Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls: Inside the '08 numbers

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll pegged New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) as the leaders in the coming presidential nomination fights.

While polls this far out -- especially of a national sample rather than a pool of Iowa or New Hampshire voters -- function more a test of name identification than a predictor of the eventual nominee, a look beyond the topline numbers gives us a glimpse of voter perceptions about the best known candidates.

Thanks to Post polling director -- and all-around good guy -- Jon Cohen, we have access to the some of the internal numbers from the Post survey.

Let's Parse the Polls!

Clinton appears to start the race in the pole position as she led Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) 41 percent to 17 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) placed third with 11 percent.

Clinton's lead overall extends to most subgroups in the survey. A few are particularly interesting:

* Among non-white voters Clinton led Obama 56 percent to 16 percent. Cohen notes that "non white" encompasses African American, Hispanic, Asian and "other" voters, but the subgroup is dominated by black voters. In fact, if you combine black voters in the Post's December and January surveys, Clinton leads Obama among black voters 60 percent to 20 percent. Given that Obama is black and would be the first African-American elected president, it's somewhat surprising that the historic nature of his candidacy has not galvanized the black community. Of course there are two mitigating factors: First, former President Bill Clinton remains an iconic figure in the black community and some of his popularity appears to be wearing off on his wife. Second, Hillary Clinton remains a far better known commodity nationwide than Obama. As hard as it is to believe, there are still plenty of potential voters who know little or nothing about Obama; few people can say the same of Clinton.

* Clinton leads Obama among unmarried women 56 percent to 13 percent, while leading among married women by a far less impressive 41 percent to 23 percent. As the Post's Lois Romano explored in her story earlier this week, Clinton's campaign is putting considerable focus on wooing women with a message that she, like them, is a mother and a daughter. The numbers above suggest that the women's vote is quite nuanced. Clinton is seen as a iconic figure among younger women who admire her ability to balance her professional and private lives. Among women who have never been married she holds a 43 percent to 12 percent edge over Obama. Clinton's female contemporaries are more suspect about her motives (too cold? too calculating?), and represent a much more serious challenge for her campaign.

* The idea that Clinton has positioned herself as a moderate Democrat appears to be borne out in the survey. She holds her widest lead over Obama (54 percent to 16 percent) among self-identified conservative Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Her narrowest lead is among liberals, who favor Clinton over Obama 38 percent to 20 percent. Moderates favor Clinton 37 percent to 15 percent. Clinton has a right to feel good about her margins across the ideological spectrum but must watch her left flank carefully. The nomination fights tend to be dominated by liberal voters and she must find a way to convince this influential voting bloc that she -- not Obama, Edwards or even former Vice President Al Gore -- is best equipped to represent their interests in the general election.

Turning to the Republicans, the only subgroup comparisons worth making at the moment are between Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). None of the other potential candidates garner enough support to make the slicing and dicing of their numbers insightful.

Overall, Giuliani led McCain 34 percent to 27 percent. No other candidate nudged into double figures; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) each received nine percent.

Drilling down into the numbers, the first thing that becomes clear is that Giuliani's lead is the result of a somewhat striking gender gap. While Giuliani and McCain both take 32 percent among men, Hizzoner leads McCain 35 percent to 22 percent among women. Among married men and women the gap is even larger. Married men favor McCain by a 36 percent to 30 percent margin; married women go for Giuliani 40 percent to 20 percent. Are these married women the "security moms" over whom so much ink was spilled in the 2004 election? Is Giuliani's lead among females tied to his handling of Sept. 11, 2001 and the belief that he can best keep the country safe from future attack? And will these numbers move when details of Giuliani's personal life, which have been fodder for the New York tabloids, become more widely known?

The other intriguing contrast in the McCain/Giuliani numbers come when voters are broken down by ideology. Moderate Republican voters go for Giuliani 37 percent to 32 percent -- not terribly surprising given that the former mayor is clearly the most moderate/liberal candidate in the field. Self-identified conservatives chose Giuliani 33 percent to 21 percent.

The twelve-point bulge for Giuliani among conservatives reveals two things. First, Giuliani's Sept. 11 aura appears at the moment to be masking or eclipsing his liberal social views in the eyes of conservative voters. Second, although McCain agrees with conservatives on most issues he still bears the lingering scars of the 2000 campaign when he was cast -- wrongly his staff argues -- as the moderate alternative to the conservative George W. Bush.

For McCain to win the nomination he must hope that these conservatives decide he is the best combination of a candidate who generally supports their views and who can also win in November 2008. Romney is gunning for these influential conservative voters but could struggle due to his evolving position on social issues. Enter Gingrich or even Sen. Sam Brownback(Kans.).

Stay tuned.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 24, 2007; 10:19 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag The Blog Update: Readers' SOTU Advice
Next: John Kerry Opts Out of Second Presidential Run

Comments

joicb nkuritewf lfaj uodtisr uidhjfyq hwkzpf phnxqg

Posted by: aexgvykj zptojevgh | February 15, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

joicb nkuritewf lfaj uodtisr uidhjfyq hwkzpf phnxqg

Posted by: aexgvykj zptojevgh | February 15, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

naturally busty*[url=http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html]naturally busty[/url]*

Posted by: fokus | February 15, 2007 6:12 AM | Report abuse

The next prez: Michael Bloomberg

draft michael dot com

Posted by: Joseph Oddo | January 26, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Tina - would you not be surprosed if a state that was recently represented by Strom voted for Condi? See also McCain/Bush 2000 for an unfortunate reminder of SC Repubs take on race. I hope I am wrong, but would be greatly surprised to find out that I am. Suppose we will only know if she runs.

Posted by: CJVA | January 25, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Tina -- you haven't actually answered MY question about how presiding over a failed foreign policy qualifies Condi for the presidency. Some SPECIFIC answers regarding what she's "accomplished" would be appreciated.

Posted by: Colin | January 25, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

This debate over Condi Rice running or winning is good and I welcome the questions.

To Drindl, calling me names is not welcome.
Stick to some facts and asks questions like the others. You will be treated with more respect if you are not seen as lacking facts to debate your points.

1) Nor'Easter, if you joined the diplomatic service, your skills in speaking french would be worthy tool for your job. Since Secretary Rice will be attending an international conference in Paris, it is an asset for her. Some diplomats have English as their second language while others do speak French.

2) to CJVA, yes, there are Republican voters who support Condi Rice in S Carolina? Why would you be surpised that Condi Rice would be welcomed in the South by the Republican party? She grew up in Alabama and the state's people admire her as well; she was greeted like a ROCK STAR at the football game last year when she brought British Foreign Minister Jack Straw as her guest to the game.

On the issue of having credentials, Condi Rice has an impressive portfolio like Daddy Bush when he ran in 1980 for president. If she wins delegates in various state primaries in 2008, I think it will show her intelligence and charismatic image offers our nation a path to keeping the White House in Republican hands.

There are various websites to look at for Condi info:
do a google search "Condoleezza Rice for President" and you will find over 30 pages of listed polls, articles, and websites promoting her.
A new one based in Ohio was recently created,
www.thinkcondi.net, joining the long list of groups and websites cheering for Condi to run. That is just a fact which I offer to the debate.

On the issue of career women, I think Condi Rice is a role model for college women. As a single woman, college-educated, who earns over $100,000 a year as a Cabinet member; Condi offers competiton for the single woman vote.
Hillary Clinton does not have a LOCK on the woman's vote, that is my point.

Posted by: Tina | January 25, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Aye, Colin, somethin' smells fishy here, there's a common vernacular to all those Mitt kiss-butt posts, me-thinks a lone blogger's been foolin' with our wayward thread...

Only the blogmaster knows for certain, if all those posts came from the same IP.

Posted by: JEP | January 25, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

So when did Mitt start paying folks to post comments for him? Always interesting to see a flury of comments for one candidate back to back, after NEVER previously hearing anything like that.

Astroturf perhaps?

Posted by: Colin | January 25, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

and lyle, points for sticking to your guns, but IMHO, we as yet have no idea who the next POTUS will be. at this point, it could conceivably be one of seven or eight people. you cannot convince me that i should not make an effort to learn what they have to say and why they feel it's important... that arbitrarily limits the discussion to those candidates and those topics which have received the most attention, which in no way assures careful consideration of what is best for the country. so bring on Gravel, Richardson, Vilsack, amd the other lesser-knowns. IMHO, the most important thing to remember is that the next POTUS has to lead ALL of us, no matter our political stripe, through a world rapidly becoming smaller, and meaner, and warmer.

Posted by: imho potus | January 25, 2007 1:21 AM | Report abuse

i have expressed here before my dismay at the ascendance of one of the shallowest, least authentic candidates of recent memory, and here i refer to mitt romney. as a resident of the state he purported to govern for the past several years, i can tell you for certain that he's full of hot air and all about himself. He is not the least qualified candidate to have stepped up thus far - that would be either Brownback or Hunter - but he ain't far from it. question for all the enthusiastic mittsters above - if indeed you are all real people, about which i have my suspicions - but my question is: what precisely has the Haircut done to convince you of his skill in governing?
"he balanced the MA budget."
-yes but how? asks the massachusetts voter. An enormous increase in fees, the dissing of public education, and the underfunding . privatizing of other programs.
"he was great managing the Utah Olympics."
-great, so as president he's prepared to conduct foreign policy once every four years, and sell the merchandising rights?
take it from one who has lived through his governing style - you want someone with more heart and less ego.

Posted by: mitt ain't it | January 25, 2007 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Of course polls this far out are amazingly meaningless. Candidates have barely started spending money to craft an image or state their cases. Polls of real insiders might be one thing, but nationwide polls of registered voters? Completely meaningless.

Based on pure bio alone, Governor Bill Richardson is the best candidate in the Democratic field. The most experience as an executive. He's balanced budgets, cut taxes, improved access to health care, and for a 1 year withdrawal timetable in Iraq. Sound good? Check out his website - http://www.richardsonforpresident.com or if you are in/around DC, check out this local blog - http://dcforrichardson.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Expat Teacher | January 24, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Tina, can a black woman win a Republican primary in South Carolina? In Georgia? She will need to if she is to be the GOP nominee.

Posted by: CJVA | January 24, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

mitt the man: There is only one important thing wrong with your post. Hillary is the best qualified and most important, IMO, will be the next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

here in new hampshire, Romney rules. He's the favorite among those persidentiables.

Posted by: mandy | January 24, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

yes, dnc mike, iowans now are considering mitt. he's now turning their heads to be with his side. many of them are awed with his charisma. that's a great wow for romney. he's really the turn-around specialist.

Posted by: iowaman | January 24, 2007 11:23 PM | Report abuse

It can't be denied Mitt is getting a momentum support from both parties. It shows that he's a strong leader. It's very apparent that Mitt is our next President.

Though, Giullianni, Clinton and Obama are today's media's stars. But tomorrows' dream would be realized in Mitt. Watch it out! It's gaining now momentum.

Posted by: dnc mike | January 24, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain or Giullianni, their credentials are no match for Mitt Romney, For Mitt is the man who runs eefectively; either in business or government, he proves potentially.

Men of wisdom, open-wide your eyes, open wide your ears, and please internalize. In these days, America is in need, of a great man with the vision to lead.

Please be serious in your choice. This is not to be granted easily. Search your conscience well for sure. Who's really the best man after all?

Take a look at Mitt Romney's records. Take a look at his positions. Think among yourselves who's Mitt Romney is, for among the candidates, he's the most qualified and the best!

Flip-flop issues he already reasoned out. And the conservatives, to him has no more doubts. He evolved from good to better, just like Reagan who made changes in his stances so clear.

The Mormon thing, it's not a point to contend. For there are politicos out there, who are Mormons indeed. The senate's prime man is a Mormon valiant, yet, he's proven, that he has the quality to lead. Many senators and congressmen, who, abide by this religion, and yet, they proved their worth all saying they can. With dignity to lead.

Think it well, my dear countrymen. This is not a joke. We should put in the White House a man who:

* can balance and boost our economy,
* can stop overspending,
* can protect America from extremists,
* can provide insurance to every American,
* can put solution to illegal immigration,
* can let America compete well with Asia,
* can represent America well,
* can instill in every American the dignity and pride,
* can bring a good future to the next generation,
* can help advance technologies for America's advantage,
* can govern well and establish once again a good America.

And there are more and many reasons why he should be given the chance to lead and serve this great country.

It's a very precious time in our history to pick for a wise leader. And hopefully, in voting for a wise leader, we will and should not fail to do it. Remember, we should not fail to vote for a wise leader, we should vote that deserving one, and non other else, but for MITT ROMNEY!

Mitt should be our man! Honestly, he is our wise choice.

Posted by: mitt the man | January 24, 2007 11:08 PM | Report abuse

I love how the craven bedwetting chickenhawk smears a war hero...

makes your stomach turn, doesn't it

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward, neither congress nor the courts nor popular opinion are charged with running the military. The nationally elected president has that duty. You may remember that John F'ing Kerry lost the election. He also lost his medals over some fence or were those someone else's medals? Or was he really in Cambodia? Or did he really get wounded three times without substantial injury. Whatever the current story is, bush is the man now and you are clueless, as usual. the congressional dems may be content with grabbing power just for fun (see todays elevation of territorial delgates -- not states) but the GOPs take their job seriously and don't take polls to decide where to go on vacation or how to fight a war. In case you don't know, surrender and retreat are not usually good military strategies.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 24, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse


'Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the idea that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq. In a CNN interview, Cheney said the administration is committed to moving ahead with its plan to send more troops to secure Baghdad, even if Congress passes a resolution in opposition.'

So he admits he's a dictator now -- doesn't matter what congress or the courts or the people want, he'll do what he wants. A lot like Mussolini or Stalin...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I remember a few comments made by me and a few others about McCain. The sad part is that they are now coming out and folks are finding out just what a coward this man has been over the course of these past few years. He was once a strong supporter of Cheney and even GW after he was trashed so bad hy him. The real McCain is something that a lot of folk will have a very hard time in believing, but as the weeks and months go by, the truth is finally coming to the attention of those that didn't even suspect.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama has sponsored a number of bills in the tightly controlled Repubilcan Senate: increase funding of Pell grants; alternative energy; increased transparency in government records. He has a degree in international relations from Columbia. He is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Veteran's Affairs Committee, and the committee on Homeland Security.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a lot of credentials to run for president. He spent eight years in the state legislature where he worked on reforming welfare, the criminal justice system, public education. He led a massive voter registration project in Chicago. He's an expert on constitutional law. He is a former civil rights attorney. He has top academic credentials - unmatched by any candidate in either party. He has two best selling books. He can out fundraise almost any of the leading candidates. He is known for working well with Republicans in the state legislature and U.S. Senate. He has the strong backing of pro choice and labor groups. He has a brilliant and charismatic spouse who could easily run for the U.S. Senate, and then president, herself. He radiates intelligence, authenticity, and a sincere call for unity - just as Abraham Lincoln had done before him. He sounds lucid and cogent when appealing to religious voters. He had the political courage and good judgement to stand up against war in Iraq when Bush and the war still had public support.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

yeah the republican platform apparently consisted entirely of banning flag burning [huge problem] and keeping gays with kids from marrying [family values]

Posted by: jen | January 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

STILL THE USUAL DROOL I SEE, ZOUK.

Did you actually attend ANY school? Your grasp of everything is so poor. Or maybe your meds interfere with your processing abilities.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Dan and Colin, I suspect there are very few voters who actually care about minimum wage. the demographics point to mostly teenagers of wealthy parents in their first job. no one is going to remember this in a few months, except those Pacific islanders who get to keep their jobs at $2.65. this whole action was simply a stunt. when will the Dems actual platform emerge? still looking for any idea, any notion of how to proceed on any major issues. Bush is bad and bush is wrong doesn't get you very far anymore. "Retreat quickly but not precipitously" is laughable. "cut the funding but it won't result in another S vietnam style massacre" is delusional. save social security by raising taxes (again and again until it hurts real bad) is a non starter. Spend, spend and spend some more on failing schools has never produced results. Raise taxes and the economy won't mind doesn't comport with any economic theory or measure. that's about it for the Dimwit majority. did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, get the government to fix a bunch of medical prices and energy costs and tuition prices. After the big run-up in prices, we can call it inflation and blame it on the Fed and greedy corporations. The willing newspapers will not understand and report the facts (they never do on economic factors). win/win for Dems, we get the votes, the Rs pay the taxes and the capitalist system takes the blame for our negligent idiocy. Got to be a Dem to approciate that methodology.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 24, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

You can say all you want about Hilary, but until she stops rudly laughing at questions asked and...and this is the important part develope great legs she's not going to get my vote which means never.But hey maybe stem cells can do something

Posted by: usarownow | January 24, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

If she could speak Farsi, now that would mean something...

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy to read that people here are interested in Bill Richardson's resume. Although I know next to nothing about his positions on key issues, etc. I do know that he has the potential to be a great candidate.

I'm tired of everyone talking about Hillary and especially Obama. I think the people who do his PR need to help him keep a low profile for the next few months. Other than the fact that he is an inspirational speaker, and has an interesting life story, he has no credentials. At least for me, the novelty has already worn off. And I'm very skeptical of Hillary - she says and does whatever is politically expedient at the time.

Posted by: NYC | January 24, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Tina: I'll be happy to give Sec. Rice credit when she succeeds. Hopefully, something will come out of the Israeli/Palestinian get togethers.

But that's awfully little on the positive side of the scale. Lebanon is falling apart again. No progress has been made with Iran that the public is aware of; just more talk of invasions. Her whitewashing of al-Maliki's snub of Pres. Bush would have been funny, if it actually wasn't so sad.

We should all be hoping for successes for her, because her doing poorly as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State has put this country into a huge mess internationally; and we all pay a price as a result.

Actually, don't you think that she owes the rest of us a success?

With whom do you think she speaks French? David Gregory? I learned French in school and now know how useless it is, except in Quebec, France, and maybe two or three others countries. Tell me she speaks Spanish, or a Chinese dialect, or can construct a simple declarative English sentence and I'll be happy to give her credit for that.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 24, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse


' It would appear as if the Democrats want to bury any success by the State Department since they are so spiteful against Bush'

If I could SEE any successes I would be happy to acknowledge them..

'plus working to get John Negroponte confirmed to serve as her Deputy in the State Dept?'

And that's something to applaud? You must be joking. Negreponte, the enabler of Central America death squads that murdereded 30,000 innocent people?

Soirry, no.

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- here's a fun question for you. If Republicans filibuster to prevent passage of a clean minimum wage bill, how does that make vulnerable Republicans look in 2008? Me thinks that might be a move they ultimately regret. It's a B&tc! not controlling the agenda.

Posted by: Colin | January 24, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Tina -- Condi has been a central player in the Bush administration's foreign policy for 6 years now. In that time, the situation is Israel has gotten WORSE not better. The situation in the Middle East more generally has gotten MUCH WORSE not better. Iran is larger threat today than it was 6 years ago, as is North Korea.

Are these the "achievments" you're talking about? Or has my "party loyalty" blinded me to Condi's greatness again? Strange how I wasn't blinded when I supported Bush I's rational foreign policy decisions, despite being a Democrat then as well.

Some things have NOTHING to do with politics. Condi's incompetence is a great example.

Posted by: Colin | January 24, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I have a theory...Tina is actually Condi RIce trying to stir up some attention for a potential run at the white house. If she thinks race and gender are a non-issue in elections she should look at the gender gap in the Senate and in the House. If she think Republicans will nominate a black woman she must not have been watching the Tennesse Senate race in which the margin of votes could almost be completely attributed to a racial bias. She also must be ignoring the fact that even on this board people believe that a man with Hussien as a middle name cant be elected president. Finally she must not be aware of that finding a solution in the middle east (palastine/Israel/Iraq esp) means that only one of the sides can remain and the others completely eradicated for an actual end to the violence. Tina STOP POSTING ABOUT CONDI UNTIL SOMETHING SUBSTANIVE INDICATING HER POTENTIAL AS A CANDIDATE ARISES.(meaning you know-any announcement of her running, polls that dont just have percieved favorability but actual comparision to other candidates) Oh and if you think that having French as a fluent language matters anymore (it stopped being the diplomatic language a half century ago) or that US foriegn policy is going well right now you are delusional. Just look at how almost everyone in the Western and Arab/Persian world HATE US. President Bush had a full term and one half to repair that but with the help of his Secretarys of State people hate us more.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | January 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris--this is a nice analysis, given the limited data you have here (a survey of likely voters would have cost the Post so much more??). I find the gender/conservative gaps between Giuiliani and McCain really interesting--the race between them is going to be really competitive.

However it will probably weaken whoever becomes the republican candidate, and some of the "security moms" who support Giuiliani may be more likely to move to Hillary rather than the increasingly wild-eyed McCain.

I see more evidence here of a Democratic win in 2008.

Posted by: windserf | January 24, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"They understand that my support for the war was always insincere. Of course, knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."

Don't really care who posted under "Hillary" at 12:06 p.m. post. Right wing troll or not; I know a lot of open-minded Democrats, hardly right-wing conspirators, who think that is exactly Sen. Clinton did.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 24, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, The failure to pass a minimum wage hike does not signal the end of the world. BYW, only 6 states do not have a minimum wage law on the books. True many are tied to the federal level but there existance implies a willingness by the states to handle the issue.

Many senators are simply worried about the affect the rise will have on small businesses. If a business has to terminate some employees in order to pay the others then how does the rise in minimum wage help?

Posted by: Dan W | January 24, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, getting Israel's leader and the Palestian Territory's leader to agree to a meeting is a BIG ITEM. It would appear as if the Democrats want to bury any success by the State Department since they are so spiteful against Bush.

May I ask this.......why deny Secretary Rice the success she has worked for?
She has numerous foreign trips planned in the next few months, plus working to get John Negroponte confirmed to serve as her Deputy in the State Dept?
Are you so jealous of Condi Rice that you have to hide from her success in order to degrade her?

I would expect as much from Democrats, total party blindness.

Posted by: Tina | January 24, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hagel -- wow...

"I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know that Pentagon planners were on their way to Central Com over the weekend -- they haven't even Team B'ed this plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.... We'd better be damned sure what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more lives into that grinder.... and I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide any more, none of us."

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Robert Z -- the nitwit posting as 'hillary' is the same on as 'sand flea''- it's zouk the coward.

jep--i love that part of manhattan, my favorite in fact. it's changing fast but still has a lot of the old charm. love the cobbled streets!

golgi, i do have a lot of oppo on rudy. he was so blatant tho it's easy to find -- i mean there were frontpage photos of him kissing his girlfriends publicly while he was still lving with his wife. and of course him in drag, kissing donald trump [which makes me retch]. His record on the city was even worse. He fought with every single city agency, held grudges and had temper tantrums. His temper is if anything, worse than McCain's.

"unladylike mouth gestures." Tina, you are not only obsessive, you are a loon. And condi speaks French? Well, that sure did John Kerry a lot of good, didn't it? Give up already.

'p.s. I do not understand the racism that exists among blacks, but there it is.'

isn't much different from the racism that exists among whites, would be my guess.

As far as Richardson goes, I;m fine with him. He seems to really have some depth with foreign policy, which he desperately need now, more than anything else. there are rumors floating around abouut him and women, but I don't know whether's there's any substance at all--needs to be looked into. For whatever reason, the media pays little attention to him.

Btw, look at this. Look what we are sending people into. I say let's get out of their way and let them kill each other:
'Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company's helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution style in the back the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.'

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I think that as the months go on, and as the media delves further into Obama's personal life and past, it will become more well-known to American voters that Obama was raised by his white mother, and white grandparents. He only saw his father once as a child, and did not have the typical experience that most black children have, in the sense that he never had any black parental figure at all until he was an adult and met his fathers family in Africa.

Maybe this is why some black Americans feel they can't relate to him - however, I think Americans, black and white, will be able to see a little bit of themselves in him. I think he's grown up in so many places, and had so many different experiences, that almost everyone can see something familiar.

On a light note, my stepdad loves Obama....and I feel confident that soon, he'll stop calling him "Orocka" ;)

Posted by: Stephanie | January 24, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

On a 54-43 vote, Democrats lost an effort to advance a House-passed bill that would lift the pay floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour without any accompanying tax cut. Opponents of the tax cut needed 60 votes to prevail.

The do-nothing congress begins.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Interesting point Robert*. Another example of how the "electability" reason for choosing a candidate backfires when it makes you choose a candidate who isn't really your favorite.

That's what happened with Kerry 2004. Nobody was really enthusiastic about him but everybody thought he was the most "electable" and then -- Surprise! -- since nobody really liked him he lost to the Republican candidate Bush.

Clinton could be the new Kerry (the new LOSING Kerry) if everyone assumes they have to vote for her because the candidate they are more enthusiastic about "won't" win.

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Look Chris, I know you need to pimp your own polls, but they are not polls of likely primary voters so they mean nothing but name recognition.

Polls of likely primary voters *have* been done (e.g. Rasmussen). Nationally, the polls with the tightest screens show Obama statistically tied with Hillary and Edwards barely trailing both of them. Edwards leads by a few points in Iowa and Hillary and Obama are in a statistical tie in New Hampshire with Edwards a bit behind.

That is the real shape of the playing field right now.

Posted by: Nissl | January 24, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Allow me to beat Sandy to the "Kerry is a buffoon" punch:

"Kerry Bows Out of '08 Presidential Race
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 24, 2007
Filed at 1:35 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democrats' losing presidential candidate in 2004, does not intend to run again in 2008, a Democratic official said Wednesday."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 24, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Tina -- You are delusional. Presiding over a devastatingly failed foreign policy does not qualify someone to be POTUS.

Posted by: Colin | January 24, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Stephanie,

Thank you.

I agree that Richardson has an impressive resume. I heard him interviewed on NPR, and he sounded intelligent and thoughtful. With the Hispanic vote growing in importance, it would be great to have Hispanic voters grow accustom to voting blue.

I have read a few articles about why Black Americans are not supporting Obama in higher numbers, even though almost all of those interviewed thought very highly of him. The main reason seems to be that they believe white voters are still extremely racist and would not vote for someone with dark skin. Remember during the O.J. trial, Blacks who responded to a poll thought OJ was being framed by racists, and whites who responded to the poll thought OJ was guilty?

I do not believe most white Americans are racist, and neither does Senator Obama.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is out for 2008.

Says he is running for re-election.

Posted by: RMill | January 24, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Been a long time since I wrote. Trying to stay off the President's Selectee or no-fly lists can be tough. Some people put the "handle" and my name together again.

Anyway, Everyone knows I was the first in my neighborhood with a "Barack Obama President 2008" bumper sticker replacing my "Redefeat Bush".

I am increasingly inclined towards Obama/Richardson, Richardson/Obama. Either would work. What one lacks in experience, the other makes up. What one lacks in star power the other makes up.

I supported Hillary in 2004 over Kerry. Still think she would have been a better candidate than either Kerry or Edwards then.

With the mess in the bunker White House, and the policy chaos overseas due to the bunker White House, I can't imagine a general election supporting either another Bush or another Clinton. By all measures Jeb is the brighter one and the one GHW would have prefered to see in the Oval Office. Won't happen though.

And Hill's unfortunately been through the wars between Newt and Bill and Monica and Bill and Hill and Bill, and survived in 6 years continually reporsitioning to a schizophrenic populace scared enough to believe any propaganda they were fed by the Republican spin machine.

2008 calls for new faces on both sides of the ball as it were.

Posted by: zippy | January 24, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Been a long time since I wrote. Trying to stay off the President's Selectee or no-fly lists can be tough. Some people put the "handle" and my name together again.

Anyway, Everyone knows I was the first in my neighborhood with a "Barack Obama President 2008" bumper sticker replacing my "Redefeat Bush".

I am increasingly inclined towards Obama/Richardson, Richardson/Obama. Either would work. What one lacks in experience, the other makes up. What one lacks in star power the other makes up.

I supported Hillary in 2004 over Kerry. Still think she would have been a better candidate than either Kerry or Edwards then.

With the mess in the bunker White House, and the policy chaos overseas due to the bunker White House, I can't imagine a general election supporting either another Bush or another Clinton. By all measures Jeb is the brighter one and the one GHW would have prefered to see in the Oval Office. Won't happen though.

And Hill's unfortunately been through the wars between Newt and Bill and Monica and Bill and Hill and Bill, and survived in 6 years continually reporsitioning to a schizophrenic populace scared enough to believe any propaganda they were fed by the Republican spin machine.

2008 calls for new faces on both sides of the ball as it were.

Posted by: zippy | January 24, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Golgi, thank you. I am proud to be a life long Democrat. I have donated time and money to many Democrats.

I hate George W Bush and everything he stands for. I think John McCain's so-called straight talk express is a right wing nut. And I think Guiliani has too many skeletons in his closet to be elected.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

BTW "Hillary" it's very original to quote an SNL skit. Cheap shot.

Posted by: Zach | January 24, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Kerry (with his dizzying 8% support) has said he won't seek the nomination in 2008.

Posted by: Zach | January 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, but where is the poll asking unmarried Republican woman who they support?
There is strong support for career woman Condi Rice to run in 2008, the ONLY unmarried woman being viewed as a viable contender for 2008.

Did you see Secretary of State enter the Capitol to be warmly greeted by members of Congress? She looks presidential and was not making "unladylike mouth gestures."
Even Peter Baker was questioned by Nancy last night, if she had dentures or peanut butter in her mouth. Each time the camera was on Condi Rice, she looked like a presidential candidate. She is preparing for the Paris Conference soon which is created to get international help for Lebanon.

CONDI SPEAKS FRENCH. Any chance the Wash Post will mention that in their report from Paris? Did you know she spoke fluent french, the international language of diplomats? She learned french as a teenager and has remained fluent.

Condi will help settle the Israel-Palestine conflict also in Feb. Again, will she get any credit for her efforts after 12 trips to the Middle East?

Posted by: Tina | January 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Robert sounds like a wing-nut, this strange sand-flea weirdo on the other hand...

Anyway, I think those are stated facts about Edwards that, at the end of the day, will make a big difference in how people will vote - no matter how much they like his smile. I like Edwards a lot, but let's not forget he's already run and lost in a primary, and then lost as VP. I don't think he can win, and I'm definitely not a right-winger!

Posted by: Stephanie | January 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Mike B, then I guess 89 percent of all registered Democrats must be "right wing nuts" because only 11 percent like John Edwards. Unlike Obama, Richardson and Clinton, former VP nominee Edwards has been campaigning for president nonstop for the past 4+ years. That is Edwards' full time job now: running for president. Yet despite many years of high exposure and full time campaigning, 89 percent of all Democrats are unimpressed by Edwards. He has peaked at 11 percent. He is nothing more than a young Dennis Kucinich with a tan and a twang.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

fun with blogging: The Giuliani Gross Generalization Game...

fill in the blanks, instead of a "pragmatic" head of a "functional" city, try some other interesting combinations...

like "iron-fisted" and "crime-ridden"... (The Police Gazetteer Version)

or "wildly popular" and "sophisticated,exciting"
(the NYC Chamber of Commerce flier version)

or "philandering" and "decadent"...
(the mainstream America "social conservative" version)

Unfortunately for the imaginary mainstreams on both coasts, in terms of "real" mainstream America, I would suggest the last option might be the most realistic, especially when you start talking about presidential futures outside the beltway, The Big Apple, and the Left Coast.

Us hicks here in the heartland might actually have something to say about all this. Kansas Freshman Nancy Boyda's already pushed that authority envelope, and pulled-off a unanimous vote against future pensions paid to members convicted of corruption.

That's a very potent starting point for a freshman. She is clearly a mover and shaker with mainstream, middle-class values and support, and the chutzpah to stand up to all those stodgy old pols and say "no more!!!".

Boyda's first official act as a U.S. Representative is early proof that big changes are coming to Congress, and that it has only just begun. We're all quite proud of our Kansas Rep, she's done more to return integrity to this errant House in her first 100 hours than her predecessor did in his entire tenure in office.

Posted by: JEP | January 24, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I doubt Giuliani will have the mountain of trouble in wooing conservatives that everyone thinks he will have. The media has made this a cornerstone of their commentary about the mayor and I think it plays well. This is not unlike the way all the pundits went around talking about how then-Governor Bush would have no chance in his debates with Al Gore. The expectations were so lowered that when the Texas Governor merely cleared his throat, he was declared more substantive than expected.

So, now everyone goes around talking about how Giuliani will scare off the base, and then when the Mayor doesn't show up in drag with his two divorcees at the first primary, he will end up looking twice as conservative -- and when he opens his mouth and starts talking about conservative values those worries will dissipate, especially when people begin to contemplate McCain as the frontrunner, the Arizona sentaor himself no outright darling of the G.O.P. and the Mayor such a clear leader.

The Clinton numbers -- oh how I wish the Democrats had not made up their minds so long ago. While Edwards leads on the ground in Iowa, the Democrats have never discussed their best candidates -- Richardson, their most experienced, capable, electable presence. Edwards is sound, but his numbers I fear will evaporate when Clinton muscles into town.

It would be nice if both parties ran their most proven leaders: Former NY Attorney General and Mayor Rudy Guiliani and Congressman - UN Ambassador - Governor Bill Richardson.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | January 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -
Your comment to Robert* is a little unusual. I can't quite put my finger on what is strange, but it seems a little strange to me. Do you really believe he is a right wing nut? If you don't, then why would you suggest something like that?

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Robert' - We Democrats are **counting** on you right wing nuts continuing to think this way. Please, keep it up! Edwards will make an excellent President, but after 8 years of muck and hogwash and mismanagement by you conservatives, I expect Mickey Mouse could run as a Democrat and win.

Posted by: MikeB | January 24, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

nation wide polls change pretty quickly after early primaries, and zogby just had polls out with clinton 3rd or 4th in Iowa, and losing New Hampshire Strategic Vision also found her losing Iowa.

Posted by: college kid | January 24, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I, too, very much would like to hear more about Bill Richardson in the upcoming months. I was very impressed with his credentials with the UN (I think?) and has recently sat down with officials in Darfur. This is something I think most young Americans would definitely find appealing, with awareness raising in them about global causes. What does everyone think about the chances of a Hispanic winning the nomination? Do you think that his chances are any better than a woman's or a black man's? Naïve perhaps, but someone who lives in the south (Kentucky) I can assure you that we are just as sick of Repubs as the rest of the country...I think a "minority" just might be able to pull it out in 08. I really do.

Posted by: Stephanie | January 24, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Followup to JEP's point --

To any New Yorkers who do not want to see Giuliani as president:

NOW would be a good time to start compiling some research on what Rudy actually accomplished for New York, vs. what Rudy takes personal credit for but really happened for some other reason.

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Observations on Washington-style democracy

By Barry Grey in Washington, D.C.
24 January 2007

Political life in the US capital is increasingly an exercise in deceit and self-delusion. It does not take long for an objective observer to discern that behind the traditional forms of parliamentary democracy--congressional debates, floor votes, hearings, etc.--the machinery of a presidential dictatorship is being consolidated and already operating in key areas of policy, both foreign and domestic.

The Bush administration has successfully asserted, due largely to the compliance of a complicit and cowardly Democratic Party and a corrupt media, a degree of unchecked and unaccountable power that is unprecedented in US history. On the basis of the pseudo-constitutional theory of the "unitary executive" and the supposed war-time powers of the commander-in-chief (in the undeclared, unlimited and phony "war on terror"), the right-wing clique around the White House routinely violates constitutional norms and legal statues, snubs Congress and takes actions that flagrantly violate the democratic rights of the American people.

All those involved--administration officials, judges, congressmen, the Washington press corps--are well aware of the advanced state of decay of traditional democratic procedures and the buildup of police-state forms of rule. Yet the outer trappings of parliamentary process for the most part continue, by mutual consent of all involved, in what amounts to a democratic Potemkin Village, maintained in part to keep the people in the dark about the imperiled state of their democratic rights.

There are internal debates and conflicts, which can become heated at times, about the wisdom, legality and propriety of the administration's more brazen assertions of absolute power, but such disputes are never allowed to resonate in any significant way beyond the narrow confines of the Washington establishment.

Among themselves, in their offices, clubs and watering holes, the denizens of the capital engage in gallows humor about latest administration outrage against democratic norms and the constitutional principle of "checks and balances" between coequal branches of government. But since they all have a stake in maintaining the existing two-party political monopoly, through which the financial-corporate elite asserts its basic interests, and they all share an allegiance to American capitalism and its imperialist aims around the world, they continue to play the game as though nothing much had changed.

Last Thursday's appearance by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee provided the latest example of administration stonewalling and contempt for Congress and the impotence of the legislators.

The day before the hearing, Gonzales notified the committee that the administration had obtained authorization from one anonymous member of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court to continue its National Security Agency program of electronic surveillance of Americans' phone calls and e-mails. It was patently obvious that this was a maneuver to provide a judicial fig leaf for an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, close down court challenges to the program, and provide Bush and other administration officials with legal cover in the event of future criminal action against them.

At the Senate hearing, Gonzales flatly refused to answer questions from committee members about the content of the authorization granted by the unnamed FISA judge or any aspect of the ongoing domestic spying program.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/wash-j24.shtml

Posted by: che | January 24, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

ChrisM: Richardson seems to be running for the VP slot. And with good reason: AZ, NM, CO, NV.

Posted by: proutobeGOP | January 24, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, JEP -- I agree, "perceived" was the key word there. But if this *perception* is what Rudy is going to play, then the Democratic candidates should be aware of that and should have some REAL pragmatic policies to advance!

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson's resume is arguably the best in America. Plus, he's the wildly-popular Governor of a swing state and a member of a rapidly-growing "swing-ethnicity."

I've hardly heard anything about the guy. I can't tell you his positions. I can't tell you whether he's charismatic. I can't tell you about skeletons in his closet. That said, I've got to think he warrants a very serious look.

Posted by: Chris M. | January 24, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

judge: That's exactly the point I was making last week in the WagtheBlog section; I was quickly attacked by a shrill blogger that 'of course Blacks would rather vote for another Black' as long as they are not (how did she put it?) a "light-skinned-bougie-sellout".

p.s. I do not understand the racism that exists among blacks, but there it is.

And to AdamHammond: there goes your theory that African-Americans in the rest of the country agree with the African-Americans in Chicagoland in their ecstatic support of Obama.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 24, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Mike B, I doubt there are any Republicans in the U.S. afraid of a national ticket headed by John Edwards. The main part of his platform is a war on poverty. He couldn't carry his home state as the VP candidate. He is a one term senator whose last four years in office really do not count as experience because he was too busy running for president. No one remembers a single bill he sponsored in the Senate except for the bill to authorize war in Iraq. He was afraid to stand for reelection and be judged by his constituents on the criteria of campaign promises kept. He will be attacked by the Republicans as a flip flopper on Iraq, just as Kerry was. He edits coffee table books no one wants to read. He has almost no money in his campaign war chest. And prior to his one term of elected office, he was a personal injury attorney. The only people who do not want Edwards to win the nomination are Democrats who are focused on winning the general election.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

You all don't get it. I'm afraid Hillary's a shoo-in for the nom, and must be considered the odds on fav for pres in 08. Too bad she's a vengeful b!tch.

Posted by: JD | January 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, You should take a serious look at Richardson. I was sceptical of his appeal but after hearing him talk this weekend he strikes me as having the 'guy you could have a beer with' attitude, and he has a better resume than anyone else running, on both sides.

Posted by: Andy R | January 24, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I am constantly amazed that anyone would still think that black voters would be so easily swayed by the color of someone's skin. The recent midterms should've put that notion to bed but here it is, dredged up again as "somewhat surprising." The black community does NOT vote en masse for black candidates. If that were true Al Sharpton would've been elected to something a long time ago. Like everyone, they "judge a man by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin." Gee, go figure.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 24, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"...the pragmatic head of a functional city."

I've lived in New York, out where Barrow meets the Hudson and I'd walk my future wife to and from work, near the Chrysler Building. For Kansas and Iowa contry folks like us, that's such a short jaunt.

So, since I've seen it personally, I can only say I find one poster's description of The Big Apple quite enlightening.

"Functional" is a soft word to describe NYC; "pragmatic" is even easier on Rudy.

I'm still respectfully chuckling at both these gross generalizations.

Posted by: JEP | January 24, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Robert' - "...too far to the left of general election voters"? Compared to what? Edwards is and always has been a centrist. You right wingers apparently call anyone to the left of Bush or Hitler "a liberal". But, go on. Blather some more. The right is deader than dead and no one with any brains is ever going to allow it a breath of life again. Bush-Nixon-Bork-Gingrich-Limbaugh-FOXNews have flat out stunk up the country for too long and none of them/you have any chance at all of influencing future policy in this country.

Posted by: MikeB | January 24, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse


'Democratic candidates would do well to try to match Giuliani's perceived strength as the pragmatic head of a functional city.'

that's only 'erceived' now. you have no idea how divisive, dysfunctional and childish he was as mayor, until 9/11. but he only looked good then because he was the only figure of authrity who wasn't cowering in a bunker.

christ, is this 'sand flea' the stupidst person on earth? why in god's name would someone post drool like this? is it supposed to be funny? do they think anyone believes it? i still think it's zouk. it reeks of his idiocy.

By the way, R Chapman, I totally agree with you. I could support a REAL man like Webb for prez over any of the mama's boys and chickenhawks in the R party. A matchup between him and McCain would be interesting... but I think Webb would prevail. He's the true straight talker.

I like Hillary and Obama both okay -- but I just don't love either. Obama is too untried for me... too many unknowns.

I'd prefer Gore, Testor, Webb, Schweitzer.. you know, all the folks who AREN'T runnning ... and that's the shame of politics today.

Posted by: drind; | January 24, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

To the nitwit who posted over the name of Hilary:

Keep posting, it doesn't hurt to have the right wing conspiracy show its propaganda in public.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | January 24, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

This should be obvious, but I'm not saying that either Kucinich or Edwards is a pervert. I'm saying they are both too far to the political left of general election voters.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the earlier reader that this poll is really good news for John Edwards. After all, he is a distant third to Obama and Clinton. And unlike Obama, Edwards is a very well known commodity, having run on a national ticket already. Edwards has peaked at 11 percent, and has no where to go but down. There was a skit on SNL. An American pervert was strongly disliked by his female coworkers. But then the pervert brought his cousin to work. The only difference was that the perverted cousin had a lovely British accent. In the skit, all the women thought the British pervert sounded elegant and sophisticated. John Edwards is just a younger, tanner version of Dennis Kucinich - but with a Southern accent.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Dirndl;

the GOP candidate who ran against Clinton in 06 had two out of wedlock children from his secretary while living with his wife.

The GOP are only concerned about Democrats' moral character.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | January 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

From today's Washington Post;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300890.html

With the rhetoric of reformers bent on sweeping corruption from the Capitol, the House voted unanimously yesterday to deny federal pensions to lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other related felonies.

"Corrupt politicians deserve prison sentences, not taxpayer-funded pensions," said freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), chief sponsor of the bill.

Remember the name "Boyda," it will re-appear often in the media over the next few months and years.


You go, Nancy! Its OUR House. Take it back!

Posted by: JEP | January 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere. Of course, knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."

Posted by: Hillary | January 24, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are looking for a galvinizing, forward thinking and dynamic leader to lead the party forward and reunite the country?

We saw him last night after the President's adress.

Given as a precedent the substantively thin record that Obama brings to the race, Webb should be able to go straight to the head of the line as an aspiring presidential nominee.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | January 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Why would married women care about Giuliani's affairs? He's not their husband.

But every time Giuliani quotes that old, old phrase "There's no Democratic or Republican way to take out the garbage" (which he already loves to quote) married women are intimately familiar with how very true that is. They are usually the ones who have to tell their OWN families to take out the garbage!

It may not be the "security mom" here, it may be the "do your chores mom" who is sick of basic things in domestic America not functioning.

Democratic candidates would do well to try to match Giuliani's perceived strength as the pragmatic head of a functional city.

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Dear american liberals,
This may be my last letter for a while. the us marines are entering our neighborhood and I will have to find a new place to hide. It is too dangerous to go back to my homeland in Iran so I will probably hide in a mosque or a school for now. I just hope the yankees still don't look there for us.
Please try to get bush out of office and have general webb take over right away, we are running low on supplies, most of our leaders are dead and the new recruits are just boys. Oh how we wish for the old days when americans just stayed home and we could kill with impugnity.
Oh how I miss the old days in the northeast college, finding virgins, drinking beer but that life is so decadent. Imagine writing papers and debating politics instead of religious killing for to influence the locals. Also, please keep up the good work at the New York times. as long as they continue to report only the bad news about the 4 remaining Al queda neighborhoods in Baghdad, we still stand a chance. If you could just let us know when the army will be gone, we will be able to wait until president clinton arrives and makes a total retreat actual. Only then will we be able to bring the war back to the cities on america. please help liberal brothers. liberal sisters, please get fitted for your burka.

Posted by: Sand flea | January 24, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I would bet dollars to donuts that neither of the two "front runners" gets his/her party's nomination.

This poll was a national survey of registered voters - what percentage of those actually vote or participate in nominating caucuses or primaries? 15%? If that?

Motivated party members in both parties are in fact quite hostile to each of these supposed front runners. The Netroots can't stand Hillary for her stance on Iraq. Or they think she isn't electable and what someone with less baggage or someone who will be less divisive.

Likewise the GOP - you cannot win the nomination without Evangelicals and Conservative Christians in your corner - neither McCain nor Giuliani are at all respected by the most important component of the GOP base, and in McCain's case they are openly hostile towards him. Giuliani's position on social issues and his own personal life will assure he won't get the nomination.

The Democrat's will nominate Barack Obama or John Edwards depending on who holds more sway - the Netroots or the same people who voted for Kerry in the primaries because of his electability.

The GOP will nominate Brownback now that Allen and Santorum have crashed out.

Hillary v McCain is a journalist's dream - and it will stay that.

Posted by: redstatedem | January 24, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Guiliani and Gingrich might poll well with married women now, but again, what was disgusting about both men was not just the fact that they dumped their wives, but the cruel, public, humiliating way they both did it... and it isn't that well known --yet.

Rudy, after divorcing his first wife [his cousin, brw] then had several very public affairs [one with an aide] that everyone in New York couldn't help but know about it--we taxpayers footed the bill for their security, and he would publicly chaffeur them around, while his wife and children watched in Gracie Mansion. Disgraceful.

And then Newt, of course, told his wife he was leaving her for someone else while she was in a cancer ward. Ugh.

If republican women think either of these two is someone they can TRUST to lead the country, they are more masochistic than I realized. If I were running an ad against either of them, I would simply graphiically depict the above, and then say omininously at the end -- Can you TRUST this man to do the right thing?

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"While polls this far out -- especially of a national sample rather than a pool of Iowa or New Hampshire voters -- function more a test of name identification than a predictor of the eventual nominee..."

Love em' or hate em', the early-voting states have an awesome power to move any candidate up or down the Presidential ladder, and often in direct opposition to what any "national sample" might imply.

That old addage about counting unhatched chickens applies here as well as anywhere.

This is the fetal stage of the campaign, and here's where the pundits and pollsters weave their thinnest fabric. In the earliest days of the campaign (getting earlier every season) there's only so much to write and pundificate(there's another new word)upon, so now we get to help them by blogging ideas amongst us, that they will confiscate, masticate and refurgitate as their own, in vague plagiarism of our barely-on-thread meanderings.

Bunch of smart fellers...

Posted by: JEP | January 24, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I think it is very telling that Giulliani wins with married women. If this is true there is no way that they know about his extra marital affairs. These are the people that I think would most likely find his divorces the most troubling. But hey I can't figure out my wife so what do I know.

The most telling of all of this isn't about Hillary it is the lack of support that Obama got. I like Senator Obama and really want him to do well, but I think this and the NBC poll should let some wind out of his sails. Also it is really good news for Edwards who seems to have weathered the Obama/Clinton storm decently well.

Posted by: Andy R | January 24, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I don't think people are yet aware of the many, many skeletons rattling around in rudy's closet... once the are, it may make many 'social conservatives' very uncomforable.

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Gingrich the Evil vs. Brownback the Goody-Two Shoes.

It's like Genghis Khan vs. Cotton Mather --wotta choice

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company