four svreader sock puppets, maybe six.

The dopiest thing that svreader posts are his "I made some phone calls to some people I know" comments. They make his bizarre rants tolerable, even his Columbus ones. Hey svreader: when you're calling for some inside dope for your latest Obama/Hillary revelation, do you call the same people? Come on -- give up your sources!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

One thing I would note about why more Clinton supporters say they would not vote for Obama than Obama supporters who say they will not vote for Clinton is that Clinton supporters are already having to come to grips with the fact that their candidate is unlikely to win, hence their anger and disappointment is a little higher right now. I tend to agree with those who think most Democrats will come together in the end IF this all ends more or less honorably. For my own part, that means if Hillary does, in fact, blow out Obama in PA and upsets him in North Carolina and wins, say eight of the last ten, and she gets close in pledged delegates and popular vote and clearly has momentum, then I would understand the "superdelegates" giving her the nomination. If that scenario didn't play out and the system was gamed so that even if Obama had a clear lead in pledged delegates and popular vote, he was still denied the nomination, then I would have a problem.

Posted by: scott_farris | March 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

For a lot of folks it's a matter of ranking the 3 candidates. Personally, as an independent who thinks Democrats are left-wing liberals who want to bloat the government with entitlement programs and Republicans are right wing liberals who want to use government intervention to pad the coffers of big business and tell people how they need to be have Republican "morality", I rank the candidates Obama, McCain then Clinton. Obama at least seems to care about bringing people, here and abroad together. McCain offers at least a glimmer of hope that he would govern in accordance with the first 20 years he spent as a maverick (meaning he is conning many of the Republican evangelical hacks especially). Hillary, on the other hand, is just a focus-group driven, power hungry beast like her husband. We've already seen what a Clinton White House is like. We disliked it so much that we elected a certifiable idiot so he could "bring honor back to the White House". Sheesh...

Posted by: scott032 | March 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Liberal really did think McGovern would sweep into the white house. The reality was he lost to a republican who everyone hated even then (Nixon). Obama will lose the electoral college vote by a huge margin. With Obama as the candidate, even California comes into play for McCain. Obama cannot possibly win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan or any of the other states the dems are going to need to put an electoral college win. California is not beyond McCain's reach (it is only 4 or 5 points for the dems in a McCain-Obama choice at the moment). The liberal dems are destroying any chance Hillary may have had to win. By August, neither Hillary or Obama will be in a position to compete against McCain.

Posted by: AKafir | March 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry svreader but you can't say you're a "hard-core Democrat" and then in the same breath say you'll vote for McCain over a Democrat. You must not understand English. Do you have down syndrome?

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"Twenty eight percent of Clinton backers in the survey said they would back McCain if Obama won the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would choose the Arizona Senator if Clinton wound up as the nominee."

And, with that, California goes to McCain..

And Howard Dean forever will be rememberd for botching a sure-fire Democrat in the White House

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | March 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Obamazombies does have a certain cachet.
I like it!


Wonder if there will be a (Mc)Cain and Abe(l) ad?

How did that go again? Cain got angry cause God loved Abe(l)'s sacrifice more...something about a bad temper??

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Twenty eight percent of Clinton backers in the survey said they would back McCain if Obama won the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would choose the Arizona Senator if Clinton wound up as the nominee."

And, with that, California goes to McCain..

And Howard Dean forever will be rememberd for botching a sure-fire Democrat in the White House

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | March 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Not John W McBush, never John W McBush. If hell freezes over and Hillary gets the nomination, my fellow caucus-goes and I have agreed to vote for the Green Party candidate (whoever it may be) or independent Nader.

You see, sometimes there are advantages to living in a solid blue state, knowing that the Greedy Ol' Party won't be able to take advantage of us true liberals sticking a thumb in the eye of a DLC republican-wannabe.

Posted by: seattle_wa | March 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

LOL Dr svreader PhD

Copy paste. Lie smear. Fling feces. Whine. Repeat.

Same bs, different day. Still boring, even for a republo-troll.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Don't think that all Democrats will fall in line and support the party's candidate. I am one of those "blue blooded redcoats" who will defect should ----- be the standard bearer.

Posted by: boboh73 | March 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a puff of wind, and arrogant besides, and we just had eight years of THAT!

I can't (won't) vote for McCain because of his policies, though he probably wouldn't be the worst president in history.

If Hillary doesn't get it, it will be one of the great disappointments of my life, period. In the 19th century (and before) women authors and composers did whatever they had to in order to work, they lied, used assumed names, etc. In 1992 it was not possible, apparently, for Mrs. Clinton to run for president. Now it is. She has worked all her life for this, she is smart and qualified and her heart is with the people.

Posted by: ingbermr | March 27, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I absolutely don't understand how anyone who supports a Democratic candidate -- whether Clinton or Obama -- would turn out and vote for a Republican who stands for and will continue all the BS that we so desperately want to get rid of just because their favored one doesn't get the nomination. It's crazy!

You'll be voting to continue the war, possibly invade Iran, further mess up the economy, and most likely place a couple of young, right-wing Justices who will guarantee a conservative Supreme Court for years to come. Why on earth would you do that?

Obama is my preference, but I will hold my nose a little and vote for Clinton if she pulls out the nomination. There is no way I will vote for McClain. I don't want a third term of Bush policies.

Posted by: sally1860 | March 27, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Another NON-ISSUE.

Hillary can't win and everyone that can count knows it. She has a ~30 lead with superdelegates and that's dropping as we speak. And she is behind by nearly ~150 delegates.

Do the math people. And please stop letting republicans play on your emotions.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 27, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse


We already have a name for Clinton supporters who would take McCain over Obama: Whiny Spoiled Brats.

Posted by: bondjedi |
=============================================

I do too. Smart

Posted by: bnw173 | March 27, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

As a Clinton supporter who has never voted for a republican (in 30 years of voting), I will definitely find another alternative if Obama is nominated. I might not vote for McCain but I might vote for Nader instead or I might just sit this one out.

While I certainly agree on more things with Obama than McCain, I think it is simply too dangerous to elect someone with absolutely no qualifications for the job. You can quibble with Clinton's qualifications but at least she's modestly qualified. Obama has accomplished absolutley nothing in his professional life to suggest he would be a good president. We might as well take someone from off the street. Maybe we could select one of his exuberant college aged supporters. They wouldn't be that much less qualified than he is.

It's hard to believe that we might elect a person to the Presidency who until three short years ago was a hack state senator from Illinois.

Of course, in fairness to Obama, he is not nearly as offensive as his supporters are. The only solace I would take in a McCain presidency is that they would have to live through it too.

Posted by: bigus | March 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

OH!!!I've gotit - I've got it!!! "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity".(Kind of Republican, but the best thing they ever came up with - Thank you Spiro) It would all be better if you just admit that Barack is the one. Think how much better your life would be. Think of splendid thoughts wrapped up in splendid prose. (Aw come on I know you want to.)

Posted by: goddessreturns | March 27, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

My office collegues and I just finished a long discussion on this very topic and here is how we came out: none of us (blacks and whites) would vote for Senator Clinton if she were the nominee. All of us would have voted reluctantly for her at the start of the primary season, but her kitchen sink/Tonya Harding tactics and lying over the past month have alienated us profoundly.

All of us are life-long Democrats (used to be called "Yellow-dog Dems")and so we would never vote for McCain in the general election. Our options boil down to: 1)write in Obama's name, 2)vote for a third party candidate, or 3) vote for Democrats down the ticket but not cast a vote for any candidate for president.

What is important to us is the way the Sen. Clinton will have to behave in order to wrench the nomination away from Sen. Obama. If she were to have won it fair and square by taking the most popular votes, the most pledged delegates, and the most states, we would have considered her the winner by the established rules and been prepared to back her in the fall campaign.

But it appears now that the only way she will win the nomination is if she bludgeons or blackmails enough super delegates into voting for her at the convention and overriding Obama's victory in the primaries. Such as scenario is so outrageously unfair that it would drive us (and many others we know) away from Clinton and the Democratic party in the fall. That means no money, no volunteer work, no votes. I think this is the nightmare scenario that the super delegates need to consider as they think through their steps in the next few weeks.

Posted by: dee5 | March 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is viewed as more acceptable by the more "conservative" democrats. Her support is among the older and the blue collar and the less educated. The black democrats will not vote republican, but the conservative democrats will not vote Obama, and that is why one has 28% of hillary voters preferring McCain. Obama supporters are fooling themselves if they think that the conservative democrats will vote Obama. It is the latte liberals who have combined with the black and balanced the traditional democratic vote to create the impasse. Usually the liberal latte choice does not make it through the primaries. McCain is very likely going to be the next president.

Posted by: AKafir | March 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I am suppose I am one of those who will not vote for a Democrat if my candidate, Senator Obama, is not on the ballot this November.

If this happens I will write in Senator Obama's name. It may have the same effect as voting for Senator McCain but, at least, I won't have to put the X next to his name.


Posted by: pbarnett52 | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

OBAMAZOMBIES-YOU CAN TAKE YOUR RACIST HEAD-TRIP NO EXPERIENCE THROW HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER UNDER THE BUS COCAINE PUSHER, FILTHY RACIST HATEMONGER FOR A SPIRITUAL ADVISOR UTTERLY DISINGENUOUS CANDIDATE AND HIS RACIST UNPATRIOTIC WIFE AND STICK IT.

But as for the general election, my vote will go only to one of the two candidates who it is undisputed that they love their country, who are truly patriotic without having to surround themselves with flags in a cheesy attempt to convince someone of that fact, two candidates who have always worked for the best interests of their constituents and their country, despite the fact that they have both shown that they are human, have exaggerated and haven't always always been completely informed on an issue: CLINTON/MCCAIN-I DON'T RECOGNIZE, NOW, OR EVER, ANYONE NAMED BARACK OBAMA AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT-OBAMA-THE MOST RACIALLY DIVISIVE CANDIDATE IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS HAD QUITE ENOUGH OF HIS POLITICS OF HATE-NO MORE.

Posted by: farfalle44 | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I believe this news. I was an Edwards supporter, now Hillary supporter. I cannot find myself voting for Obama. What does he stand for "change"? Every candidate does. What is his record? It is weak. He has been a no show in the state and U.S. Senate. I am sorry I can't support him. And every Hispanic I have talked to said they can't either. The guy is an empty suit. And he will not win in November.

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I believe this news. I was an Edwards supporter, now Hillary supporter. I cannot find myself voting for Obama. What does he stand for "change"? Every candidate does. What is his record? It is weak. He has been a no show in the state and U.S. Senate. I am sorry I can't support him. And every Hispanic I have talked to said they can't either. The guy is an empty suit. And he will not win in November.

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I suggest two names for these groups who would not support the other Democratic candidate if s/he becomes the nominee:

Obamadicals and Clintondicals

I really do not believe they would actually vote for McCain (they are venting), but they could stay home in November.

Posted by: dupagnem | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hossanabamans vs the Hillarians.

That said, these polls will mean nothing in August. It's a pitched battle. People are passionate. That's good. Generally, folks prefer peace over war...less stresss...we want to reconcile.

This is different from 68 in one important respect...the divide in the Dems that year happened during the convention when Daley's cops beat up the protesters and the media... and Humphrey, to his shame, did nothing.

I expect that the superdelegates will make their choice in June. Plenty of time for reconciliation.

This is all bother and blow right now...and milked by journalists like CC who should be doing some real reporting.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I believe this news. I was an Edwards supporter, now Hillary supporter. I cannot find myself voting for Obama. What does he stand for "change"? Every candidate does. What is his record? It is weak. He has been a no show in the state and U.S. Senate. I am sorry I can't support him. And every Hispanic I have talked to said they can't either. The guy is an empty suit. And he will not win in November.

Posted by: afellow1 | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Stop your fighting and pick a candidate already. Let the democrats take over everything so they can finally take the blame for the atmosphere they've created with their "divide and conquer" Blame Bush for everything strategy that they came up with back in 2002. Let them take over the wreck they've created and maybe they'll all shut the hell up.

Posted by: ftbindc | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I think most people have made up their mind who they support. This thing has gone on for so long that you are really messed up if you are still undecided. Therefore, each of us knows that if our candidate doesn't get the nomination, then McCain gets the vote. This country is in bad shape and we need a serious fix. Far left or far right won't fix it and McCain is neither so he will do. The distance between now and November isn't going to do anything but hurt the dems because the 527's have got so much garbage from this battle and plenty of time to produce it. McCain will prevail so we need to stop all this nonsense and get on with our lives.

Posted by: ontheblvd | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The problem is not whether some 'Democrats' will vote for Mr. McCain if their candidate does not win the Democratic ticket.

The question is how many people will not vote at all. There where the tragedy is, specially in this elections which has engaged so may new people into the political process...what a waste!

Posted by: PCM011 | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

A couple of things:

1. Do Democrats want any more of the Bush/McCain administration? Come on, ask yourself seriously if that is "acceptable"? For example, my issue with the Supreme Court is no longer abortion--it's everything else!

2. Gee, where did this problem find its biggest home? What? Did you say Rush Limbaugh? Operation Chaos? Has he been advocating law-breaking when people LIE and register in a party they would normally have nothing to do with?

3. I think Obama would find it easier to ask his supporters to pledge to HRC if she became the nominee. He is a classy act, no matter what you people throw at him. Let's see Hillary do the same.

4. Do you need further proof that even after 8 years out of national circulation the Clintons are not the "wonderful" Democrats we thought they were? Look, I held a gloating party at my home when Bill beat the rap for Monica, but now I'm not sure. They only care about themselves. Their staff continue to say and do stupid things that only make us all look bad.

5. McCain is 72 years old at present. Will people still vote for him after either HRC or Obama debate him? C'mon, the guy wants us to stay in Iraq for a 100 years.

6. The economy, stupid, is still not done tanking. Gas has not reach 4 bucks a gallon yet, the last home has not foreclosed. The last job has not been pink-slipped yet. Republicans traditionally suck at this stuff.

7. You know, the person who could do the most to drop the noise level down between Obama and Hillary supporters is Mrs. Clinton herself. But somehow I have a funny feeling that ain't gonna happen. Again, she would be happy to see a Democrat (beside herself) lose in '08, just as Al Gore got hit in 2000. Because she thinks she can run again in '12. I wish I was wrong, but that's my gut feeling on this one. The lady is a hopeless careerist. At age 60 she might want to lighten up and maybe hope to get a Supreme Court seat? I think she'd be a wonderful Supreme.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

There is already a name for Obama backers who say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee: Republicans.

Posted by: work2play | March 27, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm one of them. A liberal independent Vietnam era draftee/veteran. I originally supported Kucinich.

I will be voting for the Democrat nominee this year, so long as it's someone not named Clinton. Not Bill. Hillary. Fred. Ralph. DeWitt. Not Mohammed Clinton. Not Jesus Clinton. Not Clinton C. Clinton.

I won't cross over and vote for John "100 Years" McCain. But I won't vote for a Clinton. Even if it's a maiden name.

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon, PA

Posted by: HLBeckPE | March 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

F A L S E - F L A G

The republicans only chance to win with 100 year war McCain is to pretend they are democrats that will not vote for a democrat.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

We already have a name for Clinton supporters who would take McCain over Obama: Whiny Spoiled Brats.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 03:59 PM
=============================================

No there called people who don't like Obama. It's that simple.

Posted by: autowx | March 27, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The 2008 Primary season has changed how we look at polls numbers. Is it possible that this is true, especially given that a black man will get the nomination. Get ready for Pres. McCain.

Posted by: robinhood2 | March 27, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Al gore, your warming world is crumbling. stubborn darn facts won't cooperate with the loony views you espouse.

"Solomon, true to the finest tenets of his profession, sought the truth concerning whether there was in fact a consensus on the headline-grabbing issue of global warming, or whether in fact any "real" scientists actually dissented from the Al Gore/UN line that global warming is happening, is largely caused by humans, and threatens all manner of catastrophies.

As many people -- policy wonks and fellow travelers -- on this blog are well aware, dissenting scientists are not in fact rare: There are serious scholars whose views should, but too often do not, inform the debate. Solomon's columns were important because they brought this message to a wider audience. As Solomon's knowledge grew, he found that the genre limits of newspaper writing precluded an adequately in-depth exploration of these skeptical scientists' important observations. Accordingly, selecting some of the scientists discussed in his columns, Solomon has written a book: The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**and those who are too fearful to do so. As a jacket blurb puts it, "What he found shocked him. Solomon discovered that on every "headline" global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent scientists."

This book does not attempt to settle the science, or show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or settle what we can expect the future harms/benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Rather, the genius of the book is that it shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the "consensus" view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible (and often more compelling) than the IPCC/Gore camps.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

there, Now it's settled.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

'My mom's in Florida and the whole state feels that way.

Every mainstream Democrat I know is angry.'

once again -- you are a moron. i doubt if you know any democrats-- you certainly don't know how the whole state of florida feels.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I am one of the Clinton Supporters who will never vote for Obama. Not because I will be mad my candidate didn't win, but because I think Barack Obama would be a dangerous choice.

He does not have enough experience and the experience he does have is full of questions on whether he actually did much of the work he takes credit for. He is running on the idea that he didn't vote for the war but he is being misleading, because he has also never voted against the war since he has been in a position to vote.

Then there are some very serious questions regarding his views partly based on the fact that he attended this very anti-white, anti-american church for 20 years.

And then there are some even more serious questions regarding his ties to Rezko, Ayers, and to his cousins Political career in Africa.

Maybe in 4 or 8 years we will have had these questions answered but for now I am terrified of putting this man in the most Powerful Position as our President.

If some of the accusations that have been made about him turn out to be true it could be devastating for our country.

So although at the beginning of this election I thought I would gladly vote for either candidate that is no longer true.

I will do anything in my power to keep him from winning this election and if that means voting for McCain, I will do that also. I don't like McCain or any of his policies but I at least trust him much more that I would trust Obama.

Posted by: chersplace | March 27, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I would say I'm a FedUpOcrat, but I can't because I'm an independent and just tired of this... where's Pat Paulsen or William T. Sherman?

Posted by: dad14202 | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

after 41 years of being a faithful democrat, voting and supporting every single democratic candidate chosen, sometimes taking my babies (3 girls) and their babies (3 more girls) if it was the only way i could vote, in snow, rain, you name it - I read this year that 33% of male democrats "will never vote for a woman"

i have left the democratic party

I am now an independent who supports Hillary and will not vote if she is not the nominee

41 years of watching men screw it up over and over

no more

good luck

Posted by: lndlouis | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

after 41 years of being a faithful democrat, voting and supporting every single democratic candidate chosen, sometimes taking my babies (3 girls) and their babies (3 more girls) if it was the only way i could vote, in snow, rain, you name it - I read this year that 33% of male democrats "will never vote for a woman"

i have left the democratic party

I am now an independent who supports Hillary and will not vote if she is not the nominee

41 years of watching men screw it up over and over

no more

good luck

Posted by: lndlouis | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

after 41 years of being a faithful democrat, voting and supporting every single democratic candidate chosen, sometimes taking my babies (3 girls) and their babies (3 more girls) if it was the only way i could vote, in snow, rain, you name it - I read this year that 33% of male democrats "will never vote for a woman"

i have left the democratic party

I am now an independent who supports Hillary and will not vote if she is not the nominee

41 years of watching men screw it up over and over

no more

good luck

Posted by: lndlouis | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

~

Obama is simply not qualified to be the President.

He has no practical experience in the issues that matter most.

Thus he will have to outsource -- a la GWB -- his decisionmaking.

We have no idea whom he will select to advise him on every single issue.

If he is so @#$% good at working with people and taking courageous stands, why in the world has he not been doing it for the past several years in the Senate?

He's full of it and lots of us know it!

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

This is an interesting issue. With the deplorable way the right has conducted its affairs over the last 7 years, the door should be wide open for the left.

However, they chose to pick possible the two least electable animals in their zoo. One, a pathological liar with ties to much corruption and the other, a closet racist with zip for experience.

With a reasonable, common sense candidate, the left could have swept this election.

Lieberman or Mark Warner or Doug Wilder for example. Any of which who could have mopped the floor with McCain.

But instead of an uber qualified Donna Brazile, the left - always there to pander to the black vote, once again overlooked a black person - sided with a demonstrable lunatic, Howard Dean.

The result? Michigan and Florida stripped of their say in the nomination process and two unelectable morons running for our highest office.

So, who is in the wings? Another raging lunatic - Al Gore.

Hope you people like running for the White House - you are a long way from winning it.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | March 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

This is a mess - the democratic party has become a collection of single-issue voters.

It is one thing for the activists to be single-issue, but now the voters??


I don't know what to say anymore. The democrats have strayed so far from their core values - they have destroyed the party - ahhhhh who cares anymore.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

If you go to youtube, there are many videos of Rev Wright that shows what Obama's "spiritual advisor" thinks of "white people"

Here's just one of them, and its one of the more tame ones, unedited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcOOSpvC2JI

It doesn't matter what the current vote count is.

There's no way Obama can win a national election after this.

Its not going to go away.

I'm white, and I never knew this was going on in Black Churches.

It's extremely disturbing.

I never knew such organized racial hatred existed in the 21st century.

He sounds like Hitler raging against Jews, blaming them for all of Germany's problems.

Its frightening.

It makes Obama unelectable, that's for sure.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"AIN'T" no way in he!! I'd vote for 100 year war McCain.

Forget it people, Hillary can't win the nomination.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama holds the advantage on this one because, as stated above, dems will come back together once there is a nominee; however, Obama brings 4-8 extra % points with African American and youth votes who will stay home if Clinton is the nominee. In fact, that trumps any argument she will be able to make to the superdelegates.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Note to the DNC: I won't vote for Kennedy's, Kerry's, Daschle's and Pelosi's puppet-Obama.

Posted by: autowx | March 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The recent poll from CA supports the "come together" argument. Even though HRC won the primary, voters now support BHO by 9points vs McCain.

"There's been a shift, no question about it," says Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Edmund "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State University-Los Angeles. "A lot of Democrats, who were once supporters of Hillary's--not bedrock supporters but voted for her on February 5--now they're leaving her."

AND that poll was conducted during the week that he faced questions about race and his relationship with Rev. Wright.

It's over Hillary. Good fight, back down and join the Party.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Chris, Chris ... it's a long time until November - at least in the news industry. Anything could happen in that time frame. We're already seeing the DNC trying to herd the supers to talk to them before the national convention in Denver. This is all unprecedented, and the media love to pretend they know what's going to happen. They don't.

This fall, maybe the Democrats will move in lockstep but who knows what will be the motivation? Four-dollar gasoline? Another major banking institution collapsing and requiring another bailout? A massive, yet-unseen natural disaster showing the incompetence of this administration and FEMA? There are too many wild cards.

I myself, someone who's voted Democratic as long as I've had a voter's card, plan on voting for the Democratic candidate which I assume will be Obama. But I really have to say I don't like what Hillary is doing, nor do I like the tone of some of her supporters. The irony of this may be that in the fall, many Democrats may wind up polarized by Hillary, more than Republicans, and either cast a punitive, anti-Hillary vote, or just stay home. I considered myself above this sort of thing, but if Hillary & company continue to try to stretch out this thing and is ultimately awarded the nomination, I may just join that 19 to 25 percent...

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"If America is looking for a second term of the Jimmy Carter Administration of high taxes at home and weakness abroad vote Obama. I doubt they are."

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

How about calling both sides "Traders?" The reality is if you are a Democrat and want things to change you have to support the Democratic candidate. I am a strong Probama person, but if by some magical, cosmic mystery Hillary manages to finagle the nomination I will indeed bite the bullet and vote for her - as hard as that may be. Lets get over the crazy irrational emotion mess and realize we have to stand against a McMess who stands to be WORSE that Bush.At least I'll be able to look at my kids and say "hey I tried to make it better for you."

Posted by: tuesday1 | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I rejoined the democratic party specifically to support Obama. I can't vote for Clinton, but neither can I vote for McCain. I'll await a Unity08 ticket or Nader if Obama isn't nominated.

Posted by: optimyst | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I hope all those Democrats threatening to vote for McCain (or not voting) will consider something more long term: the fate of the supreme court.

The next president will more than likely have nominations to the high court, a court that has slid dangerously to the right, IMO. (I am an independent that believes the court should be centrist, not stacked right or left).

At the most you will be stuck with HRC or BO for 4-8 years, but a right-wing supreme court could last for decades and have long ranging impact!

Posted by: cjbriggs | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Interesting the vile comments. The Dems divided will fall, regardless of who ends up holding anyone's hand in Denver.
And the disrespect to Mrs. Clinton is pretty shocking.
Makes me wonder what children are learning from this acrimony.

Posted by: byisabel | March 27, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

No need to make up new names- they are Reagan Democrats! The same sentient beings who saw the light and didn't vote for Peanut.

McCain appeals to them because he is seen as frank, a good leader, strong on defense and opposed to tax increases.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

the Liberal legacy of Peace - we surrender:

Israel Tells Jimmy Carter: Your 'Help' Is Not Welcome

Israel has issued a formal rejection of an offer by former US President Jimmy Carter and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas

the Liberal tradition of being useful idiots:

Saddam Paid for Democrats' Iraq Trip

Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

must be a slow week in politics to come up with silly stories like this.
In the end 95% of true blue Democrats will support the nominee. The party has been out of power for 8 years. Egged on by media liberals like Chris Matthews they will vote the party line. McCain's support itself is really soft. Some Republican conservatives may stay home.

Posted by: latinles1 | March 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm a lifelong Democrat and I support Obama. Right now I'm saying I will never vote for Hillary and I hope I don't. I keep thinking about the Supreme Court and I know there will be a justice appointed by the next president.

Posted by: dir44 | March 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm a lifelong Democrat and I support Obama. Right now I'm saying I will never vote for Hillary and I hope I don't. I keep thinking about the Supreme Court and I know there will be a justice appointed by the next president.

Posted by: dir44 | March 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Its true. I'm a hard-core Democrat but I'll vote for McCain if Obama's the candidate.

My mom's in Florida and the whole state feels that way.

Every mainstream Democrat I know is angry.

We feel like the press has shoved Obama down our throat like they're trying to make frois-gras out of voters.

We're even more angry now that we know just how big a jerk Obama is and how close we came to nominating the Democratic Party's version of George Bush.

What we're most angry at is the press's total failure to vett the guy.

We like you personally, but we want the press to do its job and dig for the reality behind the hype.

SNL got it right, and everyone at the WP should hang their head in shame.

The WP brought down Nixon.

That was a high point in journalism.

We looked up to you as the best paper in the world because of that.

You failed us when you led the "rah-rah" in the run up to the war in Iraq.

You failed us again when you failed to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Now you've failed us a third time by pushing Barry Obama without having a clue who he really was.

I found out a few phone calls and emails.

If I could reference check the guy and find out he was a poser, why couldn't you.

Its supposed to be your job.

I'm sorry to be this blunt, but I do it out of respect for your intellect, your professionalism, and your ethics.

Please forgive me if I have offended you.

We need hard-nosed reporters, not cheerleaders.

We need you to dig for the truth.

If the press doesn't, who will???

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The only thing these poll numbers show is how shrill and upset Clinton supporters are becoming as they realize that this contest is going to be wrapped up in June.

The most diehard Clintonistas might sit out the election in November, but they are not voting for Mccain.

Both Obama and Mccain, however, have a great deal of appeal to independents like myself. I like Obama a lot, but I will always vote Mccain over Clinton. And that's been my position since well before the start of the primary season.

Posted by: cepage | March 27, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Draft Gore.

Posted by: jato1 | March 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Why not just "write-in" your candidate of choice?

Posted by: Its_the_Truth_Anyhow | March 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

It took you 14 minutes to come up with that, fatboy? You're slipping. You usually crank out ten posts in ten minutes.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

LOUD and DUMB, that's more like it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

the childlike zouk again shows a complete lack of self-control. poor fatboy.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Clinti-canes and Mc'O's, found on the dollar menu at McDonalds.

People have no clue what they are going to do in November. McCain is as big a blank sheet and Clinton/Obama are when it comes to the real essentials of how they would govern. All thier great policy pronouncements are alot of mush so far, none has really shared their true vision.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Harlemboy but that's just wrong. My wife and I, as well as almost my entire immediate family (mom, dad, sister, etc) are all educated "latte liberal" white folks who support Obama for obvious reasons. But we'll all vote for Hillary if she somehow becomes the nominee. My aunt, however, supports Clinton but says she'll vote McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nod.

The people who will get disenfranchised are simply new voters. Young voters, black voters, female voters, etc. Anyone who joined the party to vote for either candidate for the first time, if something sketchy happens to throw the election, they are going to be out of politics for a lifetime.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinti-canes and Mc'O's, found on the dollar menu at McDonalds.

People have no clue what they are going to do in November. McCain is as big a blank sheet and Clinton/Obama are when it comes to the real essentials of how they would govern. All thier great policy pronouncements are alot of mush so far, none has really shared their true vision.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

If McCain should get elected, I still fully expect the democrats to control the congress and assist McCain to govern in a way more centrist way than the Sean Hannity's of the world would want or that leberals (democrats) need to worry about. After all, he does believe in global warming.

Posted by: vichsu | March 27, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

It may well be, as Newport suggests, that many of the now frustrated supporters in both the Clinton and Obama camp will not vote for McCain if their candidate will not get the nomination.
But if the war-like exchanges between these supporters and the candidates themselves don't stop soon, enough of the angry followers of the losing candidate will either not vote at all or go with McCain.
The time for tuning down the nasty tit-for-tat and for reconciliation is now--unless Democrats want to pave the way for McCain.
See also:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/clinton-and-oba.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

LOUD and DUMB, you feeling OK?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Twenty eight percent of Clinton backers in the survey said they would back McCain if Obama won the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would choose the Arizona Senator if Clinton wound up as the nominee."


Those numbers don't make a lot of sense to me. I suspect the real story lies in the underlying data. I wonder if they break out the defectors by party affiliation? Demographic info? Newport's comments imply that they're only talking about Democrats, rather than the whole set of supporters. If they restrict their data collection to Democrats, it is extremely curious that 30% of Clinton's supporters are voting for the person, not the party. That's more in line for what I'd expect from Obama supporters - if independents are included.

Anecdotally, I've long said I'll vote for McCain if the Dems nominate Clinton over Obama. But that won't be a 'defection' because I'm not a Dem.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks for posting Newport's analysis. When Clinton finally swallows her pride, endorses Obama, and holds his hand on the stage in Denver, Democrats will be united against McCain."

Agreed. But will enough of them turn out? That's always the issue.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Polls suggest that African-Americans are not the ones dividing the Democratic Party. If anything, it's the latte liberals. I saw a couple of major newspaper articles and polls out of Mississippi that suggested that blacks would readily embrace Hillary if she got the nomination, though they were supporting Obama in the primary in record numbers. They didn't even hold South Carolina against her. Notice it's always white media commentators who argue that blacks will abandon the party in droves if Hillary "steals" Obama's superdelegates. I think this argument is a fallacy.

After all, just as it would be in Hillary's best interest to unify the party if she loses, so too would it be in Obama's best interest to do so should he lose. Whether or not he would accept the #2 spot, it seems unlikely that he wouldn't find a way to endorse Hillary and urge his black supporters to unite behind her. Because he too would be the presumptive presidential choice in 2012 if she were to lose to McCain in the general election.

I'm sticking with Hillary, I wish pundits would shut up and continue to let the campaign play out through June, and I have no doubt that the party will unify behind one or the other at that time. End of story.

Posted by: harlemboy | March 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

vichsu, you're a moron. If you canvassed for McGovern and are a lifelong Democrat, you should realize the McCain is way too far to the right to support. You're so caught up in your Clinton anti-Obama propaganda that you've lost all sense of what should really matter in chosing the President. You're going to vote for the guy who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and do nothing about the economy just because he's older? Clinton's got you so sold on the importance of "experience" that apparently it trumps everything, even basic Democratic values.

Posted by: matthewteaman | March 27, 2008 04:34 PM

Snap. I'm behind this post 100%.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

okay okay how's this one chris
Obamavericks Versus the Clinstigators
sounds like a 1970's basketball matchup

but i took notice to what a politics professor told me the other day, he said when it came down to it in the past he would opt-out of voting, i understand it sounds pointless if you want something new but if this high level of emotion carries into the general i would look for numbers of democrats that arent voting because of their feelings towards a nominee instead of voting for a republican. Its the civil thing to do if you still disagree by then.

Posted by: mmpeifer | March 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Despite the poll numbers, there's likely to be a bigger defection problem if Clinton gets the nomination, simply because she has no way of beating Obama in pledged delegates. If he takes half the pledged delegates from the next three states, he'll officially wrap up the majority of pledged delegates, and anything he wins in the remaining states will just be padding his margin of victory.

So Clinton can only win the nomination through massive movement of the superdelegates -- a scenario that's not only highly unlikely, but would also generate a lot more feelings of being cheated among Obama supporters than would be present among her supporters if he wins on the basis of vote outcomes.

Thing is, people forgive a lot of things, and they can grow to like someone if they generally agree about the issues. But actually feeling personally wronged by a candidate is an indelible mark, not likely to be forgotten quickly.

So, I can see how Clinton's supporters would be brought into Obama's camp, but I have a hard time seeing how Obama's supporters would make peace with Clinton as the nominee.

Posted by: davestickler | March 27, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

vichsu, you're a moron. If you canvassed for McGovern and are a lifelong Democrat, you should realize the McCain is way too far to the right to support. You're so caught up in your Clinton anti-Obama propaganda that you've lost all sense of what should really matter in chosing the President. You're going to vote for the guy who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and do nothing about the economy just because he's older? Clinton's got you so sold on the importance of "experience" that apparently it trumps everything, even basic Democratic values.

Posted by: matthewteaman | March 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Twenty eight percent of Clinton backers in the survey said they would back McCain if Obama won the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would choose the Arizona Senator if Clinton wound up as the nominee."

Unless I am wrong, these figures do not account for the number of Obama candidates that wouldn't vote altogether rather than McCain...

Posted by: microsoft | March 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't trust those numbers at all. I commonly say I'd vote for McCain if Clinton was the nominee, but really? No way. I think this just proves Clinton supporters are more irrational.

Posted by: schencks84 | March 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you have become a robot. Congratulations! Or should I say...

011101010011010101011001100110101010

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

As a lifelong democrat (I canvassed for McGovern) I will definitely vote for McCain over Obama. Obama is this year's "Great White Hope" for liberals. Someone who promises to finally expiate our country of it's original sin (of slavery). This desire is so profound, so sub-conscious, that it's no wonder why so many are so moved by the Obama candidacy.
But longings for unity and a chance at spiritual redemption for our past sins should not cloud our judgement as to which candidate is best equipped, based on his or her experience, to lead and govern our nation. A new car may look great in the show room, but the media, by and large, has yet to seriously take the Obama carriage out for a true test drive.

Posted by: vichsu | March 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Obamacains and McClintons? Sounds kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys. Actually, based on some of the comments on these thread, that might be pretty accurate ...

How about "Independents"? No, wait, I don't want to be associated with any of those loonies. :)

Posted by: mnteng | March 27, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

amazing that the "not clinton" phenomenon has not been analyzed and realized properly by anyone. how else can you explain the record voting in Dem primaries? Otherwise uninterested voters going out of their way to note their disgust.

How else could you explain the rise of a novice pol with no appreciable experience, who talks in preachy flowery prose about nothing in particular, who exhibits, then hides, his distaste for all things American, who inspires cultish followings to be followed soon by the inevitable nosedive to reality.

All the lies from and about the clintons have emerged into the light of day after being squelched by Libs for decades. Even Sandy Burglers socks couldn't hold all these dirty secrets and the suspension of disbeleief needed to vote for a clinton.

Of course, Libs being gullible for this sort of chicanery, almost half still don't get it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"We already have a name for Clinton supporters who would take McCain over Obama: Whiny Spoiled Brats."

I've got another name for them- closet-Republicans.

Posted by: dsbyrd | March 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

You said it best, Chris. It is a highly deceiving poll because of their choice of timing on the matter. McCain has been gallivanting around on good will trips to foreign countries and kissing babies while Obama and Clinton throw mud at each other.

Not only are the Democrats in a heated battle but McCain has gone untouched for weeks. It's working in two ways here.

Just like when a hurricane hits, people will all talk about how they're going to move to a new location, and some may, but at the end of the day, most people just rebuild right where they were in the first place.

http://think.mtv.com/briantrich/

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm a "probama" (Obama supporter) rather than a "ClintOHMYGODIJUSTTOOKASNIPERBULLETINTHEJUGULAR guy" (COMGIJTASBITJ guy)!!!

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I will not 'fall into line' or 'unite against McCain'. I may find a 3rd party candidate who is less offensive to me than Clinton, or I may vote for McCain, I'd have to see who is on the ballot in my state. I'm so sick of the deception and lies and trickery of the last 8 years, and I will not vote for a sleazy, deceptive, or dishonest candidate.

The part that makes me sad is that I used to be proud of the fact that I got to vote for President Clinton in my first election. In the last year or two, they have let me down so much that now I am ashamed to admit that vote. I wish I could take it back.

Posted by: oeunthaoeurc | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

While this poll is interesting, I have to believe most Democrats would not pass up the opportunity to vote against a R, despite how liberal he is.

They'll fall back in line.

McCain won't stroll into the White House.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 04:08 PM

Exactly.

What true significance does a poll taken in March regarding an event in November hold? My answer: not very much.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

'Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she is almost certain to cast McCain as the heir to the legacy of President George W. Bush -- a decidedly unappetizing prospect for most Democrats.'

You don't have to cast him as anything. He's already said he's going to do everything just like Bush. Liberal? pfff.

Any democrat who votes for McCain will suffer the fate of Nader voters -- buyer's remorse. 4 more years of the same sh*t.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"These results suggest that it may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking," writes Newport. "And it may be equally likely that they fall back in line by the time of the general election."


That seems to already be taking place on the GOP side.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain is portrayed as a maverick, but he is more conservative than his Democratic supporters and Republican detractors care to admit. He is a fervent supporter of the war, voted against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, and is staunchly opposed to abortion and gay marriage. So he's a little softer on the environment and a little harder on keeping special interests out. The idea that any supporter of candidates that disagree with McCain on every issue would vote for him if their candidate doesn't get the nomination is just silly. The Democrats will fall in line eventually no matter who gets the nomination. So how about calling them Posturing Political Puissants?

Posted by: riff_raff17 | March 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

While this poll is interesting, I have to believe most Democrats would not pass up the opportunity to vote against a R, despite how liberal he is.

They'll fall back in line.

McCain won't stroll into the White House.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting Newport's analysis. When Clinton finally swallows her pride, endorses Obama, and holds his hand on the stage in Denver, Democrats will be united against McCain.

Posted by: matthews_greg | March 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

We already have a name for Clinton supporters who would take McCain over Obama: Whiny Spoiled Brats.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company