Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls: Inside the Clinton Surge

It doesn't take a polling expert to understand that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's showing in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll is a major moment in the campaign.

Clinton, as the Post's Anne Kornblut and Jon Cohen write in today's newspaper, has opened up a whopping 53 percent to 20 percent lead over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the Democratic presidential primary fight with former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) even farther behind with 13 percent. Compare that to the Post's early September survey in which Clinton took 41 percent to 27 percent for Obama and 14 percent for Edwards.

On their face, Clinton's numbers are impressive -- over 50 percent in an eight-way contest is a remarkable achievement at any level but much more so in a presidential contest. But, look deeper into the numbers -- as we can thanks to Cohen and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta -- and the strength of the New York Democrat's campaign becomes even more apparent.

Let's Parse the Polls!

An in-depth look at the Post/ABC News poll shows that Clinton has simultaneously increased her margins among her previously strong demographic groups while shoring up any and all of her problem areas.

Women continue to be the bedrock of Clinton's campaign strength; she takes 57 percent among women compared to 15 percent for Obama and 13 percent for Edwards. But, among men, too, her numbers have ticked up considerably and she now leads Obama 48 percent to 26 percent. In the Post poll earlier this month, Clinton received just 29 percent among men while in our July survey she drew 40 percent among men.

Her numbers have also grown among self-identifying Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents. Among the former group, Clinton is now at 56 percent -- a ten point increase from the Post's early September poll -- while among the latter her number has increased 16 points to 46 percent.

Clinton is ahead among every age group (55+ voters is where she runs strongest with 60 percent support), in every region of the country (65 percent in the Northeast) and at every education level (high school or less 59 percent). White voters favor Clinton 52 percent to 17 for Obama and 16 percent for Edwards; black voters go for Clinton over Obama 51 percent to 38 percent.

Voters who say "strength and experience" is the more important factor in their vote -- not surprisingly -- go for Clinton with 62 percent while Edwards takes second with 14 percent and Obama places third with nine percent. But, even among those who say "new direction and new ideas" is more important to them, a group that, in theory, should be Obama's base, Clinton leads 45 percent to 31 percent.

Beyond the crosstabs in the Democratic primary matchup, things still look very good for Clinton. She holds commanding leads when Democratic voters are asked who in the field is the "strongest leader" (61 percent for Clinton, 20 percent for Obama, 13 percent for Edwards) or who has the best chance of winning the White House next November (57 Clinton, 20 Edwards, 16 Obama).

But, even in other attribute areas that should be far tougher for Clinton, she also holds an edge. Which candidate is best able to reduce partisanship in Washington? Clinton takes 42 percent to 24 percent for Edwards and 20 percent for Obama. The candidate who best reflects the "core values" of the party? Fifty percent for Clinton, 21 percent for Edwards, 18 percent for Obama. How about the "most inspiring" candidate? Clinton leads Obama 41 percent to 37 percent while Edwards lags with 14 percent.

Taken as a whole, the poll's topline questions as well as the information contained within the crosstabs show Clinton simply dominating her opponents at the moment. While Clinton spent most of the summer holding her lead, she now appears to be lengthening it even as the caucus and primary season draws closer.

Campaigns can, of course, turn on a dime and we're nowhere close to the end of this one. But, today's Post poll shows the challenge confronting Obama, Edwards and anyone else hoping to unseat Clinton between now and next February.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 3, 2007; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Does Obama Need To Win Iowa?
Next: Huckabee's Money

Comments

As someone else said - Blarg and Bsimon - what you said.
And I would like to add that I have canvassed for Obama. We have found that people who say they suport Hillary tend to do so because they would like to see Bill back in the white house. There are MANY MANY Obama supporters in California and in the earlier caucus states. Also, these polls do not reflect what we are hearing. Who are they polling? Not one of my friends have been polled. We have more "undecideds" than we show Clinton supporters. I wonder why that is?

I believe that Iowa and New Hampshire will be a wonderful surprise. And to those of you who say a black man can NEVER be President of the United States I say stay tuned...

Posted by: sheridan1 | October 24, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

DRAFT G O R E / put OBAMA on the ticket :
U N B E A T A B L E !

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Are you people for real with talk of Hillary's "experience"? What experience?
She failed the Washington D.C. bar exam and then high tailed it to Arkansas and married Bill. He put her in charge of eductation reform for that state - and she failed. She became a partner in Rose Law Firm thanks to Bill throwing business to that firm - or maybe it was because she was so great at hiding records... She failed at healthcare reform (her only claim to doing anything while First Lady) and she bought the NY Senate seat just like every other politician buys what they want. She's done nothing for NY except use it as a platform to launch her presidential bid. And her "landslide re-election" was a joke. She spend oodles of money on a campaign without any real opponent and her 67% win is another Clinton interpretation of the never ending polls by which she lives her life.
As senator of NY she cast one deciding vote of any substance - Iraq - and it was the wrong one. This, after all her "experience and own personal research of the matter"... Now she backs away from it and she was "dubed" -- BY GWB? I'd be embarrassed just to utter those words.
Just the Clinton's manipulation of the media is frightening. Run an unflattering ad against Hillary and GQ risked losing Bill. Yeah, now ther's someone I want protecting my constitutional rights after 8 years of GWB stepping on them.
And I believe these polls about as much as I believe the media isn't bias. Considering the Senate's approval rating is the lowest its been in history, any senator running for president should be automatically rejected. If you can't handle being a senator you aren't qualified to be a president!
No more Bushs - no more Clintons.

Posted by: cr | October 4, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

DUSTIN,
Hillary is not reality... yet anyway. I prefer thoughtful analysis to propaganda and to all caps "shouting". I appreciate that you have made up your mind, but be prepared for the potential outcome that your candidate will not make the nomination.

Democrats need to step back and and carefully analyze each candidate before throwing support behind one. Beware of "establishment" candidates. Look what happened to Kerry. If democrats were bolder and nominated Howard Dean instead of wishy-washy, poll-watching, triangulating Kerry we might now have a democratic president and an Iraq war a thing of the past.

Let's be bold, thoughtful and innovative in picking a candidate and pay less attention to half-baked polls and media hype around it.

Posted by: bud | October 4, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

As much as I enjoy reading WaPo, the ABC News/WashingtonPost poll is a major outlier in the polls conducted over the last several weeks and therefore, I give little stock to it. It's got Hillary's numbers at roughly 10% points higher than her numbers in these other polls. Anybody, who is looking at that critically has to wonder.

Posted by: SRM | October 4, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The ABC/Post poll is worthless. It surveyed "adults" not even registered voters. The results are therefore not surprising as polls of adults (as opposed to "registered voters" or even better "likely voters") usually simply parrot back what they have been seeing on tv or hearing on the radio. The media for the past two or three weeks has been talking about how inevitable Senator Clinton is (with her appearing on all the Sunday talk shows to boot just before the poll was conducted).

Posted by: MMk | October 4, 2007 2:21 AM | Report abuse

IF, WE AMERICANS REALLY LOVE OUR COUNTRY ; AND WANT IT TO BE THE ONE AND ONLY SUPER POWER,LOOKED UP TO AND RESPECTED AROUND THE WORLD FOR YEARS TO COME; SENATOR CLINTON - FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. IT'S JUST REALITY.

Posted by: DUSTIN | October 4, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Rickerando,
I'm glad that Hillary has enthusiastic supporters. However, your evaluation does not seem very objective. Is this a plant from the campaign?? Putting down all of the other candidates - many of whom are more qualified than Hillary - seems to be a common denominator of Hillary fans.

Here is my report card:
- smart 90%
- cool 30%
- factual answers 70%
- sense of humor 40%
- prepared 90%
- unflappable 60%
- has grace 30%
- appears confident 90%
- truthful 50%
- original 20%

Posted by: bud | October 3, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is winning because she is:
-smart
-cool
-good at giving error-free, factual answers
-has a sense of humor (re: stupid questions)
-prepared (seemingly for any eventuality)
-unflappable
-has grace
-appears confident
-more and more the ONE person that has what it takes to unravel the Bush 8-year mess. Who else is REALLY capable? C'mon: Obama? Kucinich? Paul? Edwards? Giuliani? Nader? Fred? Surely you jest.
And which is more she can go to ANY country in the world, be welcomed, be respected, be known and represent America better than anyone currently running.
This is Hillary's time.
She'll do America proud.

Posted by: Rickerando | October 3, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Good point, roo.
Add that in most states unaffiliated voters won't be able to vote in the primary election. Thus, what matters is not "lean dems" but "registered dems", which is not necessarily the same.

Posted by: bud | October 3, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon--"of the ~1300 respondents, 38% 'lean' dem, which are theh ones cited as supporting Sen Clinton. Given that this is a nationwide poll, its difficult to imagine that many of the respondents have paid much attention to the process at all. Which might be an interesting question to ask in the next poll."

I would like to see the correlation between "how many debates watched/news stories read/etc." and "who do you support."

Posted by: roo | October 3, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Will, Obama seems the most attractive Dem candidate to me too, although Richagdson and Biden are not bad either. The trouble with Clinton is too much baggage. I also agree with earlier posts that being first lady does not amount to much experience in terms of the presidency.

Too much is being made of a sigle poll (ABC). Let's see if future polls will support this. For example, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll has not changed significantly the last few days.

Posted by: bud | October 3, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I should point out that the MSM is likely to focus obsessively on:

Who they want to have a beer with

-and-

What mannerisms of the candidate they can distort (laugh, yell, cry, doesn't matter)

It's not like the MSM wants us to have a good President, they want us to choose who they tell us to choose.

Right?

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, while I do actually know some supporters of Sen. Clinton, most people I know would far rather support Sen. Obama or President Gore.

I don't think the reality on the ground matches what you people in the beltway are trying to shove down our throats.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, third and fourth parties in the US will be only viable after a major electoral reform including the following:
1. Elimination of the electoral college.
2. Awarding at least part of the congressional seats based on proportional representation to party lists.
...and perhaps additional constitutional reforms. Any suggestions?

Posted by: bud | October 3, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Like I've said mikeb. I would be for four parties. This way the left is represted. The problem then becomes the moderates. They would sell-out to teh right every single time. they have no morales. Chris matthews is a perfect example of a moderates mentality, to me. The truth doesn't matter. Right and wrong doesn't matter.

They are like lawyers arguing for a side. They don't believe what they say. don't worry mike. We got them. We may have to wait four more years. But it will happen. fret not. The gop si done. they are done. We both know this. So either we need to control the d party, of at least half of it, or form a real third party. Either way. We will get them. The internet changes the game. We got them by the balls. Don't fret mike. We have already won. They just don't know it yet. Now we jsut have to wait a year.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I react when someone like you posts something like "Once again, self-proclaimed Democrat MikeB takes a half-hour (at least) out of his day to craft a post lambasting Democrats". Actually, I am a liberal, not a Democrat. The Democratic Party of late has become another cover for corporations, the wealthy, and special interest groups. I have been a Democratic Party worker in the past. I knocked on doors, answered telephones, donated money, put up signs, etc. I am NOT doing this during this cycle. If Ms. Clinton is the nominee, I will get very active and do everything in my power to defeat her and every candidate from the party that would foist this disaster off on us.

Posted by: MikeB | October 3, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Mark, Boko, Judge, Drindl, I just sent each of you an email.

To everyone else, I like Hillary, Obama, Dodd, and Biden. If foreign policy were the most important issue on the table today, Biden would be the most qualified of all Rs and the Dems running. If domestic issues were the most important, Chris Dodd probably has the best relevant experience.

People, however, do not vote on global issues. They vote locally AND sometimes for very personal reasons. Dodd and Biden have not been able to get traction, and it's 10 months into the campaign. So the primary voters find themselves choosing between the three leading candidates.

Hillary's surge is the pragmatist in people coming out. They know how ugly the general election will be, and I'm guessing the majority now believes that of the three leading Dems, Hillary is the one who can put up the best fight.

Posted by: FemaleNick | October 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Colin: Everyone knows you're NOT trying to pick a fight, while it's equally apparent that MikeB IS trying to do so. His posts are as offensive as zouk's. They have a very nasty edge to them.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

We need more people like colin on this blog. goes about his buisness. Moderates nicely. Posts his on point post. You are the man colin. But you gotta feel mike's frustration.

Keep posting colin. Do your thing. I learn a lot from you. Democrats like you give me hope for the d party. I'm still and independant. But I'm starting to understand the d's a little better thanks to voices like yours.

A far contrast to the gop's on this site who think this is all a game. Rather than coming togther on common issues its, lie spin and idscreit. do your thing colin. Sorry for what I do here. I'm just trying to open it up so people are free to post without worrying about the gop peanut gallery. No one is as left as me. This free's other to say what they mean. Keep postin gcolin. You are making a differance, if with only me. :)

Peace.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Again, I'm fine agreeing to disagree on immigration. Unlike you, I don't think that kind of disagreement reflects poorly on your character. Healthy debate is a good thing and there are, admittedly, quite a few sides to the immigration debate. I do, however, take exception to (1) your tendency to assasinate the character of ANYONE who disagrees with you on this issue; and (2)at the same time, your rather inconcievable tendency to give Reagan a pass when he was instrumental in passing some of the legislation you hate. The immigration bill that you say he "merely signed" is a good example. Last time I checked, a law doesn't become a law absent the President signing it.

Anyway, i'm actually NOT trying to pick a fight and I dont' have any problem with you criticising Democrats and Republicans alike. I just wish you weren't so quick to assign the worst motivations to everyone with whom you disagree.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton will get rolled in the general, plain and simple. If GW can win two elections, she can't win one. It makes me sick to think of two families running our country for decades on end. And look at these comments...she can rip the repubs apart, they fear her, "i can't wait to see them squirm". Yeah, that sounds GREAT for our country. Fatter and dumber, fatter and dumber.

Posted by: rwinstl | October 3, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"3. Rush hates our troops based on two words taken out of context, yet Reid loves them despite all the slander he has uttered over the years."

Reid has nothing to do with the rush incident. But I agree with the first line. But it's not two words. It's a career spanning 20 years. Read up on your avatar rush. Find out what you are talking about before opening you fascist pie-hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

"Sportscasting career
In 2000, ABC considered adding Limbaugh to their Monday Night Football broadcast team before deciding on comedian Dennis Miller instead.[35]

On July 14, 2003, ESPN announced that Limbaugh would be joining ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown show as a weekly analyst when it premiered on September 7. Limbaugh would provide the "voice of the fan" and was supposed to spark debate on the show.[36] On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2[37] start to the season:

" Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.[38] "

On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN with the statement:

" My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated. I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret. I love Sunday NFL Countdown and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it. Therefore, I have decided to resign. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the show and wish all the best to those who make it happen.[39]
"

He also called barack "Barack the magic negro"

"Limbaugh is sharply critical of feminism, believing that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."[66] He also popularized the term "feminazi", referring to radical feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur."[67] Rush credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term.[68]"

"On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal issue, Limbaugh said, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of emotional release?"[76][77][78]"


Skull and bones?


"Questions about accuracy
Some groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy. The July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, a publication of the progressive group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), alleges fifty different inaccuracies and distortions in Limbaugh's commentary.[79][80] Others have since joined FAIR in questioning Limbaugh's facts. Al Franken, a self-described "liberal infotainer",[81] wrote a satirical book (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations) in which he questioned Limbaugh's accuracy.[82] Media Matters for America, a self-described "web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", has also been critical.[83]

Limbaugh has also been criticized for inaccuracies by the Environmental Defense Fund. A defense fund report authored by Princeton University endowed geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer and Princeton University professor of biology David Wilcove lists 14 significant scientific facts which, the authors allege, Limbaugh misrepresented in his book The Way Things Ought to Be.[84] The authors conclude that "Rush Limbaugh ... allows his political bias to distort the truth about a whole range of important scientific issues."

For his part, Limbaugh claims to pay an independent organization to screen every opinion for accuracy, which he reports to the audience
"

and so on and so forth. The right has spent the last few years trying to remove their content for the internet using copyright laws. Cowards. Why don't they want people to read what they say. This is why they hate mm so much. Because they report what they say. I got a solution. Get off the air.

Any independant thinkers want to see what o'reilly rush and hannity do for a living, and the other fascist propogandsits. Go to media matters. Contrary to what the right wing smear merchants say. Mediamatters puts what these people say out there for all to see.

www.mediamatters.org

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"4. O"reilly sucks even though everyone watches him and Olbermann is great, it just doesn't show up in the ratings somehow.
"

Won't matter much longer, will it. Pretty soon there will be no o'reilly on the air. I bet olberman would step off teh air if that happened. And show you traitors what a real patriot does. As opposed to the gop platform of sellin gout the country so they can make millions.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

14. After not accomplishing anything in 7 years in the Senate, you deserve a promotion."

As opposed to what? What did the gop do once thye finally got control of both the house and senate? Did they do their jobs, in terms of accountabliity. Doublethink, zouk. Me and kim are running away together. Just thought you should know.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

""8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age.""

Or better yet, warren jeffs, tim mcveigh or The waco wackos.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age."

As opposed to the teahings of ann coulter rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly? Ok. YEah right. WACKOOOS

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"5. Media matters and Moveon are fair and balanced and have no agenda like fox does.
"

1. show me one lie they reported.

2. what is fox o'reilly's and rush's response to them? shut them down. smear them. hahahahha. YOUR A FUNNY FASCIST ZOUK. dO YOU REALIZE THE DOUBLE THINNK when it happens or are you just a moron?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

LOL

Posted by: kingofzouk kissing mikeb's butt? | October 3, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"After scanning over about half of these comments, I want to say one thing. We need an independent party that is for independents - and we should have Barack Obama lead that part because we do need someone who can bridge the gap between two divided political ideologies and actually get something done."

I could agree more PixelMarx. The only thing we are missing is the candidate. Barack could be that man. The only thing stopping him is fear. I pray for the day what you said happens. We can hope. At the very least at least we will have representation free of gop sabotage/moderates. That's all I want. CAll me crazy. I want representation from my representatives.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - you are intruding on the liberal mutual admiration society. they do not countenance any dissent. Only fawning at the feet of power and avoidance of all fact are tolerated.

notice I was the only one on this entire blog today who brought up any actual issues that exist for Hillary clinton to overcome or mitigate. not a peep from the goon squad. Instead they plan to originate a mirror blog where all will be flowers and candy. no dissesnsion, no ideas, no creativity. It is some sort of Orwellian nightmare...or dream depending on your point of view.

If their positions are so weak they can stand up to no scrutiny in the least, watch what Rudy will do to hillary when the time comes. It will be more obfuscation, non-answers, evasions and redefining the word "is" from the clintons.

Hey Libs, riddle me this:

how can you be willing to accept without question: (pick one)

1. hillary has experience, even though there is nothing to show for it.
2. If there is experience it is mostly in corruption and money laundering, although she knew nothing about this, just as she was the last to know her husband was a cheat.
3. Rush hates our troops based on two words taken out of context, yet Reid loves them despite all the slander he has uttered over the years.
4. O"reilly sucks even though everyone watches him and Olbermann is great, it just doesn't show up in the ratings somehow.
5. Media matters and Moveon are fair and balanced and have no agenda like fox does.
6. doing nothing about social security is a great plan.
7. Raising taxes will help the economy.
8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age.
9. surrendering is a good way to win a war.
10. Talking to Iran works every time.
11. you can trust N Korea to do as they say.
12. Everyone wants socialized health care because filling out forms and waiting in line is fun.
13. Offering 5000 bucks to children is good policy and has nothing to do with vote buying.
14. After not accomplishing anything in 7 years in the Senate, you deserve a promotion.


Expected response - crickets. hillary is indefensible. funny thing is even the media won't ask these questions or any others.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I also agree that Ted Kennaddy does much more harm than good. But many of the democrats that are selling us out are moderates. They are alos part of the yale plan.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

We need a real party for the left. So the keery's clinton's leiberman's and kennaddy's couldn't stop us. That party would be unstopable and both current parties. The parties that no longer represent us, will go where they belong. Aren't they are representatives? 11% of the country is represented right now, or less. Not enough. Let's take our country back. The first steps are getting rid of the propogandsits that are dividing the nation for their own profit. That to me is treason. Party over country. 30 years for rush murdoch and hannity/o'reilly. Problem solved.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

After scanning over about half of these comments, I want to say one thing. We need an independent party that is for independents - and we should have Barack Obama lead that part because we do need someone who can bridge the gap between two divided political ideologies and actually get something done.

And on Hillary Clinton - what has she proven? With her name recognition she could've made a difference in questioning the war before we invaded Iraq. The only thing she proves is that she is calculating and wants more power.

Posted by: PixelMarx | October 3, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: "You are so caught up in your silly, shallow, partisan world that you cannot even see what is best for this country."

LOL you pathetic little man, you're about the only person on here who has identified himself or herself as a member of a party. I certainly haven't. That's why I mock your consistent bashing of Democrats. Get it, ace?

Do you think your self-proclaimed identification as a Democrat gives your bitter, hateful critiques more weight? Just makes you look silly.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

" I am an AMERICAN first and a liberal second."

And anyone that is not, anyone that chooses a party over their own country is a traitor to the nation and should be held accountable by the law. Thirty years for partisan hacks destroying teh country. Taht will solve this issue real fast. Just be lucky the old laws regarding treason are not alive. Or are they?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Colin - You are attempting to rewrite history. Reagan merely accepted and signed into law a bill that was crafted by a Democratic Congress and Carter before him. I have no idea of whether he liked the legislation or not. I expect he did. However, the trainwreck that ocuured out of that legilation and the repeated failures to do something about it rests with the Democrats as much as it does with the Republican's. Both groups of fools, for whatever reason, have postured and played games and made a royal mess of things. Kennedy, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, all of them are too blame for the harm done to working class Amercian's. Will they pay for it? Who knows? They should, they should be run out of Washington on a rail, humiliated and reviled, but they wont, becasue silly partisan hacks will try and load the blame for this fiasco on Republican's.

Posted by: MikeB | October 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, Loudmouth, how dare I! Lambasting Democrats...treason! Why, I'm just playing into the Republican hands, a dupe of Rush Limbaugh and everything wrong.

You are the primary example of the sort of brainless fool I was writing qbout earlier. You are so caught up in your silly, shallow, partisan world that you cannot even see what is best for this country. ANyone challenging your braindead kneejerk world view must somehow be "less of a Democrat". New flash! There are crooked Democrats (Kennedy, Clinton), there are Democrats that are every bid as awful as CHeney and Bush, and there are some awful good Republican's around, too. I am an AMERICAN first and a liberal second. This, stands in stark contrast to you hacks that are morons first, second, third and last.

Posted by: MikeB | October 3, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- Reagan was in favor of amnesty. That's why, you know, he signed the bill. Here's a fun little quote from the Cato Institute:

"Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, he noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. 'It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?' Reagan asked. 'One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.'"

I respect your views, although I disagree with them, but find your willingness to ignore the fact that REAGAN disagreed with you very strange.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Ignore the peanut gallery. Lie spin anmd discreit. It's all they got. Independant thinkers see how is for the country and who is destroying it.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

wEll said mikeb. Thanks for articulating the argument better than I could. You are the man

Posted by: RUFUS | October 3, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Once again, self-proclaimed Democrat MikeB takes a half-hour (at least) out of his day to craft a post lambasting Democrats.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - You're playing games with history, again. The amnesty legislation that was signed under Reagan was purely a Democratic construct. In fact, the crafting of that legislation began under Carter. Furthermore, supposedly there would be monye approriated for border fences, border patrol agents, etc. But, along came the ACLU and the Plylor Decision which created the mess we are in now. The blame for the illegal problem, and a huge problem it is, too, rests with both major parties. Segments of the Republican Party think of illegal as a ready source of cheap labor, and a way of busting unions. There is an enormous segment of the Democratic Party, hwever, who see the illegals as future Democratic voters. Both are idiots. Illegals represent another nail in the coffin of the Amercian Middle Class ands nothing more. They burn through more than 1/.3 of all social services money and cost Amercian taxpayers, in direct and indirect costs, in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars annually. Your real choices boil down to bankrupting this country or rounding them all up and deporting them. And, forget "sympathy". If you want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for the millions of Amercian workers who have lost their jobs directly due to the flood of illegals. Feel sorry for the millions of children who have no health care becasue employers used illegal workers as bargaining tools to lower wages and cut benefits.

Posted by: MikeB | October 3, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Why is this poll relevant at all? Unless you are a political junkie, why would someone in Oregon or Texas or New Jersey even be paying attention right now? The only poll results that matter are Iowa and New Hampshire, and even those polls are treating answers from ambivalent and undecided voters like they are certainties. This poll is proof that those inside the Beltway are so wrapped up in the horse race that they have completely lost perspective on what matters - the substance of the candidates and how Iowans intuitively feel about them, which happen to be the two areas in which Sen. Clinton will continue to struggle.

Posted by: Steve | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary can poll this well for the next couple of months, it will hurt the ability of Obama and Edwards to raise money down the road. She is fortunate that the other potential nominees ran to the left of her, as current polls suggest that the next president (either Republican or Democrat) will be a moderate. An Edwards riding the middle could have been a contender this election, but he incorrectly put his money on the economy going south (which didn't happen), so he had to become angry, "Bush sucks guy" to get any attention at all. I would have loved to have seen a more moderate Obama this election, but he was counting on anti-war rage running him into office. It's also telling that the most conservative viable candidate for the Republicans is Romney. I suppose anything can happen over the next several months, but the polls suggest this will be the year of the moderate. Kudos to Hillary for guessing right. (no pun intended).

Posted by: Dave S | October 3, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"As long as 'our website' didn't carry ads I don't think WaPo would really care if we used their content."

I dunno if that's a safe assumption. There are limits to 'fair use' in copyright law, that aren't solely tied to commercial use. My preference would be to work with WaPost rather than add another blog to the mix. But please do keep me informed, my ISP is visi, which is a dotcom.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

the future is NOW

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Just want to clarafy. I'm not a racist or anyihtng. I am a christian I love all races. It's simple econmics. Less people here, housing and rent go down. Less people job wages for qualified people go up.

Another flying a mexican flag needs to go to their home. I have german and native american ancestory, and dutch. You don't see me flying any flag but the U.S. Simple econimcs. When those econmics change, WITHOUT GOP SABOTAGE, the rule will change. But strong arming this country, I am agaisnt that.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

One day. When we are ready. We're not there yet. Give me 100 years. I'll do it all by myself ;)

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Judge, Boko, Mark, et all..

I emailed Nick this morning -- but no response so far.

As long as 'our website' didn't carry ads I don't think WaPo would really care if we used their content. [Heck-- most of us could do quite a bit ourselves.] It's usally only a problem if you make money off their stuff. As far as advertising. it's very low in the political blogosphere now. My husband has had a political website since November 1999 [so I do know something about the way these things work] and we used to get a couple a thousand a month in ads, but spending has declined across the board except for the biggest, most well-establsihed blogs like Daily Kos.

What worked best for us re trolls, was if someone repeatedly offended others, they are just banned. If you can't act like a grownup, if you have to throw food,you have to leave the room.

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, directly stated, it will be 'payback' time. Unfortunately, you appear to be late in the 40 year cycle that I see it in. I do believe that you greatly underestimate the Democratic dominence of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and beyond till 1994. Reagan was Pres during the 1980 - 1988, bush till 1992, but the Congress was controlled by the Dems, and had been for 40 years. House & Senate abuses were rarely reported, just endured. I remember the anger in 1994 when the Dems were tossed out - It was huge!

In summary, why would I think the Democrats caused this? Because of the 40 year Dem dominance, the Republican (over)reaction in 1994, and now the Democratic (over)reaction to the Republican 1994 reaction...

Do I think this is good? No. But I would challenge any Dem to call off moveon.org, or Reid or the NYT... it won't happen. So, consequently, get ready for a brutal 2008 - 2014 HRC Administration.


Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, Bokonon, Mark in Austin: I sent my e-mail address to the address FemaleNick gave us and she sent me back several responses along with a new address. I sent her a note at that new address. No response so far. She may be a night person or some facet of reality may have intruded on her plans.

My comment to her was that IF the WaPo fails to enforce it's own rules (which I still hope it will), have you considered how to do carry over the audience? Should we cut and paste the text of CC's blog (which, one could argue, is not part of the print edition and has no commercial value) on a new website and then enter in "For intelligent discussion of this topic please visit XXXXX.com" on the WaPo comment site. Not sure how well that has worked for Truthhunter and others who have tried to gin up traffic but if we regularly told everyone that all of 'us' (meaning our monikers) now posted there it might succeed. We'd probably get hate mail from the WaPo eventually but it would be a wonderful way of getting their attention.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 3, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"granting citizenship (which you called amnesty) or deporting them. Which do you prefer"

Deporting all. All races. Go back to their home country and come to this country the right way, as our ancestors did

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"legalization. So it looks like you might actually agree with the Republicans on this one"

This is the only issue. But the gop support of my position is a farce. If they truly had this position why would they do what they have done for last 30 years? Why are they not enforcing the law. But I'm with some repugs on this one. The d's are not with the program, they think they will get votes. But yes. This is the one issue I'm with SOEM repugs on/

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, what about the illegals that are already here? You say you want to enforce the current laws, which basically means keeping the status quo."

No it doesn't mean that. Just because the gop isn't enforcing the laws doesn't mean no laws exist. Do we have a minimum wage? What happens to employers that pay below this if I work? When I go for a job I have to get much info. When I am arrested I have to give info.

The laws are on the books. The gop chooses not to enforce. When illegals are encountered by law enofrcment, get them out. Empolyer's find illegals report to ice. Why is ice not busting peopel all day everyday. What do they get paid for? They bust people once a month/ Waht are they doing the rest of the time? Eating doughnits? Do the job. The gop has no intention of enforing any laws. But the laws are on the books, they are just not being enforced.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Bill -- Yes, "Democrats" controlled Congress for 40 years but your narrative seems to gloss over (1) that in many of those years there was a working conservative majority b/c of the issue stances of the southern democrats; and (2) that Congress was balanced out by a Republican President for most of that time.

I do agree with you that Democrats in the 70's and 80's had grown complacent and that ethics were an issue, but that really has very little to do with Hillary Clinton or the strategy of the Republican party. Irrespective of corruption that did exist in past Democratic Congress's, the reality is that it only took Republicans a decade to reach the same level (and worse). And the right wing noise machine of today has nothing to do with fighting for good government and everything to do with blindly smearing whoever has a 'D' next to their name.

Oh, and your "liberal media" reference is a hysterical. A study recently came out examining the composition of major newspapers editorial sections and the composition of their political columns. Overwhelmingly, the opinion page is dominated by conservative writers. Add that onto the fact that Clinton was savaged in the '90's by EVERY paper, including the NY Times and Washington Post, and your argument of a liberal media is quite ridiculous.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark, if you see this, I spoke with FemaleNick last night too, and am interested in what you she + Judge C were discussing. If you are in touch with her today, tell her to get back with more info if/when she has it - I'm not sure she is checking the email she gave me any more. If this is serious stuff, I have a more legitimate email address I can pass on t her and to you through her.
Also, yes, I will be glad to provide some input on a letter to CC tonight...

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

More twisted history from Bill: "What you are forgetting is the 1970's & 1980's where the Democratic Party was the original "Party of Corruption" and did everything possible to shut down the Republican party. Why do you think the Republicans WERE so angry in the 1990's?"

Let's see. The 1970s. Who was president for the first half of that decade? Oh, some guy named Nixon. Pure as the driven snow, eh bill? Clearly the Democrats were the original "Party of Corruption." Guess Teapot Dome never happened either.

And the 1980s. Who was president? Ronald Reagan, elected by massive margins, and then GHW Bush, also elected overwhelmingly. The GOP also controlled the Senate for six years. Yep, the Dems did a great job of shutting down the Republican Party in the 1980s. Great explanation for Republican anger in the 1990s.

Bill, some friendly advice. Put down the crack pipe. Step away from the crack pipe.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, what about the illegals that are already here? You say you want to enforce the current laws, which basically means keeping the status quo. But when it comes to illegal immigrants who are already here, there aren't many options besides granting citizenship (which you called amnesty) or deporting them. Which do you prefer?

I asked because your anti-amnesty position didn't seem consistent with your politics in general. It's true that Reagan supported amnesty in the 80s, but right now most Republicans are virulently anti-immigrant. McCain's candidacy was destroyed partially by his support for eventual legalization. So it looks like you might actually agree with the Republicans on this one.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Bill, you seem to be completely ignoring the Republican role in this. You say that if Hillary is elected, she'll be smeared by the media, and it's the Democrats' fault. (I'm still not clear why the Democrat-controlled media, as you see it, would smear the Democratic president. But that's another issue.) The Republicans, presumably, would be the ones doing the smearing. But you say it's not their fault, because the Democrats started it.

What you say about the 80s seems to be a total non-sequitor. The Democrats tried to shut down the Republicans in the 80s? (Obviously with very little success.) What does that have to do with accusing a sitting president of rape and murder, as the right-wing media did in the 90s? You say that the Democrats were corrupt in the 80s, so therefore it's their fault that the media will smear Hillary Clinton. I don't see the connection.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Bill is not zouk. Somewhat smarter. But just as twisted.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry if I represent your ideals."

Misrepresent. Sorry. I don't represent anybody. I have no candidate, before the spinners say I represent a candidate of a movement. I have no movement or candidates. I am an individual. but I can hope at least. Until the gop silences the left compleatly.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"But one day, 10 years from now."

100 years from now. don't want to sacer you old people

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

i feel you mike. But I have to try. Even thouh democratic socialism scares them to death. i have to try. The only reason they are so scared is the red scare of the fifites terrified them. the gop thought police fired people and labeled them as traitors. They tried and destory the left and they continue. Bu tI am the bad guy for adding balance. I can take their pain and hate. I am a real chrisitan. But I have to try. I can't let the gop gut my coutnry without putting up a fight.

I fell you though mike. Frustrating. Sorry if I represent your ideals. Not my intention. I can only do me. I don't represnet democrats mikeb or anyone but myself.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Blarg... and Loudoun:

Actually Gentlemen, I go back to the 60's, with some intense politics in the 70's and a lower level involvement continuously since then:

What you are forgetting is the 1970's & 1980's where the Democratic Party was the original "Party of Corruption" and did everything possible to shut down the Republican party. Why do you think the Republicans WERE so angry in the 1990's? Combine that with a media scene that had not yet seen Talk Radio, Blogs, and Fox news, and it was all a very one-sided, Democratic-liberal PR trip.

Perhaps you are the Trolls? Maybe Kiddies?

Just kidding; but if you ignore the 40 year Democratic domination of Congress, you miss a lot of negative history.

Posted by: Bill Sanford | October 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"The fools that support her still are idiots."

Posted by: From the man calling for genuine discussion, rational thought | October 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"People here aren;t interested in genuine discussion, rational thought" - MikeB

Posted by: Epitome of Pot Calling Kettle Black | October 3, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

In 2002, Bush, neocon propagandists and their accomplices in the media (read Wash Post) shamelessly convinced an incredulous public of the imminent threat of Saddam's (nonexistent) WMD. Today, the democratic neo-imperialists, entrenched Beltway hooligans and media abettors (read Chris Cillizza) have again debased factual public discourse to "celebrity sightings" and have appeared to convince the "Paris Hilton" democratic demographic of Hillary's coronation.

There is no doubt that a society, which worships at the altar of Britney, Paris and O.J., probably deserve Hillary and Bubba, but I doubt that future dead and wounded soldiers and marines would concur?

Posted by: David G. Ward | October 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

'did zouk say something? I think i'm getting better at reducing his posts to background noise level.'

Yeah, me too... as soon as I realize it's another volley of lies and smears [which is always apparent after one or two words] I just scroll on by...

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What's up blarg.

I have said here many times ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. I am for a one world government eventually. It is our only hope as a race as I see it. The borders that divide us don't really exist. They are lines drown on a map to divide us. " The map is not the territory"

With that said, we are a sovergn nation. What the illegals are doing is strong arming the system. I am not for that. I want america to enforce the immagration laws on the books. I am a democratic socialist. I think we pay for social programs in the form of tax, but we don't get any of the benifets. We don't have a real count on how many people need socail programs becasue it is flooded with illegals, many races not just mexican.

To me illegal immagration works only in the favot of the gop.

1.Flood the social programs, good for gop. Divide and conquer. Bueacratic chaos.

2. housing and rent goes up. good for the gop, land owners and the rich

3. Job market. wages go down. good for the gop.

In my opinion american democracy has been stunted by the gop, since the red scare of the fifties. I think we need to right america. Do what the country was founded for. If we did that all nation would want to follow our lead becasue the results would be so positive. Democracy would flow over the world lie a great volcano. But e need to right our ship here first. Destroying the country and divide and conquer for profit is not cool. But one day, 10 years from now. There will be no borders. We are one people. We are one world. Enough divide and conquer. Those that would destoy the country and fight their own countrymen, try and sabotage, are TRAITORS to the country. IMO

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

'bill' is zouk. look how much alike all his posts under diffeent names are.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

rufus - People here aren;t interested in genuine discussion, rational thought, or much of anything else that chaellenges their fanatically held beliefs. The Hillary crowd wont hear of anything critical of her. She could be found out as an Al Qaida agent and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to her base. Pretty much the same thing with the Romney crowd. His kids are cowards who have more imprtant things to do than serve in a war that their daddy supports. Ditto for Guliani and the rest. As far as I can tell, there are a very few genuine populists running for office, people without ties to special interest groups or "money men" or who didn't sell their very soul to some collection of corporations. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the money race right now simply becasue she accepts obscene amounts of money from big businesses and, in spite of her blathering otherwise, she DOES do their bidding. The fools that support her still are idiots. She would be a worse choice than four more years of Bush...and I loathe Bush! No, the problem is with the "fans" of these candidates. The nonthinking, fanatical, "my mind is made up" crowd of clodhoppers that inhabit forums like this. This chattering class is driving much of the media attention. Of couirse, it doesn't help that the MSM writers have the collective brain of a guppy, but there you have it. If you want a debate, go find someone with an open mind who will actually listen to an argument. Here, all you will find are mindless fools spewing drivel and nonsense, cheerleaders of candidate as if they were a professional sport team.

Posted by: MikeB | October 3, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Fort Benning is Hell! - Sherman

Posted by: Get A Life, Rufus! | October 3, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: Bill Sandford's comments about "hate politics" border on the nonsensical. There are two possible explanations:

1. He is a troll.

2. He is extremely young and knows literally nothing about anything that took place before 2000.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bill, you think that hate politics were started by the Democrats? What cave are you living in? Think about the right's treatment of Clinton in the 90s. They regularly accused him of rape and murder. But if the right-wing media goes after Hillary, it's the Democrats' fault? How does that make sense?

So, Rufus, what's your position on immigration?

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"The context? At the time, eastern Pennsylvania was at the edge of the frontier. People were afraid of raids from the local Native American tribes, and begged the British government to quarter troops in their towns and in their homes."

NOT MORE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. GETTING REAL OLD GOP. LIARS AND DPROPOGANDISTS

Posted by: rufsu | October 3, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and it's going down in reno. If you saw the news. both ways. Crackdown on illegals and the goper's starting to get worked up. Scary time in reno. I fear for my children.

Illegal immagration is a gop issue. Regan issued the last blanket amnesty. They want three things (the gop). Low wages for employee's, high rent and housign costs, and the flood of social programs. If we had a real count we could he more as a nation. We pay for the social programs we just don't get the benifets becasue the system is flooded. The gop plan.

This is why they have done nothing in 25 years since reagan offered the amnesty.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Dave!,

I thought I would provide some context to at least one of the founders' statements.

Franklin did say something along the lines of, "Those who would give up essential liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The context? At the time, eastern Pennsylvania was at the edge of the frontier. People were afraid of raids from the local Native American tribes, and begged the British government to quarter troops in their towns and in their homes.

Of course, this quartering of troops became one of the catalysts for the Revolution. It was specifically mentioned in the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence. And the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits the forced quartering of troops, so obviously the issue was still in the forefront of the founders' minds.

All of this for a practice that we begged for so we could feel "safe".

Posted by: J | October 3, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I have questions. I want the coutnry to grow. I'm not the bad guy. I'm just tryin gto poin tthe finger at the bad guy's like lennon and mlk did in the nixon years. I won't hold this blog down. But show some respect, as i show for you. The more my questions and issues are answered, the less frutrated I get. Simple. I would probaly post 5 posts a day if there was real political conversation here. I don't get real conversation just like you simon blarg and drindl. So if I don't get it why should you? Why are you rthoughts and opinions greater than mine. I put the work in everyday. I see all the news. what do you people do to help this country?

Peace.

Fred Thompson 08

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

As a republican, I would say this:

Hillary is probably a good & decent person. I've watched her since the Arkansas days. She is probably going to win the 2008 Election. But...

She does have the innate ability to infuriate conservative people. And after the last 7 years of unsurpassed Hate Politics practiced by the Democrats against another "good & decent person", President Bush, Hillary is going to reap what the Dems have sown. Toss in Hate Journalism as practiced by the MSM, with payback by the emerging conservative media, and it doesn't bode well for a future HRC Administration.

This is not good for the country, but it is what the Democrats and their MSM allies have brought us down to.

Posted by: Bill Sanford | October 3, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I may be playing fair. But no one is answering my questions. So what am I to do. i want real political conversation.

you can't have your cake and eat it to. Answer my posts, somebody.

I fnot of my posts are answered, that is no fun for me. I may have to go back to posting news and articles. Or we can have political dialogue. That's what this site is for right.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"So if it doesn't effect you directly, but destroys the country, you ok with it. But if they are destroying the country doesn't it effect you? I don't get it."


I know you don't.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

But the fateful events of the day seem to have started when a bullet fired by a Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi man who was driving. His foot apparently remained on the accelarator and his car began to move toward the Blackwater convoy. Blackwater guards then began shooting wildly in different directions as panicked Iraqis tried to escape from the scene. In what seems to be the most shocking revelation of the story, after that round of shooting stopped, the Blackwater convoy moved north and began firing at cars again.

Posted by: mercernary thugs | October 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Checking in at lunch - y'all had a good morning until, well, you know.

Rufi seems to be playing fair so far today.

As we used to say:

"What Blarg and bsimon said."

I exchanged info with FemaleNick last night.

I am going to incorporate roo's and Boko's advice in the letter to the WaPo, a draft of which I hope to post tonight. If Judge has thought of anything, or bsimon, or Blarg, or any of you, post it later, OK?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Douglas (the former slave) and Malcolm X (the civil rights leader) both had a white parent and a black parent.

They were not afforded any different treatment than someone of pure African ancestry.

It's because of the so-called "one drop rule." Google it, check your history.

The bi-racial obsession is nothing more than a divisive way of trying to imply that Obama has some sort of "advantage", when history clearly contradicts that perspective in my view.

Posted by: Alan | October 3, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Do you understand, or has this gone over your head as well?"

I got it. So if it doesn't effect you directly, but destroys the country, you ok with it. But if they are destroying the country doesn't it effect you? I don't get it.

Do you have kids? If the GOp wins the presidency their only hope to continue the war is a draft. Then would you care about the propoganda and lies they are spewing? I have a 19 year old brother. He WILL not go through what I went through. The man that came back from fort benning is not the same man that left from san jose. My brother will keep HIMslef.

Just my opinion. I feel 60% of the country is hiding their head in the sand. But you have your opinion, I don't get it, and I have mine.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

There are three typos in this post!

Posted by: kate | October 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Alan says
"So I respectfully disagree with you. In America, bi-racial or multi-racial = black.

And Sen Obama is a black man in America."


I can't speak to the lineage of Messrs Douglas and X, but Mr Obama has one white parent and one black parent. Yet, as you rightfully point out, in America we call him 'black'. Why do you suppose that is?

As I noted above, I did not intend to derail the conversation with that observation. Still, its one I find worth mentioning from time to time.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Diane in DC: I think most dems would love to have another eight years as we had when Bubba was Prez. Nice to see a little support for Hillary for a change on this Blog.

Posted by: lylepink | October 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"For those that want me silenced, do you feel the same way about fox and rush? If not, why?"

The thing with fox & rush are that they aren't interrupting the programs that I choose. You, on the other hand, are disrupting what would otherwise be (zouk excepted) an interesting and occasionally informative discussion.

If you want to post your garbage somewhere else, it won't bother me one whit. If Rush and fox start coming here & posting off-topic rants, I'd ask that they be banned.

Do you understand, or has this gone over your head as well?

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

blarg writes
"It's true that Obama is black."

No, its not. Sen Obama is bi-racial.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:10 AM

bsimon,
Is that true of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, among many, many others? Many blacks in America can't identify their white ancestors since the offspring of such unions were sent back to the cotton fields with no acknowledgment of "bi-racial" lineage. Check the birth certificates--no matter how light-skinned you are, the birth certificate says "colored" assuming you're over 30 (maybe "Negro" if you're somewhat older). So I respectfully disagree with you. In America, bi-racial or multi-racial = black.

And Sen Obama is a black man in America.

Posted by: Alan | October 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Dear Diary,
That awful person is back, again. But, that is not going to rain on my parade! I am so excited. Hillary is surging! This isn't the surging we did in high school with sewing machines. It means that she is ahead in the polls. Foshizzle my nizzle - yeah! Some mean people keep saying that this is only because she is more popular with newspaper writers and the biggies in the Democrat party. As if that is a big help. When my friend Corey ran for senior class vice president and I was the editor of The Viking I tried to promote her. I wrote about how she would require healthy vegetarian meals for lunch, a breakfast program to feed to poor of the community in our school cafeteria, require all males students to take a class on sexism and all womyn students to take a class on feminist philosophy, and promote peace by banning phallocentric language and violent sports like football and do away with the dance team as being sexists. She lost anyways.

Last night Hillary and Nancy explained how it was in the olden days when womyn didn't shave their legs or under their arm or anything to show their empowerment and freedom from men. I thought that was so dark, because it limits the kind of styles you can wear. At the Gap I saw this really cute new sleeveless top and with hairy armpits and all you couldn't wear it. Today, they said, womyn can demonstrate their empowerment by demanding their rightful place as leaders and wearing really nice business suits. Hillary confused the male dominated press corps, and showed their sexist tendencies, by showing some cleavage thereby proving her desirable but criticized them for noticing. That was so wicked!

Well, I've got to go. My assignment today is to visualize world peace. Ta-ta.

Posted by: the femine side | October 3, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I love quotations, probably more than most. But even I try not to pin arguments on the out of context sayings of our founders and others. As an aside, Malcolm X's quote is funny given his other more famous one (...by any means necessary).

Posted by: Dave! | October 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"If you are an Obama supporter, you should face the fact that you have a huge uphill climb in addition to the fact that Clinton is being chauffeured up the hill. "

Drivin' Miss Daisy

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

For those that want me silenced, do you feel the same way about fox and rush? If not, why?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

did zouk say something? I think i'm getting better at reducing his posts to background noise level.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"Fox Says Democrats Exploit Children Like Saddam Hussein Did
Reported by Melanie - Tue 6:59 PMYesterday the Service Workers International Union (SEIU) and "hundreds of children" and "consumers," held a rally in Washington, D.C., to "protest President Bush's expected veto of legislation that would provide health coverage to nearly 10 million children whose families cannot afford private health insurance." Ted Kennedy joined the rally and delivered this message.
"

r

Posted by: http://www.newshounds.us/ | October 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Bill "we don't do personal attacks" O'Reilly calls David Brock "a despicable human being""

Wacthing o'reilly smear media matters last night was funny. I saw him pause for a split second. He was attacking and smearing them, while being angry he was smeared. Although media matters merely repeated his words back to him.

I feel no pity fo r them. Rush hannity and o'reilly REALLY do smear people dialy, all day. the hypocricy and doublethin k of the gop is on full idsplay for those that give a sh*t.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Hear, hear, Bok, nice post. Guess zouk is a nationalist, since nothing motivates him except hatred for half the country... and money.

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

oops.

"He who would sacrafice freedom for security."

Sorry. i misquoted a founding father. Sorry :)b

Posted by: rufus 0 | October 3, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I know, Loudon. That's what someone [my guess is RNC, although it could be a corporate group like exxon, he certainly does hammer on his global warming crap] is paying him to do. The hours are just too regular. I'm going to send an email to CC and suggest he try to save it, by enforcing pause between postings and so forth.

Nobody wants to silence you Ruf. They just want you not to hog. The short posts are fine.

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

good posts Bokonon .

But you forget ben franklin.

"He who would sacrafice safety for security, deserves neither."

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

drindl and Loud and dumb - I completely agree that adding in some sense to your lib admiration society ruins it for you. the reason is that your pea-brained arguments can't satand up to the slightest scrutiny. It is the same all over Liberal land. Avoid discussion of any facts, your idealogy can't stand up to them.

answer a single policy prescription if you can. I listed several misgivings about hillary above which are stated policies of hers. Defend them if you can. Otherwise admit your are weak and feeble and don't deserve any attention.

Or attack the messenger as usual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe Rush got away with smears like this in the past, but he's not going to on our watch," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, a group closely aligned with Congressional Democrats that is behind a new advertisement taking on Mr. Limbaugh."

Posted by: get em jon | October 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Isn't one of the main goals of the people in charge of political parties to not have a protracted, costly, close primary so that that person can focus on the other party and save their war chest for the "real" opponent? Hasn't the mantra of the Democrats been "Anybody but a republican"? My question is why it comes as a surprise to anyone (especially anyone here) that the media and party officials have already appear to have selected Hillary as the candidate? Yes there is dissention from the rank and file, especially about her war vote, but it does not appear to be from the head of party or the people that matter. If you are an Obama supporter, you should face the fact that you have a huge uphill climb in addition to the fact that Clinton is being chauffeured up the hill. But rest assured, there are people that know this is the best...

Posted by: Dave! | October 3, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

A few things I found on patriotism, to be looked at in the context of wiretapping, the Patriot Act, etc:

"He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot."
-Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
-Mark Twain

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
-Thomas Paine

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."
-Malcolm X

"Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country."
-Bertrand Russell

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!"
-Albert Einstein

"Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong."
-James Bryce

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
-Charles DeGaulle

"Patriotism means unqualified and unwavering love for the nation, which implies not uncritical eagerness to serve, not support for unjust claims, but frank assessment of its vices and sins, and penitence for them"
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched."
-Guy de Maupassant

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"I understand you wish to avoid the media matters link to hillary and the moveon link to NYT and hillary, it is unfortunate when the lib agenda is revealed in all its ugliness. I sympathize that you wish to erase the early support for surrender with some partriotic blustering now that the surge has worked splendidly."


WOW. HAve you ever listen to rush? Have you ever watched fox. Right-wing smear merchants, DAILY, all day. They smear the left and democrats all day. Forgive us if we don't pity rush. And buddy, we have the tapes. Enough with the spin and lies. We have the tape. you people look like fools.

Go Fred thompson. I have to balance it out.

Hannity for president. Ok, good.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Caller: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these antiwar soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

Limbaugh: The phony soldiers.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

so colin - in your world - rush hates the troops based on a single highly edited use of two words, despite years of preaching about american troops, while at the same time harry reid, who proclaimes defeat, torture and cowardice is a great supporter of our troops. It is a true skill to be able to ignore the vast majority of evidence and latch onto one conveneient sliver of propoganda. you will need this ability to support hillary.

And can you explain why Kerry, still hasn't released his military record, despite promising to do so years ago? what is he hiding? how can one get three (not one) purple hearts and not visit a hospital?

I understand you wish to avoid the media matters link to hillary and the moveon link to NYT and hillary, it is unfortunate when the lib agenda is revealed in all its ugliness. I sympathize that you wish to erase the early support for surrender with some partriotic blustering now that the surge has worked splendidly.

but the problem is that we now have Fox and the Internet and the MSM lies are not swallowed whole any longer. the truth is out there and Harry Reid can't rewrite history any more than you can proclaim hillary experienced or Rush anti-military. you have to be a total moonbat to fall for that junk. and the bloggers on this site are demonstrating their ignorance and proclivities every day. and the more your message gets out, the lower you sink. Media matters is now exposed for all the world to see as a Hillary smear org, just like moveon, CNN, NYT, Olbermann and the rest. this genie will not go back into the bottle.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"Ann Coulter Declares: 'If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president'... "

Ann Coulter hates everyone. And especially hates women, because she wants to be a man. And almost is... but not quite.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

drindl: Zouk will bring down this forum, just like other good political discussion forums have been wrecked by other idiots (cnn.com chatrooms, Yahoo message boards to name two).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Yes Rufus, the short posts are better, just let other people have a turn too. Play nice."

What about my other posts?

If I post that global warming doesn't exist and "GO NRA", can I stay? Will they silence me if I don't speak my mind drindl? What good is me blogging if I can't speak my mind? Or am I just hogging the site?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The idea of Hillary as a vehicle of change in Washington makes me cackle!!! What we must always remember is, much as the Clintons want to help the country and the world, the good of the Clintons will alway come first.

Why were fundraising numbers up? Because she transferred $10 million from Senate fund. That's not far from Mitt Romney dipping into his personal bank account to up his numbers. Obama raised his money the old-fashioned way - he earned it.

Also, how about Hillary's triangulation of Iran? After Sen. Webb gave his eloquent - and spot-on - oration before the Kyl-Lieberman vote, she went ahead and gave the President discretion to bomb Iran. Now, post-debate, she's decided to co-sponsor a bill with Webb. She's trying to have it both ways. (It did piss me off that Obama didn't vote.)

As for the Illinois senator, anyone familiar with his Senate campaign knows he supersedes race. Nobody expected him to win the Democratic nomination. How did he do it? By traveling throughout small-town Illinois - lily-white, conservative - and winning their hearts and minds. Here in Chicago, I live near the neighborhood of his toughest competition. Even that ward went Obama.

Yes, racism is alive and well in America, but many of us are ready to rise above it, especially our youth. If they do turn up at the polls, they won't be voting Clinton.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | October 3, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

12 o clock and zouk clocks in, right on schedule. You're right, Colin, he works by the hour--I think from a noon to 7 shift sounds about right. So the thread will be destroyed with his rants from now on. I wish CC could do something to stop his hijack, maybe a waiting time between posts or something... registration would help.

Yes Rufus, the short posts are better, just let other people have a turn too. Play nice.

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Ann Coulter Declares: 'If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president'... "

Posted by: ann coulter | October 3, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Blackwater is implicated in killing dozens of people, but not one of the responsible employees has ever faced criminal investigation or prosecution. The US State Department is responsible for referring possible criminal actions by its contractors to the US Justice Department for possible criminal investigations and prosecutions. But it had never happened.

Posted by: Why? | October 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

More smear of John Kerry -- brilliant. EVERY SINGLE man on the boat with him backs Kerry up, and quite a few of those guys are republicans. Yet the GOP noise machine keeps attacking him. Truly classy.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

What's your excuse for that one zouk. "He's as bad as the terrorist bombers." wow. The real bombers did that to him

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Comedian and anti-troop, anti-veteran propagandist, Rush Limbaugh, gets another smackdown from VoteVets.org. Iraq veteran Brian McGough, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq after shrapnel lodged in his skull, sends a message directly to the draft-dodging Limbaugh, telling him to stop telling lies about his service. Vote Vets isn't about to let up on the coward after his phony troop statement and I applaud them for keeping up the pressure. Will Rush ever accept Jon Soltz's challenge to meet with him face to face? Figure the odds...

UPDATE: (Nicole) Never one to stop digging when finding himself in a hole, Rush lashed out at McGough on his radio program, likening him a suicide bomber:

On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

The ultimate irony? McGough received his permanent brain damage from shrapnel from a suicide bomber. Classy move, Rush.

"

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Good cut and paste job lying about Rush a few posts up. Notice that folks pretending Rush didn't say what he said don't like to talk about the unedited transcript.

It's all a waste of time, but I miss the days when being a republican didn't mean you were allergic to facts. Sigh.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

In truth, Limbaugh was very specific as to which "phony soldiers" he was referring. For Jesse McBeth, the moniker clearly fits. He was drubbed out of the military during boot camp (after only forty four days to be precise), but then went on to claim he had been a member of the Special Forces and under such false credentials delivered a plethora of fabricated stories, deriding the military and the mission. He was prominent in the media for a time.


Likewise Beauchamp, who did in fact serve overseas, but whose fabricated fables of abuse and atrocity have been thoroughly refuted by the rest of his outfit.


Limbaugh never even went so far as to include among the phonies Senator and former presidential wannabe John Kerry (D.-MA), whose entire "tour of duty" in Vietnam exceeded McBeth's enlistment by only two and a half months. And that brief Southeast Asian visit netted him three Purple Hearts under highly dubious circumstances.


Of course if Kerry's version of the affair is correct, he could permanently put the matter to rest while completely discrediting his critics simply by releasing his military records, which, to date, he steadfastly refuses to do.


Against this murky backdrop, Democrats on Capitol Hill find an occasion in which they can wave their flags and laud their commitment to God, Country, and the troops, or at least those troops who concoct stories which discredit the terror war and the President's strategy to win it. Such people certainly deserve and receive the unbridled adoration and support of the Democrats.


But perhaps the most telling aspect of this latest offensive is the liberal characterization of Limbaugh, on several occasions just this past week, as "unpatriotic." This is quite an accusation coming from people who insist that the most heinous crime any conservative can commit is to "question the patriotism" of America's leftists as they deride the troops, while crediting America's enemies with every rightness of motive and strategy.

Posted by: suspend disbelief | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

2 many Obama supporters blogging away here
Game over
She votes like a Republican but the Republicans hate her?
Time for her to start building bridges to independents and Republicans who are sick of what GWB-Cheney have done to their party and country and preparing to govern not appealing to the loony left whose candidates can't win nationwide
As some one else said the other day
Bob Graham for VP and take Florida

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

fRED THOMPSON 08

Posted by: RUFUS | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Pat Tillman.

PAT TILLMAN.

Remember that name gop. You can silence us all day everyday at every forum. But we will still hold the teachings of the christ close to our heart. No amount of pain to us or silecning of us will change what's in our hearts.

GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS HOPE. GOD IS GUILT

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

the shamelessness and brazenness of Reid's lies stand as proof that he and his political supporters understand and accept such fraud as an inherent and viable component of the liberal-Democrat playbook.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Come on Dianne, that really makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Progressive -- settle down. I for one don't hate Hillary at all. I'm not crazy for her and prefer other candidates but will happily vote for her in a general election. My problem with your statements about HRC is that you seem to be so obcessed with her that you feel compelled to denegrate all other Dem candidates. That's just silly.

Oh, and relative to my and others "criticism of Hillary." She's better than any republican on all the issues, but what is her so called experience advantage really based on? That's a legitimate question and has nothing to do with "GOP talking points." She's questioning Obama's experience, but she herself would bring one of the thinnest elected records into the WH of anyone in recent memory. Reason not to vote for her? Hardly. But it does tend to weaken her argument against Obama. I'd be interested in hearing a substantive response on this one, though I won't hold my breath.

Second, your argument that Obama has "zero chance" to win the general election seems to be based upon (1) his being a first term senator; and (2) his race. Taking the second issue first, polling data tends to show that race will not be much of an issue for Obama. Name one state that Kerry won that Obama would lose b/c he's black. Let me help you out -- there isn't one. Conversely, Obama runs strongly (as does Hillary) in several states that Kerry lost. In short, ANY of the top Democrats should go into the general election favored. As to the experience issue, Hillary has 4 more years as a Senator than Obama. He's held elected office longer than she has. Comparatively, both are pretty darn inexperienced. But guess what? The public doesn't care. Look at who has won POTUS elections over the last 25 years. Carter served as governor for 4 yeras. Clinton had no experience with national issues when he ran in '92. GWB was objectively unqualified to be President. Whether they should care or not, that's simply not an issue that the public focuses on.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Smarting from the public relations disaster of the Betray us ad, a Soros-funded group, Media Matters, ginned up a fake scandal to demonstrate to those who rely on the mainstream media for their news, that "both sides do it."


Congressional and Senate Democrats, along with the entire liberal political cabal, have been in a staged uproar ever since last week when Limbaugh made reference to Jesse McBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp who, adorning themselves with fraudulent credentials as members in good standing of the United States military, have been caught in blatant fraud, as they seek to make a case against the war.Rush Limbaugh's attackers have intentionally mischaracterized his criticism of such individuals as an assault the U.S. armed forces, asserting that he derided any troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers."


In truth, he did no such thing, and his accusers know it. But why should they hesitate to lie about his words when they have gotten so much political mileage in the past few years by lying about virtually every other aspect of the terror war, the Republican Party, the military, and conservatism in general?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Now this is funny. The idiot kingofzouk lecturing Democrats on whom to support.

and guess what, sfb, I'm not a Democrat, despite your pathetic, repetitive bleats and mewls. You still mistake my loathing of rightwingnut fools like you for being a Democrat. Just shows how dumb you are (to use one of your favorite words, dummy).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as gloabal warming.

Altough saudi arabia attacked us on 9/11 and in iraq. Their oil is more important that ameicans. They should have equal access too running his country as Isreal

BEtter? Can I still blog?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Who are these people? I am highly involved in local Democratic party activities and I do not know a single person who likes Hillary. No real democrat what to see another Clinton kingdom.

Posted by: Dianne in DC | October 3, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON - When a team of FBI agents lands in Baghdad this week to probe Blackwater security contractors for murder, it will be protected by bodyguards from the very same firm, the Daily News has learned.
Half a dozen FBI criminal investigators based in Washington are scheduled to travel to Iraq to gather evidence and interview witnesses about a Sept. 16 shooting spree that left at least 11 Iraqi civilians dead.'

What a great idea. What a really great idea.

Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson 08

NRA .... Guns for everybody

War in iran and iraq good for business

The gop mur of service members the are not republcians is justifiable because they are traitors if they don't blindly follow their leader.

Spy on me listen to all my calls. If I wasn't doing anything wrong I have nothign to hide.

Free speech should only be for one party. Everybody else should hold their mouth.


Better? Do you people feel better about yoursleves now? Can I still blog if I blog these things?

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes"

"Do not speak to fools they scron the wisdom of your words"

Posted by: Nas | October 3, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Dem and I don't get it. Biden and Dodd have oodles more experience than Hill. Where does she get off with this more experience thing? She was a strong supporter of the Iraq war, screwed up health insurance, has a lousy plan now, and just voted for the first step towards a war with Iran. She goes on tv and talks and talks and says nothing. Can't even pick a baseball team to root for. There's leadership for you! Sorry, this is one bandwagon this liberal-moderate is NOT jumping on. Looks like third party time.

Posted by: Down in Florida | October 3, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

It seems to be a true believing Dem these days you must be willing to "suspend disbelief". you must be willing to accept without question:

1. hillary has experience, even though there is nothing to show for it.
2. If there is experience it is mostly in corruption and money laundering, although she knew nothing about this, just as she was the last to know her husband was a cheat.
3. Rush hates our troops based on two words taken out of context, yet Reid loves them despite all the slander he has uttered over the years.
4. O"reilly sucks even though everyone watches him and Olbermann is great, it just doesn't show up in the ratings somehow.
5. Media matters and Moveon are fair and balanced and have no agenda like fox does.
6. doing nothing about social security is a great plan.
7. Raising taxes will help the economy.
8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age.
9. surrendering is a good way to win a war.
10. Talking to Iran works every time.
11. you can trust N Korea to do as they say.
12. Everyone wants socialized health care because filling out forms and waiting in line is fun.
13. Offering 5000 bucks to children is good policy and has nothing to do with vote buying.
14. After not accomplishing anything in 7 years in the Senate, you deserve a promotion.

I can see how Rufas, IC, drindl, cassandra, loud and dumb and the rest of the moonbats can fall for this, but does anyone think it will extend beyond the 11%ers? Has the american voter completely lost the ability to reason and come to valid conclusions?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"We're still spending like we weren't at war. In prior conflicts, the discretionary spending has gone way down. We've understood we can't have guns and butter both at the same time. We don't understand that anymore," Thompson said.'

We also understood that if you get into a war, you have to pay for it by raising taxes, not borrowing from foreign governments. If people understood we actually will have to pay for this someday, they might not still be supportinng the war.

Posted by: Fred sez | October 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

MNorth writes
"She has quite a few accomplishments for a one term Senator, and she has been very adroit at working across partisan lines to get things done."

I don't dispute that she has served her constituents in NY well. I question whether she has demonstrated the kind of vision & leadership necessary to be the leader of the free world. Convincing Corning to keep a couple jobs in NY doesn't rise to that level. What does? Biden-Brownback, for one.


Progressive writes
"Bill Clinton says Hillary has the experience needed... That's enough evidence for me."

I'm sorry Progressive, but that is laughable. Hillary is no Bill.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, the last word! Progressive has used the brilliant debating technique of leaving so he/she doesn't have to read what anyone else has to say! I guess I lose. If only I'd left earlier, then I'd be the winner. Maybe next time.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

'Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner in national polls, has avoided meeting with the nation's most powerful socially conservative leaders, and instead is taking his appeal directly to conservative activists at the local level.

Giuliani has not met with the leaders who make up the Arlington Group, a coalition of influential conservatives who have met as a group with Giuliani's chief rivals, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Giuliani is also the only major Republican candidate who has not responded to an invitation to attend a briefing later this month sponsored by the Family Research Council, a prominent advocacy group representing evangelical Christians.
Giuliani knows that meeting with groups of highly ideological conservative leaders, many of them based in and around Washington, would not be easy, and could become confrontational very quickly.

"You have a whole group of evangelical Christians who will not support him," said Paul Weyrich, a member of the Arlington Group, in reference to Giuliani. "Absolutely will not.

"I will not back Giuliani," he added.

Weyrich, a founder of the modern social conservative movement and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, predicted that in the general election many values-driven Republican voters would stay home if Giuliani is the nominee. '

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rudy-does-end-run-around-the-rights-leaders-2007-10-03.html

Posted by: hey CC -- cover this | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Do you expect Bill Clinton to say something else? His wife is running for president. Of course he's supporting her!

I'm not a "Hillary hater". I just don't think she's the best candidate. Why are you so hostile? Are you an Obama hater? Are you an Edwards hater? Or do you just think they're inferior candidates? Stop being so rude to people who disagree with you. We're both Democrats; can't we have a reasonable discussion about who should be our nominee?

You didn't address anything that I said in my last post; you just repeated yourself. I don't think Hillary was too powerful. I think she had one major responsibility as First Lady, which didn't go very well. Besides the health care reform bill, I don't know what she did that makes her more qualified to be President than Laura Bush. You don't seem able to offer any suggestions; maybe you don't know either.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

And that's my last word for today, so I got the last word in. Let the Hillary basher bloviate all they want. They are outnumbered. End of story. Bye!

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

mnorth: very good post. People who ask "What has he/she done?" about a senator because they haven't seen that person's name in lights attached to enacted legislation have very little idea about how the Senate works.

Compared with another one-term senator like Fred Thompson, by all accounts Clinton has done a heckuva lot.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

'House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. '

Amazing the lengths they will go to protect their drug-addled Hate Radio wh*re.

Posted by: sickening | October 3, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton says Hillary has the experience needed, and she is the best-prepared candidate in his lifetime. That's enough evidence for me.

Now, you Hillary haters out there might also be Bill haters, but you are vastly outnumbered among Democrats, which is why Hillary leads Obama by 33 points in the national poll.

The Hillary bashers are the ones who want to have it both ways. One minute, they say she was too powerful because she botched health care reform. The next minute, they say she was only First Lady and that's not good enough experience.

Well, Hillary carved out her own role within the realm of First Lady. She's a trailblazer, and just because Laura Bush did not follow the same trail does not change that accomplishment.

In terms of judgment and bipartisanship, during Hillary's first six years in the Senate, there were plenty of Republican senators who sang her praises and said she was very effective at reaching across the aisle.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

If you go to the link of the poll itself, you will further note that this sample's responses HARDLY warrant this media's self-serving conclusions. For example, the sampled folks 1) are barely paying attention (the "somewhat" choice was selected by nearly 50% of respondents); ALSO, 2) all the alleged WaPo "parsing" fails to mention the very high proportion of people who "leaned" or identified with NEITHER party; and the FINAL beauty is that 3) the poll results would effectively set up a Hillary-Rudy contest. When will we EVER learn to do the "verify" thing? All the alleged parsing is designed to get us used to having to say hello to President Giuliani. Are we STILL that stupid????

Posted by: sundance | October 3, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

>why did she run for the Senate? Its a >legislative body - has she done any >legislating?

Yes, she has. Look at her record in the Senate, not at the soundbites, and look at where most effective first term Senators get things done--BEHIND the scenes not in the limelight.

She has been a very serious Senator, and has taken the time to learn the arcane rules (which ultimately matter a great deal), to pay her dues within the party caucus AND to work across the aisle.

She's also shown a great ability to get things done for NY. That's why she is so popular in her home state, even in areas not traditionally friendly to Democrats.

New York State is rapidly becoming a leader in Wind Energy--that's in part due to Clinton's staff working in a bipartisan way to get folks on the same page to get the windmills in the ground.

She's worked with Corning in innovative ways to keep jobs in New York, rather than seeing them go offshore.

She has quite a few accomplishments for a one term Senator, and she has been very adroit at working across partisan lines to get things done.

Posted by: MNorth | October 3, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

And here it comes again: "If you don't support my candidate, you're not a real Democrat." Any minute now people will start accusing each other of treason, and it will all be downhill from there. Honestly, there's a big difference between expressing misgivings about a person's qualifications for the presidency and "bashing" her or him.

Posted by: TJM | October 3, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I notice a couple of repubs wanting Hillary as their opponent. I don't live in Brooklyn, but I'll gladly sell you the bridge anyway.

Posted by: lylepink | October 3, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

'Progressive, Laura Bush has also spent 8 years in the White House. '

yeah, but she's been high the whole time, and who could blame her?

Posted by: Sandy | October 3, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Oh, Mr. Limbaugh also asserted that Mr. McGough was probably 'brain-damaged.' Keep supportin those troops, Rush.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I just have to think people will realize that they're about to vote for HRC and then they'll pull the trigger for someone else. This story says it all...

http://capitolrag.blogspot.com/2007/10/panic-sets-in-as-voters-realize-hillary.html

Posted by: Beltway Bob | October 3, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, you're asking me to defend things that I didn't say. I never said that Hillary was too powerful as First Lady. I said that the one initiative she was really responsible for as First Lady, her health care plan, failed. Besides that, I don't see anything she did as First Lady which qualifies as presidential experience. Maybe you could give some examples of what Hillary Clinton did that Laura Bush hasn't.

But while we're throwing insults around, I saw you criticizing Obama for his lack of experience. Just like they do on Fox News! OMG, you must be Hannity, because you said a thing that he says!

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

'On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Limbaugh went on to say that "[w]hoever pumped [McGough] full of these lies about what I said ... has betrayed him." Limbaugh denounced the ad despite admitting "I haven't watched the ad."

In the ad, which was created in response to Limbaugh's recent characterization of U.S. service members who oppose the war in Iraq as "phony soldiers," McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service."

Mr. McGough can read and listen, so I imagine he's doesn't need anyone to tell him what Mr. Limbaugh said...

Posted by: walking it back | October 3, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Progressive,

I would be more willing to have Clinton point to her time in the White House to demonstrate experience if she would produce the documents to show it. But she has those locked up tight until at least past the election.

Sorry, but she shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If there is really experience there, prove it.

Posted by: J | October 3, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, while I'm on my rant, why did she run for the Senate? Its a legislative body - has she done any legislating? Or has she merely padded her resume to setup for the inevitable run at the White House?

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

progressive asks
"So, which one is it?"

Progressive, point me to where she has demonstrated the kind of judgement a President should have. Point me to an example of her effective leadership in forging a bipartisan solution to a sticky problem. Point out an example of a compelling vision she has for the country.

She has none of the above. If you can prove me wrong, perhaps I would consider retracting some of my criticisms. From where I sit, she is the wrong person at the wrong time. We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm sick of polls. I'm sick of some media using only certain polls to promote their favorite candidates. How are these polls taken anyway? Maybe some columnist could do a story on who, what, where, when, and how polling information is garnered.

Posted by: elcie | October 3, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

When blarg and bsimon bash Hillary, they sound as if they are repeating Republican talking points. I think you both belong on Fox News, along with hannity and o'LIElly. On the one hand, Republicans want to bash Hillary for the health-care-plan fiasco and say she was too powerful because she was unelected. Then, on the when Hillary points to her White House years as evidence of her readiness to be President, the bashers turn around and say, "you were only First Lady, you selected china and wrote silly books about Socks." So, which one is it? Was she TOO powerful, or NOT powerful enough? Give me a break! Is there anyone out there who thinks Laura Bush is nearly as smart or accomplished as Hillary Clinton? Your comparisons are absurd.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

candide, also, citing the gospels as justification does not entitle you to anything in a nation in which - still - no one is required to believe as you do. And do you remember what people have done recently in the name of the gospels, not to mention the Koran - ? Anyway, the gospels also say "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Turn the other cheek," among other things. I know that, and I'm agnostic...

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

There was a time not so long ago when Howard Dean was deemed to be unstoppable. Hmmm. Just about this time of year, too.

Al Gore will be the nominee.

Posted by: Cecil Bothwell | October 3, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

candide, 2 things - 1, IF we changed the Constitution... but we haven't and won't, at least not for this reason. 2, (I think) "advocating revolution" comes under freedom of speech (as long as it stays speech, and does not include arms, training etc.) Advocating the death of a specific person does not.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Candide, if Bush is assassinated, then we get President Cheney. What good does that do anyone? And assassinated presidents tend to be martyrs; everyone remembers them more fondly. Bush is barely able to get any of his policies enacted right now; he's a weak lame duck. Assassinating him wouldn't change the political situation one bit. And history shows that assassinations rarely have positive effects.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

By year's end, the cost for both conflicts since Sept. 11, 2001, is projected to reach more than $800 billion. Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War put together, and and is on pace to surpass the Vietnam War by the end of this year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

blarg writes
"None of the frontrunners in either party have the kind of experience that traditionally matters in a presidential campaign. This campaign is not about experience."


Agreed. Several 'second+ tier' candidates have more experience than the frontrunners - from both parties - combined.

and Progressive, what relevance to the Presidency is picking china patterns? I think she also ghost-wrote a book for Socks.

If you want to count the healthcare task force, she appears to not have learned from those mistakes. In my opinion she has yet to demonstrate any kind of compelling vision or of having superior judgement, or even basic leadership skills. Point me to one bill she introduced in the Senate & worked through the process, building bi-partisan support to get it passed. Anything?

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, Laura Bush has also spent 8 years in the White House. Does that give her experience which would be valuable as President? Chelsea Clinton lived there too; are you going to support her candidacy in a few years?

Being married to the President does not count as experience. First Lady is an unelected and unappointed position with no official responsibilities. (At least, no responsibilities that provide meaningful experience.) Her active role in the presidency mainly involved a failed health care plan. The fact that she used to live in the White House and has the same last name as a popular ex-president doesn't mean that she has political experience.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

It says in the gospels that it is right for one man to die for the people. Which is better: that between now and 2009 (2013 if some are elected president) hundreds or thousands of American military die or if one man, you know who, is ritually sacrificed for the welfare of the nation?

Posted by: candide | October 3, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

wow people are so uneducated in this country if they voted "clinton has new, fresh ideas" and "clinton can reduce partisanship."

you have GOT to be kidding me...

Posted by: ye | October 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department office that objected to a Bush administration domestic eavesdropping plan, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that the situation became a "legal mess" because the White House did not believe either the courts or Congress had any role to play.

Professor Goldsmith told the Judiciary Committee that chances to create a legally justified program were undercut by senior White House officials who were averse to any restraint on presidential power and devoted to extreme secrecy.

"It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered," said Professor Goldsmith, who raised his objections to the program run by the National Security Agency while head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03nsa.html?ex=1349064000&en=0b38b05cfbefed59&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: fyi | October 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The Communist Party was prosecuted for advocating the overthrow of the US government. Was this not eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court? Is advocating revolution illegal?

Posted by: candide | October 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

When you talk about Hillary's experience, you can't just say she was elected to the Senate in 2000 and that's all she has. Nonsense! How can you ignore everything that happened before 2000. Just because she was not elected to office before 2000 does not mean she lacks experience. She had 8 years in the White House, and she played an active role in a successful presidency.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

yeah, you better be careful candide. only republicans are allowed to incite people to murder...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

If we changed the constitution we could pass a bill of attainder against Bush; that is a judicial death sentence. It would be legal.

Posted by: candide | October 3, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, Bokonon, there was a drop in crime in almost all the major cities during the Clinton era... I can look up the stats if you want, I've seen them published a few times. I was working in Manhattan at the time, and it was still pretty rowdy in NYC under Guiliani. I got hit in the head with a coffee mug by a deranged homeless woman in Grand Centra once, and while visiting a friend's apartment was splashed with water by someone who was apparently bathing in her courtyard fountain. And occasionally you'd step over someone who didn't seem to be breathing. But hey, that's New York...

Guiliani was not well liked before 9/11, as I said, he fought with EVERYONE -- and his very brazen and public handling [and canoodling] of his serial affairs with staffers and then his public humiliation of his wife and kids -- it was nasty.

I didn't hear about the 'love nest' thing in the command headquarters till later, but it doesn't surprise me. Monstrous selfishness is one of his defining qualities. Both he and his wife
ARE quite strange -- witness the staged cell phone calls during his speechs and so forth -- why would they think something that most everyone else realizes is plain rude and think people would find it endearing?

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Bunkley's right - Hillary is the dream candidate for the republicans (which Rove actually said). She voted for the invasion of Iraq, she's backpedaled on universal health care and has alienated the progressive democrats who show up at the polls - oh and she's hated by republicans universally. Big Media would prefer to have Big Tax Cuts and no regulation. That's why they support Hillary. She has the best chance of losing and even if she didn't, they could work with her.... That's why they push these national polls. How is Obama doing in states where the's campaigning? Obama is only 15 points behind Hillary in NH.

Posted by: JBR | October 3, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

candide, you want to be careful about advocating option number two on a public forum, even if you don't really mean it and are speaking out of frustration... it could be enough to put you in a cell. I think even just saying it is a federal crime, although others on this blog would know for sure.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

This will be the winter of our discontent. We see nothing being done to end the Iraq war or to prevent a war vs. Iran. The Democratic candidates promise not much more than Bush. Americans need to think about whether our system really works (it does not) and whether we need a Jeffersonian solution, namely a revolution. This could take the form of 1) impeachment of Bush; 2) assassination of Bush; 3) a general strike. I favor any of these approaches. DO SOMETHING, AMERICA!

Posted by: candide | October 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

This will be the winter of our discongent. We see nothing being done to end the Iraq war or to prevent a war vs. Iran. The Democratic candidates promise not much more than Bush. Americans need to think about whether our system really works (it does not) and whether we need a Jeffersonian solution, namely a revolution. This could take the form of 1) impeachment of Bush; 2) assassination of Bush; 3) a general strike. I favor any of these approaches. DO SOMETHING, AMERICA!

Posted by: candide | October 3, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Yes, drindl, I had heard of that. amazing. He is only the most liberal Republican in the race on quote unquote 'social' issues, but he's draconian law + order all the way. My brother and his wife lived in the Village + Brooklyn for a few years when he was mayor, and while it's true that NY was pretty safe (at least where they were) during that time, he (RG) was seen at least by them and by the people they hung around with as being power-mad. And it wasn't COMPLETELY safe - my brother was the victim of an attempted mugging one night on his street. Of course, being a black belt, my brother the pacifist broke the mugger's nose and was able to escape unmugged - AND they caught the mugger, and convicted him. True story.
2 questions for you:
I have heard that a lot of the stuff Giuliani has claimed as his legacy (drop in crime, cleaning up Times Sq., etc.) actually began under Dinkins. Is that true?
Also, how is the whole thing with Giuliani using the disaster HQ in the Trade Center as a love nest playing in New York? and his hostile relationship with the actual firefighters ("heroes of 9/11")?

and what about the WEEEEIRD story of that woman who claimed her fiance had died in Tower #2 - only to have his family deny knowing her? It's a mad mad mad mad mad etc. world.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000. That's 4 more years Senate experience than Obama has. She's barely out of her first Senate term. Before his term, Obama was a state legislator, which means that he served his constituents as an elected official. Hillary, on the other hand, was the First Lady, which means that she was married to someone important.

I don't understand why Hillary supporters keep talking up her experience. If you're really concerned about experience, why not support Richardson, Biden, or Dodd? All have much more experience than Hillary. It's true that Obama doesn't have much experience in national politics. But neither does Hillary, and neither does Edwards. For that matter, neither do Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson. None of the frontrunners in either party have the kind of experience that traditionally matters in a presidential campaign. This campaign is not about experience.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I work at a church.

Whenever I'd go to my boss with an issue and say: "people are saying"...

He would reply: "Name three"

It was a test to see if "public sentiment" actually was grounded in reality.

I ask you all to apply the same "name three" test to Hillary's popularity.

Hard as I try, I can't think of 3 people that I KNOW that support her...

Obama on the other hand...

Posted by: Tony Story | October 3, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

THE FIX is in. and the Beltway liars and cheaters shove another smarmy Clinton down the nation's throats.

How about a real poll instead of these phony FIXXED ones?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton is the New England Patriots of the Democratic Party."

She cheats?

Posted by: Bud Omsman | October 3, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, Bokonon--I wasn't on last night after about 7ish so I didn't email her till this morning... but yeah, they're 3 hours earlier, so I haven't connected.

And yes--the self-fulfilling prophecy is interesting... I think it drives a lot of elections. And I have heard people that I would never have expected supporting Obama. However, I have also talked to moderate republicans who are supporting Hillary. And I too think most of the Dems policies are close, pretty centrist. There's really no leftists except Kucinich, so while I think Hillary leans more corporate I could still vote for her -- especially if it was to stop Guiliani. I agree with what somebody posted above. His performance as mayor [except that one day] was relentlessly pugnacious.

The worst thing to me was his repeated attempts to silence free speech. Did you know about this one?

'A Federal judge yesterday rejected Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's effort to remove bus advertisements that lampooned his style, saying that a Mayor who is in the headlines every day and who recently appeared in drag on national television ''cannot avoid the limelight of publicity -- good and bad.''

In the ads, New York magazine proclaimed that it was ''possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for.''

Posted by: drindl | October 3, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Americans agreed more with Gore's and Kerry's "policy positions" than with Bush's positions. That does not matter so much in the election. Voters make a decision based on who they trust to lead the nation.

Bush lacked national experience in 2000, but people associated him with Papa Bush's previous tenure in the White House, so that was enough to overcome the experience deficit.

Obama lacks the experience, plain and simple. A freshman senator (black, mixed race, or otherwise) will not get elected President. Don't give me all of this nonsense about people wanting a candidate who not a Washington insider, who is a fresh face, blah blah blah. Yes, people are sick of Bush and partisan bickering, but they are not going to trust the presidency to someone as untested as Obama.

In recent months, Hillary has proven herself to be a far better candidate. She's better in the debates because she's more experienced overall. I think she will win over the skeptics.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

blarg- I don't intend to distract from your larger point, with which I agree. The pedantic part of me sometimes gets in the way.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

There's a fundamental shift, and hillary represents what's wrong w/ our Dem party today. We used to be the party of unions and working ppl; now we've taken on a corporate phase. we're practically indistinguishable from the republicans in many little ways.

Edwards is a return to the party of old and right.

Posted by: Adam | October 3, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Progressive & Lyle -- Saying one of the two primary contenders for the Dem nomination has ZERO or NO CHANCE to win the general election, without providing any statistical evidence in support of such a statement, isn't actually that persuassive.

Hillary is clearly the frontrunner for the nomination right now, but all of the general election polling I've seen shows that EITHER she or Senator Obama would be favored to win against any of the current Republicans competing for the GOP nomination. In the case of Obama, that's particularly impressive b/c he still trails hillary and Rudy in terms of name recognition nationwide.

In short, if you prefer Hillary that's great. But stop with the unsubstantiated bashing of Obama's electability. It doesn't make much sense and it's not supported by the facts.

Posted by: Colin | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

It sucks that we have to pander to IA and NH. Don't get me wrong, nostalgia is nice...but come on, representative of the nation? I don't think so.

None of the candidates will clean up the mess in DC. They can't do it...too much money, power and influence. it's too easy to buy. Duh. Poor reason to vote for someone.

I'm dissappointed in all the mainstream candidates for their lack of commitment/courage on Iraq. Of the big 3, if i have to choose, I choose Edwards.

Posted by: Adam | October 3, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I think you are spinning the news a little too much.

The fact is Clinton is bound to do really well in the National Polls because 100% of the electorate knows her. The other polls that are published are notoriously unreliable aswell. CNN last week claimed that Hillary widen the gab with Obama in New Hampshire, where 83% of the people polled said they are still undecided.

So, my friend, I say stop the "drilling down" the numbers or "parsing" them. It sounds a bit self-serving to me.

Having said that, however, 100,000 new donors was impressive!

Posted by: moi | October 3, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon, I considered pointing out that Obama is bi-racial, but it didn't seem useful. His father is African, his mother is Caucasian. This means that he's only half-African. But if you look at him, he looks black, and that's what matters.

I agree with Bokonon. I never see supporters of any other candidate talk about ZERO chance of winning. It's only Hillary supporters. Realistically, most of the Democratic candidates have a non-zero chance of winning. If the candidate who's a solid #2 in the polls and #1 or #2 in fundraising has ZERO chance to win, why are we even having a primary? So many Hillary supporters, especially lylepink, want to skip the whole process and hold the coronation now.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Eventually, the towns collapsed, one by one. In some places, the coal had been mined out. In others, companies shut down when coal prices dropped. In Vindex, the coal company destroyed many of the structures.

Posted by: rufus | October 3, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

No, that's wrong... screwed the time up. 9 our time is 6 HER time. Maybe it's still open.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

You folks are funny. The republicans aren't *scared* of Hillary, they're hoping she runs.

If you don't understand why, then you're probably about as naive as they come. Seriously.

I think she's the worst candidate running for president, primarily because her positions on most things are most extreme than Bush (on substantive issues, she's right in line with Bush/Cheney), and she comes with a lot of baggage related to the time she was in the white house previously. The whole Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, the health care debacle. More recently she voted yes to start a war with Iraq, and very recently, she essentially gave Bush the go-ahead for war with Iran. There is a brewing scandal about Hsu and campaign funds. All of this *before* she's elected.

And what do you think this will do to the hard-core republican/religious base? She's essentially the anti-christ to that group, and there will be no end to the negative attacks.

On a policy basis, she is essentially George W Bush with a dress. Yes, I know she's smarter, but the bar is artificially low. She is not in tune with the concerns of the average person.

She may run a great campaign, but other than that, there is little to recommend her.

She is very pro-big business and anti- civil rights. She's ra

Posted by: Bunkley | October 3, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

A couple things: all the polls I have seen indicate that while racism is a factor, so is sexism, and with about the same number of people. I still believe Obama to be the best candidate running - actually, I think, the best candidate to run in a long time, but if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. Saying things like "Obama has ZERO chance of winning" is an attempt at establishing a self-fulfilling prophecy, which has been Hillary's goal all along (to look "inevitable.") Obama has a chance at winning if people are allowed a fair look at his background and proposed policies. So, for that matter, does Edwards. So does Biden. So do most of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Gravel and Kucinich. To give you an example, I answered the questions posted on the link someone had up before, and I was matched with Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, depending on how I answered certain questions. (Many had several options I could agree with.) They were all within about 5% difference in their positions, and what that tells me is that the PERSON, the actual candidate and not policy differences, is how we're going to have to make the decision. For me, and for many others, that person is Obama. For others, it's Clinton. For others, Edwards... et cetera. And to the person who claimed that "Hillary can win Arkansas and New York," any Democrat who cannot win his/her home state AND New York shouldn't be running. I don't think that really says anything.
Also, drindl, I emailed with FemaleNick last night, and I think she said she was not checking that address after 9 a.m. (6 a.m. our time cuz she's on the West Coast) after having posted it on this blog. Judge Crater, I believe you also were in touch with her?

Posted by: Bokonon | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

She'll sink the boat: pure and simple. I don't know who these "fervent" supporters are but I know plenty of dems, I am proudly one myself, who fear and loathe HC. I like her personally but she doesn't have what it takes to win...that's why the GOP wants to have her run bc they know they can beat her.

I like Edwards, personally, I think he's the best main stream shot we've got.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

'Police blamed right-wing extremists for several attacks in German cities over the weekend. The attacks are the latest in a series of worrying displays of racial hatred that have been reported across Germany recently.

Thousands of people protested the racist ideology of far-right groups in cities across Germany this weekend in response to a spate of recent attacks against foreigners. The rallies and concerts aimed to show solidarity with Germany's immigrant community.

The demonstrations also sparked several attacks blamed on neo-Nazis or on people with anti-immigrant views.'

This is our future-- what will undoubtedly happen here as the racism at the heart of anti-immigrant zeal grows -- and as hateful monsters like Limbaugh and Hannity egg on their loony and weak-minded thugs of an audience.

Posted by: it's coming | October 3, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the New England Patriots of the democratic party.

Posted by: scrapster | October 3, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

blarg writes
"It's true that Obama is black."

No, its not. Sen Obama is bi-racial.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Guiliani is the most dangerous candidate we've had in a long time.. his abrasive, confrontational personality make him even more divivise than Bush. But worse than that, he's totally drunk with power lust and his loathing of the Constitution combined with authoritarian nature will make him the new Mussolini.

Additionally, both he and his wife are just plain weird and twisted people whose only friends appear to be criminals like Bernie Kerik.

Posted by: Jane | October 3, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

raw polling data is here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100107.html

of the ~1300 respondents, 38% 'lean' dem, which are theh ones cited as supporting Sen Clinton. Given that this is a nationwide poll, its difficult to imagine that many of the respondents have paid much attention to the process at all. Which might be an interesting question to ask in the next poll.

In short, I think the Post is overstating the significance of this poll, particularly in light of the different numbers coming from the early primary states. Are the national polls anything more than name recognition at this point?

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Who are the people saying Hillary is "best suited to reduce partisanship in Washington"? Is there a way we can get them back on their meds before they hurt someone?

Posted by: howlless | October 3, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I'm very upset that Hillary voted to give Bush expanded powers to mess with Iran. Bush should be curtailed, not enabled. Perhaps she is looking ahead and wants the precedent set for such powers. Not happly about that.

But, Wesley Clark has endorsed Hillary. That doesn't hurt. While I really, really don't want a continuation of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton power grabs, Hillary's campaign momentum seems unstoppable at the moment.

I do think Hillary is stoppable in the general, however. As Frank Rich pointed out Sunday in the Times, her campaign is starting to look like a rerun of Gore's in many respects.

Her defensive crouch debating approach doesn't sit well... what does impress the voters is answering questions forthrightly a' la Truman truthiness vs Dewey slickness, another New Yorker surefire winner.

And, if the GOP candidate is Giuliani....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 3, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"States traditionally associated with racism"? Oh, please, what state does not have plenty of racists? There are tens of millions of voters in every state who will vote for a white woman but are far less likely to vote for a black man. Those voters might tell pollsters and others that they are voting Democratic, but when they get into the voting booth, they will never select a black candidate. This pattern occurs over and over again in American politics.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

This is no suprise to me and others that have supported Hillary from the start. Iowa polls has had each of the top three leading at various times, along with them being tied [within the margin of error] in a couple of polls. I posted here some months back about friends traveling thru Iowa and they told me not to be suprised if Hillary won there, when Edwards had a double digit lead. The trend over these past months has Hillary gaining support all over the country, and with the exception of Iowa, I think she is leading by double digits in most other states. NH and SC has her by 19 and 18% points. Blarg, I have to agree with Progressive that Obama has Zero chance of winning in 08, and have said so many times on this Blog.

Posted by: lylepink | October 3, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, if Barack Obama can win the nomination because of support from independents, then he can win the election with support from independents. The independent vote almost always decides elections. 90%+ of registered Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is.

It's true that Obama is black. So what? Do you think there are many states in which racism would cost Obama the election? The states traditionally associated with racism always vote Republican anyway. And I'd guess that most racists wouldn't vote for a Democrat of any color. And what about sexism? Not all voters want a female president either.

Hillary Clinton has been a favorite Republican target since 1992. I can't see her getting significant crossover support from Republicans. And Obama's greatest strength, as you yourself admit, is getting support across party lines. I'm not saying that Obama would necessarily do better than Hillary in the general election. But I don't see how any reasonable person could call him unelectable.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is going to steamroll the Republicans like Road Runner against Wile E. Coyote. Get ready to watch Limbaugh & Hannity's heads explode. I'm loving it.

Posted by: nthdegree | October 3, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton-
1. Can fight like hell against the Republican attack machine
2. Can shut the f*** up Tim Russert and corporate media representatives
3. Can win Arkansas and New York, where people know her. As the rest of the country get to know her, they will do the same
4. Rudy quit on his family. Hillary fought for her family, particularly for her daughter
5. She knows when to pick up the sword for the people, she will not hesitate like Carter. People of Bosnia are thankful that her husband took up arms for them, even when the Republicans were against it.
6. First to represent half of the population, particularly, third world country women. They look at her and inspire to be like her.

Her success will not only change America, but at least half of the third world countries.

I hope she succeeds.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Does this mean we can stop talking about the "cackle"? Talk about pathetic...

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

Posted by: matt | October 3, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I haven't found a single person at my heavily Democratic-leaning office of dozens of people who is enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.

Only a couple Republicans who loathe her and have said they'd vote specifically against her, even if they didn't like the Republican candidate.

So where this "wave" of Hillary mania is coming from--other than the media--I couldn't tell you. I've seen a grand total of ONE Hillary bumper sticker in the last month on the stretch of I-95 I drive daily, and I live in bluer-than-blue Rhode Island.

Posted by: Shmenge | October 3, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"Which candidate is best able to reduce partisanship in Washington?"

Any candidate who is not George W. Bush. Next-least-likely to reduce partisanship is Rudy Guiliani, who appears to be taking lessons from Karl Rove in distortion and innuendo. I suspect that when the time comes, probably during the debates, HRC will hand Rudy his head on a plate. Right now it's much too early/pointless to be engaging in the kind of rhetoric that RG has already started using.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 3, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Popularity among liberal NH independents or liberal Iowa caucus participants does not make Obama electable. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama. But I'm a realist, and I hate to say it, but the United States is still a racist nation, and there is no way the voters -- in a general election in November 2008 -- are going to elect a black man President of the United States. Forget about it. It's not going to happen.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Hey Johann, compared to Bush my two year old daughter represents competence, experience and intelligence. And explain to us how an unelected private citizen is single-handedly responsible for our health care/insurance crisis? Many well intendtioned people have attempted to introduce change to the U.S. health care system in the past 20 or so years and they have been defeated at every turn. . .not by Hillary Clinton. . .but by those aligned with the current occupant of the White House.

And you don't think Hillary is intelligent? I'd love to see you debate her.

Posted by: An Dliodoir | October 3, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I would like to know exactly how the pollsters phrase their questions. I have been voting for 25 plus years and I have never been polled, even though now I live in an important swing state. My friends and relatives also have not ever been polled. Most people I encounter do not prefer Clinton, nor want the two family dynasty to continue. Its bad for the country and shows our lack of participation and obligation to engage in dialog before selecting leaders of the government.

I believe that Americans have become so docile, that they say what they think the pollsters want them to say, and select someone on the basis of what the media tells them (i.e. Clinton's dominance). Most likely do not have any idea of what each candidate has said within the past three to six months.

I guess the people truly get the government they deserve.

Posted by: Janet | October 3, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse


Cong. Dems
Oct 2 WaPo/ABC
Approve 38%, Disapprove 57%

Cong. GOP
Oct 2 WaPo/ABC
Approve 29%, Disapprove 67%

Posted by: fyi | October 3, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, that's a great question. My guess is, that like the old Hertz commercial, there's Hillary, and there's 'not exactly'.

In other words, I'm guessing that almost all the support of the other candidates (with the exception maybe of Richardson) would flow more to the strongest opponent of HRC than to HRC herself. I believe that for most liberals and dems, it's a litmus test election, and they still haven't forgiven her for the Iraq vote.

Just a guess.

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Progressive, could you explain how Obama is "unelectable"? You say that he could win New Hampshire by getting support from independents. Isn't it good to have a candidate who can get support from independents? Doesn't that alone mean that he is electable?

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to see a poll that asks which candidates people would be willing to vote for. It would be similar to, but not exactly the same as, favorable/unfavorable ratings. The standard question is to ask which single candidate people would prefer to vote for. I think it would be useful to see which candidates the voters consider acceptable. Especially if it's correlated with favored candidate.

For instance, if Edwards drops out, where would his support go? How popular are the different candidates across party lines? What percent of voters would absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary? Right now, does anyone have a majority of voters willing to vote for them? I think these are interesting questions, but I haven't seen poll data that can give answers.

Posted by: Blarg | October 3, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

'If anybody wonders how Mitt Romney can be doing so well in the key primary states but lagging nationally, wonder no more. A study by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG finds that Romney has run a full 10,000 TV ads so far this cycle, the first candidate so far this year to break that milestone.

Obviously, the ads are running the most in all the right places -- of the $8 million he's spent on TV, a majority of it has gone to Iowa and New Hampshire.'

I thought this might be of interest, CC... does anyone have any idea how much more this is than other candidates are running?

Sent you an email by the way, FemaleNick...

Posted by: drindnl | October 3, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The previous blog-post on The Fix was about Obama leading Clinton in Iowa. Obama also could win New Hampshire because independents can vote in that state's primary and NH independents are tilting heavily toward Obama now. If Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the national polls will change dramatically overnight. Ã…nd if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will retain the White House in 2008. Wake up, Iowa Democrats! Don't nominate an unelectable candidate!

I fear that, once again, Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: Progressive | October 3, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

'But her son's life was cut short on March 31, 2004 -- one of four Blackwater employees savagely attacked that day. It was Scott Helvenston's first mission inside Iraq with Blackwater, his mother says.

The burned and mutilated remains of two of the employees were strung up from a bridge over the Euphrates River, an image that fueled American outrage and triggered the first of two attempts to retake the city from Sunni insurgents.

Scott's mom has led the charge in seeking answers about her slain son. She has constantly pressed Blackwater for answers to what led to the killings that day despite, she says, running into resistance from the private security contractor at every turn.

"I've been put through the ringer," she says. "I just want them to be held accountable."

Will Hillary restore accountablity to government? Will she stop or reverse this dangerous and vastly expensive privatization of our military?

Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

You have to be kidding me. Most likely to change Washington? Most likely to be less partisan? New ideas and direction? Hillary Clinton?? Shocking!!! I really don't know who these people are but this is a little too hard to swallow. Can people be this dumb? really? WOW! I use to blame the 30% who still think Bush is doing a Great job. We can't blame bad leaders if we keep being this terribly myopic. There's not one thing Hillary has done that indicates she'll be even a moderately effective leader. American politics is dead. Please bring on a 3rd party because I'm starting to be ashamed to be a Democrat.

Posted by: Joe S. | October 3, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

''WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 2004 crash that killed everyone on board -- three crew members and three U.S. troops -- was caused by pilots from a Blackwater plane taking a low-level run through a mountain canyon in Afghanistan, testimony revealed Tuesday.

"I swear to God, they wouldn't pay me if they knew how much fun this was," the doomed plane's cockpit voice recorder captured the pilot saying shortly before the November 27, 2004, crash.

The account of the crash emerged during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Blackwater's performance in Iraq and Afghanistan.'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/02/blackwater.afghan.crash/index.html

The reckless, crackpot mercernaries we are paying big taxpayer bucks for...

Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary represents competence, experience and intelligence. . .the anti-thesis to G.W. Bush. No wonder people lover her!"- An Dliodoir

False. As for competence, the only major thing she tried to accomplish was the healthcare plan as First Lady. That failed because of her failure to attempt to compromise. Now, because of her incompetence, we still have a broken healthcare system and healthcare reform is attached with the stigma of "Hillary-care"
Not too make this too long, one can negate all three with her vote on the Iraq War. If she really was doing more then pandering, she was incompetent and unintelligent in her reasoning on the vote. How could she not realize that vote was Dubya's ticket to war. [Dont worry she did, the polls just didn't point to voting against it ;)] And as for experience, the above mentioned flaw is not necessarily "good experience".
Oh and people don't love her. As a matter of fact, polls show over half of the American public doesn't love her.

Posted by: Johann | October 3, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

For those who maybe aren't so sure HRC is the most genuine thing out there on the campaign trail, here's an amusing clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o72Cq7AgjSQ

And this is Jon Stewart, certainly a Dem guy if there ever was one, not some right wing hatchet job.

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has run an excellent campaign- she is the smartest and strongest candidate and the only one who can take on and beat the GOP attack machine.

President Hillary Rodham Clinton - sounds good to me!

Posted by: csh | October 3, 2007 8:24 AM | Report abuse

I think another point that can be teased from these statistics is that Americans are desperate to un-yoke themselves from the idealogical bandwagon that the GOP has been driving since the 1980s. Since that time, with a brief Clinton interlude, a minority of extremely conservative Americans has been setting the political agenda in this country. Most people could tolerate it, even relate to said agenda so long as it was limited to "values" and certain domestic issues. The tipping point came when the neo-cons thought it would be a good idea to take the show on the road and attempt to make everyone in the world just like us. . .or kill them. History will show that this foreign policy has been the most destructive influence in the United States since the Civil War. Anyway, the people hate W, as reflected in another recent poll. Hillary represents competence, experience and intelligence. . .the anti-thesis to G.W. Bush. No wonder people lover her!

Posted by: An Dliodoir | October 3, 2007 8:22 AM | Report abuse

America is at an historic crossroads in the world. We are at that point in time where we need a leader who will be able to not only fix this mess in Iraq but be able to deal with all of the implications and consequences of America being percieved around the world as a stumbling giant. Russia and China are two problems that come to mind. Democrats, we have had amongst our choices for the nomination two remarkable candidates who I believe would be able to deal with these issues: Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Instead, in the interests of partisan bickering, bickering which has already proved fatal to one party(Rove & Co.), we are about to nominate the Democratic equivalent of George W. Bush. There is more to running a counrty then beating the other party into submission. Why do we think Hillary Clinton will be anything other then a partisan hack whose only accomplishments will be winning the presidency and running the Democratic party into the ground. Like our brothers and sisters across the political aisle, we are going going to pay in the long term for our short term high. Clinton is not equal to the challenge the world has put to America. Neither are the Republican candidates. Looks like we are putting ourselves between a rock and a hard place.

Posted by: Excuse me, but | October 3, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

everyone I have talked to too in my small universe of moderates and democrats hate Clinton and want someone who can produce REAL change not just hash out more the same politics we have had seen since FDR. But hey, maybe my friends adn I are just way off base or the polling data may be just crap until we see who wins Iowa ?????

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

To all of us who have been following this pre precamaign- supporters of Hillary (me) and others, who are paid to care or have no life (me)-take a very deep beath or two. Next year or maybe late this year (who knows) votes! will be held and counted and then comments on the race will be more relevant. Uh Wakeup-we have only one Fearless Leader, pray we never have another.

Posted by: A Hardwick | October 3, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps in a bid to blunt the effect of Clinton's self-attacking ad campaign, Sen. Barack Obama today began airing what his aides are calling "his politest ads to date." In the TV spots, a soft-spoken Obama looks into the camera and says, "Sen. Clinton, I am asking you nicely to please stop winning by so much."

Elsewhere, in his first major proposal on global warming, President Bush today declared war on the sun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21105845/site/newsweek/?nav=slate?from=rss

Posted by: funny column | October 3, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

CC,
What does this means for general election? Does states that were won by Bush come into play?

Posted by: MI repub | October 3, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

"...and she now leads Obama 48 percent to 26 percent. In the Post poll earlies this month, Clinton received just 29 percent among men while in our July survey she drew 40 percent among men."

Um.

So the polls showed 40% in July, 29% 'earlier this month,' and 48% currently? That's rather a big fluctuation. Is this supposed to read "29% earlier this YEAR?"

Posted by: NMAIF | October 3, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat and hope with every ounce of my body that we retake the White House. I even would be fine with *gag* Hillary Clinton, even though she now does not represent the principles that form the bedrock of the Democratic party, she would still be better then a Republican.
However, while the GOP is definately down with Bush and the war, I would not count it out. Guiliani is a moderate and a national rock star. Rememeber fellow dems, the vast majority of voters are not tuning into the Washington Post every day to update their political knowledge. There is a great chance that when confronted with the choice of Hillary or Rudy, all they will remember is Clinton's unpalatable wife vs. America's Mayor.
It is imperative that we get out of our drunken stupor from 2006. If we really want to take the ultimate chance this general election by nominating Hillary, we had better be prepared for the race to be far from a cakewalk. We should enjoy the comparative ease and lack of destruction of this nominating process because we have a terrible battle looming in the distance and its looks like Hillary will be our fearless leader.

Posted by: Wake Up | October 3, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't particularly like Hillary, but she scares the crap out of the Republicans. That's almost good enough for me.

Posted by: nerdoff | October 3, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

While I agree that polls can't give us any guarantees at this point, none of this success actually surprises those of us who support Senator Clinton.

I had my reservations when she ran for the US Senate in 2000. I watched her work hard and listen well, and WIN. And re-win.
I've never looked back.

Hillary Clinton is smart, she has the right experience, she is a historic candidate, she is engaging... and she drives the loud and obnoxious Clinton Haters absolutely NUTS!

The perfect combo, imho!

Posted by: Jan | October 3, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

To some of those respondents I would like to ask "why?" More inspiring, really? Bestable to reduce partisanship? Anyone who answered Clinton to that one clearly has their head in the sand. However, once a strong frontrunner emerges, people feel the need to fall in line. We had some many other great candidates who would have run away with the presidency. Oh well, I guess now we will have to dig in with Grand Ol Hillary. Heres hoping her time in the Senate spent abandoning principles and cowtowing to right-leaning "moderates" pays off in the general election.

Posted by: Cam | October 3, 2007 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Dems have been really paying attention to the primaries dreaming of a post-Bush Democratic Whitehouse and they've seen alot of Mrs. Clinton. Her campaign so far has been nothing short of spectacular, the polls show it and the Q3 #s support the poll results. No surprise here and expect a repeat in the general election when more Independents (yes some Republicans too) change their minds because they start paying attention too.

Posted by: Montgomery | October 3, 2007 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Not that any of this will stop the media endlessly talking about her electability, laugh, neckline, etc. or any of the other non issues that they have expended so many words over. They've been dying for her to trip up, the discomfort visible on the face of right wing commentators (shills really) is palpable. Hannity describes her laugh as maniacal. I'm delighted to see a woman have a shot at the presidency. It's time.

Posted by: John | October 3, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company