Obama 51, Clinton 43
McCain 47, Obama 44... Clinton 48, McCain 45
Obama 49, Clinton 43
McCain 47, Obama 44... Clinton 48, McCain 44
Favorable / Unfavorable
McCain: 50 / 46
Clinton: 48 / 49
Obama: 48 / 49
Doesn't make sense.
After the RFK thing (which was purposely misinterpreted by the media) HRC and NHO are head-to-head in favourability and HRC is doing better nationally on two polls (though within the margin)?
Posted on May 27, 2008 2:15 PM
I'm hoping you meant BHO.
Posted on May 27, 2008 2:23 PM
Obama's unfavorable ratings have been climbing as voters get to know him better. Hillary's have not really changed much because she has been in the public eye for decades. I think it was Charlie Cook who said early on that Obama had the potential to swing large margins either way, whereas Hillary's position would be reasonably static.
The RFK thing was just a hysterical blip (e.g. Keith Olbermann) among the Obama crowd. The fact that RFK, Jr. put it in perspective helps. Even Al Sharpton backed off after talking directly to Hillary. Ironically, it was the Obama campaign who pushed the story with Keith Olbermann's transcript... even after Obama said there was not an issue. Obama campaign manager David Axlerod got put on the hot seat about that on Sunday, and just responded that we should move on to another topic. Might be some backlash.
Posted on May 27, 2008 2:28 PM
Clinton and her supporters are stirring up anger and resentment with specious popular vote myths and now anger about how bad Clinton's assasination comments were taken (sorry, but they were as bad as everyone made them out to be whether that is what Clinton meant or not). I think the McCain numbers reflect disgruntled Clinton supporters voting for McCain over Obama out of spite.
Posted on May 27, 2008 2:31 PM
Democracy is great. Defectors are simply speaking!
Posted on May 27, 2008 3:16 PM
The popular vote argument is not a myth and is feasible depending on Puerto Rico and the resolution of Florida and Michigan. This argument along with "electability" is targeted at the Super Delegates who can choose whomever.. as well as at the rules committee which meets Saturday. This is the way of politics.
Note that Clinton and her supporters are half of the people who voted and are going to vote in the Democratic primaries... over 17-1/2 million people. Trying to "personalize" them as angry, resentful, and spiteful does not make much sense in the context of polling samples. Instead I would say the more likely indicator is that people are voting for the more ideologically moderate candidates.
Posted on May 27, 2008 3:20 PM
sooyapi: "likely indicator is that people are voting for the more ideologically moderate candidates"
I agree. The same group bailed on Kerry. It's the liberal elitism that has attached to Obama like Kerry and Dukakis. Looks like he'll suffer the same fate. hose guys started the GE election with substantial leads. Obama starts from behind and fading.
Posted on May 27, 2008 3:29 PM
This reflects Clinton's negative campaigning and stirring up racial hatred among "working class whites" - ie racists who would never vote for Obama (even though he and Clinton are policy-wise nearly identical).
A lot of people who voted for Clinton and won't vote for Obama are racist - especially in states like WV, KY, TN, etc. Or did you miss the news reports like these:
As far as you clowns who keep parroting the line about the polls showing Clinton beating McCain, and Obama tying/losing to him - well, polls don't mean anything. If they did, we wouldn't have elections, we would just have the super delegates give the nomination/election to whoever was leading in the polls. It sure would save a lot of money too...
By the way, didn't the polls show Clinton beating Obama in every state by a minimum of 20 points just a few months ago? I can already hear it now, "See, what had happened was....."
Uh-huh, okay, what's that? The supers should reverse the will of the people based on polls? You mean those things that are SO amazingly accurate? The democratic process should be overturned by that logic? Wow, that makes a lot of sense.....hmmm, I wonder if that will happen.....
In order to be electable, you need to win those funny things they call ELECTIONS. Here is a run-down for those of you who are challenged:
Election wins to date for Democrats:
Obama - 33
Clinton - 18
Yeah, I know, the truth hurts. Sorry, those are the rules. Deal with it.
Posted on May 27, 2008 3:32 PM
"people are voting for the more ideologically moderate candidates"
- WTF are you talking about?? Clinton's and Obama's voting record in the Senate is nearly identical. In fact, their main policy difference domestically, the health care plan, Obama is actually to the RIGHT of Clinton. SO STFU with your lies, allright?? We all know you are just a bunch of McCain supporters spreading BS.
By the way, Obama was RIGHT about the war. Maybe people want more of that? Well, there are enough dumb as rocks voters out there - look who they picked for the last 8 years. If that is "moderate", then we are in serious trouble.
Posted on May 27, 2008 3:37 PM
I can't make sense to these polls. For the life of me I don't know why Obama is losing to McCain. I think these are Clinton defectors expressing revenge and their antipathy towards Obama and skewing the numbers towards McCain. Otherwise Obama would be up some 4-5 points. I hope after the primary that cooler heads will prevail and Clinton supporters will come over and support a Democrat in the White house.
Posted on May 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Most people who post here are indeed interested in the polls and the trends they show. Saying that polls do not matter on the Pollster site does not make much sense.
Additionally, any person who comments here should be free from posts used for personal attacks and profanity. That particular post has been reported as highly offensive.
Posted on May 27, 2008 4:16 PM
Wow sooyapi, perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you just need to improve your English comprehension skills.....in either case, I stated that polls are irrelevant in the SDs making their decision on ANY kind of "electability" argument Hillary might put forth. They mean NOTHING.
They are useful for fun....kinda like watching someone try and hit a pinata.
By the way, spreading lies and BS will open you up to "attacks".....no matter where you post them. Get a clue.
Posted on May 27, 2008 4:37 PM
@Andrew_in_California: Yea, BHO. Damn iPhone keyboard. Not sure who NHO is.
Posted on May 27, 2008 4:39 PM
Speaking of popular votes and national polls, I just want to remind everyone the 1960 elections:
JFK got 303EVs to Nixon's 219EVs, even though the difference in the popular vote was only 49.7% and 49.5%. In fact, if Thurmond et al. didn't run, Nixon would have won the popular vote.
In the end it comes down to state. Obama's people seem to be going towards the "let's make new swing states" approach: Iowa, Colorado, etc. and they seem to me to have accepted a loss it at least one of FL/OH/PA. Whether that will work or will backfire remain to be told. My guess is that Obama will either win the GE significantly, or lose it spectacularly, even though I think he would get the majority of the popular votes in the GE either way.
Posted on May 27, 2008 5:53 PM
Why is it that about 10 national polls in a row now have shown that Clinton is a stronger candidate than Obama, not only nationally against McCain, but in the important swing states that decide elections (esp. OH, FL, and PA)? It's for the reason I've been saying all along: it's much easier for Obama supporters to back Clinton (even though they don't like her) than it is for Clinton supporters to back Obama (who we don't honestly feel is ready or qualified to be president). This gulf between the 2 candidates' demographics and supporters may very well be the difference between the Democrat winning or losing. This is why it would be very foolish for Obama not to ask Clinton to be on his tickets. It may be the only way he can convince enough Clinton supporters to vote for him.
Posted on May 27, 2008 5:54 PM
That makes sense:
First of all, Gallup has crunched the numbers and most of the "white" vote going to McCain is WOMEN. So please stop the race-baiting. It's getting very old. I am black, and I'm considering defecting too; and before you say so - it's not because I hate myself. Another scare tactic.
Also, the number of states is totally irrelevant to winning elections. A candidate could win 2 states -- Calif. and NY, and the other candidate win all 6 New England states, but the 2-state candidate would be far ahead in electoral votes and delegates.
Posted on May 27, 2008 5:56 PM
Nick08 - My head is quite cool. I am not inflamed. I am not voting for Obama. Period.
Posted on May 27, 2008 5:59 PM
Sooyapi and marctx: I agree with both of you.
Thinking back to the start of the cycle, I found it particularly annoying when anti-HRC candidates would point to her high negatives. It was obvious that any - and every - Dem would develop high negatives as the campaigns progressed.
Sooyapi, you touched on something I just don't understand about Obama's strategy when you wrote, "Note that Clinton and her supporters are half of the people who voted and are going to vote in the Democratic primaries... over 17-1/2 million people." Obama should have started making big, real conciliatory gestures weeks ago to try to draw all of these people in. Instead, the alienation is just.... lingering. Stagnating. Perhaps hardening. Its like they (mixing Obama campaign, media cheerleaders and avid supporters) don't get that these voters matter. On the contrary, the "we" in "yes we can" seem to be digging a deeper moat around themselves.
I'll be specific: the ever louder chorus of voices calling HRC voters racist. the hum of 'exasperated' voices wondering why HRC won't just drop out. ditto insisting that the nomination is already locked up.
It all says to HRC supporters: shut up, we don't care which candidate you prefer, your opinions are contemptible. Playing up the RFK assassination smear only demonstrates that nothing's changed in the Obama camp. Perhaps the need to have a monstrous Hillary against which he can define himself is just too vital to let go.
marctx, you raise a critical point. BHO is not starting from a good place relative to previous Dem nominees (oh how I would love to see charts - glorious charts - that plot key findings as they emerge against 2004 and 2000). As the presumptive nominee, the onus is on BHO to lead. Instead it seems like a "where else are you going to go" attitude prevails.
BHO is going to have to move the swing white female vote - but it almost looks like they don't know how. Or don't want to. And if they go with Webb or Casey as VP, it'll be even more difficult. Its a very curious situation. Surely they are going to have to start doing something differently. Numbers like the ones above aren't predictive of the future - they are red flags that something is amiss right now.
Posted on May 27, 2008 6:29 PM
@thatmakessense2: "This reflects Clinton's negative campaigning and stirring up racial hatred among "working class whites" - ie racists who would never vote for Obama (even though he and Clinton are policy-wise nearly identical)."
We've seen in Newsweek that most of these racists do support Obama.
However, I'm trying to understand your logic: if Obama is not doing as well now, is it because some of these people were not racist before but are now racist thanks to Hillary Clinton? Did they suddenly realize that Obama is an African American that they have all suddenly started thinking of him less favourably?
Posted on May 27, 2008 6:52 PM
Alienation comes not from the formal Obama camp but from the avid supporters that have centered around Obama.
I make sure to visit the Huffington Post every day to remind myself of the rift. Yesterday, for example, there was a video of Hillay dancing in Puerto Rico, and the comments were to the line of "She must be developing drinking problems" and "I hope these drinks go ok with her anti-psychotic pills". Then reading Bob Ceska (the guy who blogs the election nights for them) and his description of HRC as "the worst person in the world" and of Eastern Kentucky as "rightfully shaped as a bowel movement". I am not even talking about Michael Moore's letter of Negativity.
Obama supporters are wrong in thinking that all the avid HRC supporters are going to come back into the fold. That kind of persistent insult is going to last (especially among women), and a lot of the faces that held us through the Bush years are now antagonistic.
But I think the biggest problem that Obama folks are missing is not with the HRC supporters, but with the fact that there is a significant proportion of democrats who simply do not buy Obama's message. It's not race, it's not prejudice. It's just not buying it. The first time I saw him speak (DNC in '04) I was waiting for the social message and mostly heard good speechwriting. In this whole campaign, I kept hearing "change" but no real plan, no real conviction.
I don't buy that Obama is a socialist or leaning that way. Lots of blue collar workers don't. I'm an academic and most of my circle are avid Obama supporters, and yet I don't buy it. I can imagine how blue collar workers feel. Like I said before, I think Nader may be a fact in these elections if he does actively campaign, since with HRC gone he will keep on carrying the true social message. I don't think these voters will go for McCain, they will vote for Nader in protest or stay at home.
Posted on May 27, 2008 7:02 PM
I take your word for it. Are you voting against Obama because of his policies and direction? Or maybe you think hes inexperienced? I mean what reason would you vote against someone who share the exact same voting record and policies as the canidate you support? Clinton will be campaigning vigorously for Obama. So basically a vote for McCain is a vote against Obama, and Hilary, the canidate so many passionately support.
Posted on May 27, 2008 7:09 PM
The fallacy of the argument is that Obama and Clinton are equal because they have "the same exact voting record and policies."
First, that is not exactly correct. For example, Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill and Hillary did not. Obama is also a big proponent of nuclear energy which has a major presence in his state of Illinois. Obama supports the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository and Hillary does not. Obama did not have knowledge of Hanford or the ongoing cleanup and Hillary does. These are major differences.
Second, Obama is an idealist and Hillary is a pragmatist. This illustrates the ideological divide within the Democratic Party of Ted Kennedy vs. Bill Clinton. This also goes along with Obama appearing as an intellectual elitist (the dreamer) and Hillary as a populist (the doer). Obama appears to be more to the left and Hillary nearer to center. These notions are based on what is communicated to the voters and how those messages are perceived, including Obama's "new way of governing" and "change" versus Hillary's "working hard for the people" and "experience."
Many Democrats in Congress have similar voting records because they are in line with their party, but as individuals they range from very liberal to conservative. In the case of Obama and Hillary there is an easily discernable difference between them.
Posted on May 27, 2008 7:33 PM
I guess those blue collar workers love high gas prices and people losing their homes and a unbalanced tax cuts that favors the top 2% of Americans. Because if they vote for McCain thats exactly what they will get. How bad does things have to get really? I dont blame Bush, or McCain or even the Republican party for the shape of the country right now. The blame should fall squarely on the voters themselves who elect the officials. You see what happens when you have a Republican president and a democratic congress? Nothing substantial gets done. Americans seem to be very content with the way the country is right now, so lets contine Bush's economic and foreign policies. When gas prices reach $8 dollars a gallon, and we have to strike targets in Iran, and the deficit reaches 10 trillion dollars and were still begging the Saudi's for oil, dont complain.
I dont think Obama is going to be a great President like JFK or Reagan. But I do think he will be a effective one that will halt digging into the hole this country is in.
All I hear is, "oh Barack supporters are mean to Hillary, sexism, disrespect, pushing her out of the race, etc." I haven't seen much of any of that during this campaign. Obama has been frustratingly timid in his attacks against Clinton. And guess what, 75% of Barack supports said they will vote for Clinton if shes the nominee. Only %50 of Clinton supporters will back Obama. Thats why she is doing better in the polls against McCain. Plus shes not the frontrunner and McCain hasnt even said her name in 2 months.
Your not just going against Obama supporters who want the Clinton camp to support Obama. Your against Clinton herself, who wants her supporters to unite behind him and the party come November. She will be out there campaigning just as hard for him as she is now. VP or not. So if your for Hilary, then be for her.
I have yet to hear one rational reason why any Clinton supporter would vote for John McCain over Barack Obama
Posted on May 27, 2008 7:38 PM
Experience, known quantity, proven bipartisan, commitment to work with Congress, experience.
Posted on May 27, 2008 7:53 PM
@Nick08: Read what I said: The Blue collar workers (and some HRC supporters) will support Nader or not vote, not necessarily go and directly vote for McCain.
It is also a mistake on the part of Democrats to go with the "Bush 3.0" strategy because it will not work. McCain does not generate the same antagonism in his personality and behavior that Bush did. Despite fundraising as part of the party, he can distance himself easily. He is approachable to middle-ground voters in a way that Bush or Huckabee or Romney or Dole, etc. never could.
As for gas prices and all that: I am not sure that under a president with that gets elected by being charismatic gas prices would go down, the economy would be great, or the world would be a better place. In fact, with the exception of Clinton, most democratic presidents have been failures. Did Carter solve the energy crisis? Did JFK bring us security? Oh wait, Carter brought us Iran and Hizbollah, while JFK nearly set of WWIII.
My argument about HRC voters being offended is an explanation of why they would not support McCain. You ignored my argument about blue collar workers: They work every day with physical and tangible things, Obama's ephemeral message of change means little to them.
And yes, as much as I disagree with McCain and his views, I would trust him more as a president than I would trust Obama. It's really unfortunate and I hate myself for that, but I truly do.
Posted on May 27, 2008 8:17 PM
proven bipartisan, really?????
commitment to work with congress --- and what obama hasn't worked with congress????
Experience -- what the kind of experience? where you land under sniper fire in bosnia or the kind of experience where you involved in meetings in support of NAFTA
Posted on May 27, 2008 8:19 PM
Of course every democrat isnt going to be exactly the same on issues and policies. Barack was againt the war, Hillary voted for it. Barack voted for a energy policy and Hilary against it. Hilary mandates healthcare, Barack doesnt. Hilary gave Bush/Cheney the benefit of doubt on Iran. Barack didnt. I think we get crazy with all of these labels like liberals and conservative and idealist and elists and populists that noone should care about. Alot of it is political posturing during the current tide. Clinton has changed her message numerous times to catch wind. The republicans are even changing their message with this new tagline "Change you deserve".
My point has never been that they are equal, but they PALE in comparssion to John McCain extensively. And im talking about on major issues.
While Clinton and Obama aren't ideologically equal. One is touting change, the other touting experience. Theyre still similar. And combined their differences cant be further from Bush and McCain's. Clintons and Obama's own words if you dont take my word for it.
If experience is all thats required for the job of President. If its the vital most key attribute a President must have, then our 3 Presidential frontrunners should be Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd. Biden has spent more time in the senate that Clinton and Obama combined and Richardson is a Governor and has extensive foreign policy creditials.
Two out of those 3 endorsed Obama.
Posted on May 27, 2008 8:28 PM
As a independant myself I applaud McCain for taking a nuaince stance on climate change, and the enviroment. He definitely appeals to some independants in that regard. I wish he would have continued that stance on his economic views. On the biggest of issues im amazed at how much he stands side by side with Bush in the face of what has oocured. He supports Bush's tax cuts and foreign policies that has without question been complete failures.
I voted for Gore in 2000, but for Bush in 2004. I could not regret that vote any more than I do now. If I see any resemblence of Bush's policies on the ballot this November I will adamantly vote against a continuation of them.
Posted on May 27, 2008 8:40 PM
Oh and by the way, your right gas prices arent going down anytime soon no matter who is president. But other than the feeble gas tax holiday, McCain hasnt even outlined any type of economic plan to address the issue. Obama at least would role back Bush's tax cuts and cut taxes for the middle class of those making less than 75,000 a year so it could be help in the short term. If McCain is not willing to expand the tax code to middle class families then they will continue to feel the worse of the state of the economy. Remember he was against Bush's tax cuts at first.
I agree Obama has to simplify his message to blue collar, less educated, less informed people because its a important one. He needs to really get on the ground and state his posistions. But in simplier and more populist terms because the words change and lobbyist goes right over their head. They dont understand that its because of lobbyist and special interest that nothing of signifcance gets done in their behalf. Theyre too easily susceptible to pandering and anything that dounds good to their ears. And God forsake you talk about reasonable gun control then all bets are off.
Obama worked his way from the streets of Chicago to where he is now. The man just paid off his student loans for crying out loud. His story is compelling.
Say what you will about Carter and JFK. The biggest ideological foregin policy blunder in modern history came from the Bush adminstration. A war that McCain supported. And some no nothing senator from Illonois opposed from the beginning.
I made that same mistake because I trusted Bush over Kerry in 2004. I think it will take a comprehensive change from the current polices and Obama thankfully offers that, for better or worse, the same things that McCain wants to continue wont work.
Posted on May 27, 2008 9:06 PM
@Nick08: I only method the the gas price issue because you argued that blue collar voters wouldn't like the republicans based on this issue. As you said yourself, it doesn't matter who the president is. The best scenario would have been to go back in time and get Al Gore to move us all to alternate energy. That would have been a good president.
As for economics, I don't like McCain's view (after all, I support Nader on that topic). However, I do not trust Obama's skills and actual caring about the economy, so to me both candidates are evil. Again, Nader or HRC for the economy.
As for the myth of the streets of chicago: it's not like he grew in poverty. He went to a 17k a year private grade school in Hawaii, for example. He comes from a rich affluent family, which admittedly was split up but still. This is America. AAs not born to connected places don't make it into ivys.
As for lobbyism, read newsweek's article about how Obama is not completely clean on that either.
I did not trust Bush one ounce, so Kerry was a lesser evil (not that I could vote). But McCain to me is a different story, and so is Obama. Change could have come from HRC. Except that the term got trademarked by Obama. What this will probably get us is four years of McCain even without any help from HRC's supporters.
Posted on May 27, 2008 9:36 PM
@Nick08: BTW, I don't understand the reasoning for voting for Gore in '00 but for Bush in '04... Is it because of Kerry?
I would have thought that by then you had an idea of how bad he is.
Also, if you voted in '04 for a guy who already put us in a fairly crappy war, why are you holding HRC's vote for the war against her when that was before we all knew how things would turn out? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Posted on May 27, 2008 9:41 PM
Dag, Sooyapi... your comment at 7:33 hit the nail on the head.
The only thing I might add is - Hillary is very much the "responsible parent." Wife + mother + full time career. Husband who has been a real pain in the ass; daughter who turned out great. Clearly a lot of effort went in. Barack, despite the fact that he's a husband and father, is more associated with youth and elites/intellectuals - he has a bit of a mod "suave bachelor" aura, that JFK thing. Which is hip and cool but a lot less trustworthy. My hunch is that this registers with married women, particularly older married women.
I predict that facing Obama, McCain will turn one of his own biggest negatives - his age - into a positive. I think we'll hear a lot of messaging along the lines of "son, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the real world." This wouldn't play the same way against Clinton.
That said, I don't personally know one person who would/will vote for McCain over Obama. But I know several who will either abstain or vote third party (I'm hearing Cynthia McKinney, not Nader; go figure). And I know of many who will vote Obama but won't be activists like they were in 2000 and 2004.
This is quite a pickle the Dems have gotten themselves into.
I blame Howard Dean.
Posted on May 27, 2008 9:50 PM
Nick - my vote is not about Clinton losing. I explain this elsewhere. See http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/05/8284_clinton_camp_fl.html#comment-139853
So Clinton's "support" for Obama does not undo the reasons why I am not voting for him. Clinton is a party figure; she has to make compromises that I do not have to make. Besides, I don't have to agree with everything my candidate does. Did you agree with Obama's camp sending around Olbermann's rant accusing Clinton of provoking a racist assassin?
Posted on May 27, 2008 10:08 PM
Nick 08, I just read your other posts and discovered that you are an independent. Perhaps you cannot appreciate this internal turmoil because of that status. Many people are passionate members of the Democratic Party because of its civil rights record. It's fairly mainstream these days, but that's better than rightwing. So it means something to watch your colleagues engage in sexism, deny its existence, uncritically embrace all manner of sexism against Clinton by the "liberal" media -- and then rush back to get our votes (even though we kept saying all along that the bashing was getting out of control). Some of us think that the Party should learn NEVER to do something like this again. I bet it won't.
PS: I agree that Dean has exercised horrific leadership. The Credentials Committee appeal should have taken place months ago, so that voters could have digested the decision by now. Dean hates the Clintons though, so he wasn't an unbiased participant.
Posted on May 27, 2008 10:16 PM
So we loose the GE because Obama got the votes before we knew him? Anyway...its over for Obama. We'll win the presidency in 2012.
Posted on May 27, 2008 11:24 PM
Bush until recently was completely and utterly stagnate on the issue of alternative fuel and energy. Yes Gore would have made a better President in that regard. I guess im looking for a substanitive argument against Obama's economic policies other than hes "evil." 90% of his plan is based on Bill Clintons "pay as you go" policy that balanced the budget in the 90's. He only would make a few quirks here and there so he could get it through congress without massive republican opposition. Obama tried the gas tax thing in Illinois. Of course hes opposed to it now, it didnt work then. Weve had like 20 plus debates and it was hard for anyone to find much space between them on those issues. I have more faith Obama's healtcare plan will pass than Clintons. But if you think Obama is "evil" im hard-pressed to change your mind. Hes carrying HRC economic banner.
I didnt say he grew up on the streets, but the guy accomplished alot and did alot for people of all color. Noone should diminish his efforts and personal dedication to make a difference in his community. His family was middle class. He went to college on grants and student loans. He isnt the one with 100 mil in the bank.
I'm sure Obama has a few sprinkles of lobbyist in his camp, but McCain just purged like 5 of them in the span of a couple weeks. And hes suppose to be Mr. Transparency.
Hillary would have been a dramatic change for the better. The only difference is that shes one of the old poker players. The thought of having a Bush and Clinton in the White house for a potiential 28 years and the continued power struggle and gridlock that would further divide the country makes me uneasy. But being the first woman as President would have been an amazing change.
Posted on May 27, 2008 11:42 PM
I voted for Bush(which I tremendously regret now), because after 911, the landscape changed and national security became paramount. I thought John Kerry was one of the weakest democratic nominees I ever seen. If you remember at the time the ecomony wasnt quite as bad. Everything was about Iraq. At the time I thought it would have been trivial to hand over our national security to someone who was making a very weak case to the American people about foreign policy. I wanted to believe in Kerry but he didnt make a strong enough argument. I wasnt going to vote for Nadar or make a anti-Bush vote just because I didnt like him or the way the war was going. I voted strictly on who I thought was better at national security and fighting terror. Between the two, I thought Bush was still strongest. The democrats did not give us any good choices on that behalf. It was go with the devil you know than the devil you don't know. But still I regret that vote, not as much as the issue of foreign policy but as it pertains to the economy. I really didnt see this near recssion coming. Noone did.
Believe me I hold Bush accountable for the war with much destain. If Clinton or Gore was on the ballot in 04 I would have voted for them. I dont hold Hilary's vote against her, but you have to wonder with all these canidates touting their experience and red phone readiness on day one, Mr. young and inexperienced Obama was the only one to oppose the war adamantly. I just think she was naive and maybe somewhat disingenious to say her vote wasnt to take us to war it was for diplomacy or to put pressure on Saddam. She fell in line with everyone else so she couldn't look weak. I remember that moment wondering how she would vote and I was sad she didnt go against the grain.
Posted on May 28, 2008 12:09 AM
FYI... The comment policy reads: [i]Third, we consider it important to maintain a largely unmoderated comments section that allows for dissenting views and debate over the topics of interest raised by each post. Our one primary rule is that commenters keep the dialogue civil. As such, we will not hesitate to delete comments that we consider abusive, profane, hateful or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, and as we deem warranted, ban the commenters that post them. To underscore: Terms like "stupid," "moron," "retard," "dumbass," "loser" and the like qualify as abusive. Clear?[/i]
Well, to my surprise I just got an email from Mark Blumenthal and apparently telling someone to STFU is NOT offensive and if someone indeed uses such profane terms then it is probably well-deserved because I may have said something to rile an Obama supporter.
Unfortunately, I actually believed that Pollster.com was a professionally run website where people were reasonably free from bullying and name calling. I am very disappointed to discover otherwise.
Posted on May 28, 2008 12:14 AM
I can recite tons of different negative ads, attacks and comments from the Clinton camp toward Obama. Outside of Mitt Romney noone has had a more negative campaign than hers. And it worked.
You know Naral bloggers and suporters went balistic when they endorsed Obama. And why? Hes pro-choice as well. Hes a democrat and strong believer in the rights of a woman to choose. I wouldnt be offended if the NAACP endorsed Hillary. She has been a tireless advocate for African Americans.
I read your blog and I just cant disagree more. There is no conspiracy against Clinton, who spent a year up 20 points in the polls. People have given her the benefit of doubt and respect that NO other canidate would have ever received if they had lost 12 straight contest in a row. Even in states she won, voters said she attacked unfairly. And noone who is remotely rational thinks shes a racist or would think Obama is a sexist. There is not a candidate that has went through more turmoil in the last 2 months previous to North Carolina and Indiana, than Obama.
Remember Clinton was against the elections in Michigan and Florida. Thats just an inescapable fact. Its late to cry injustice right now when she was part of it. Clinton is winning the white male vote. I dont know of these democrats who are bashing the Clintons. Hillary Clinton is not the democratic party, nor is Obama or Gore or any single canidate. The voters made their choice. The democrats would be committing political suicide if they override the will of the voters. If she was the frontrunner and nominee the party would have been behind her twofold. If Obama was behind 100 delegates and lost 12 straight states he wouldnt have even made it past feburary. I just dont understand this anger as if something was stolen from her. Call it what you will but the voters, not the media, not the party, not the Obama campaign, the VOTERS decided the nominee. Noone else.
Posted on May 28, 2008 12:39 AM
I dont know what you mean by my colleagues. Im an independant yes, but I share liberal and conservative views and not bound to any party really. I dont have colleagues. I just dont see this bashing of anyone going on except between Obama and McCain. I dont know who the Clintons are fighting with. The worse and most sexist thing I heard wasnt even directed at Hilary, it was directed at Chelsea when a analyst said she was being pimped out by the Clintons. She openly used her stature as a woman as a campaign talking point. There is some sexism and racism that has been going around of course. But I just havent seen that to the magnitude that Clinton is suddenly expressing it. If anything there has been more racial bias than anything. People that openly express race is a factor in their voting I detest.
I bet you if you asked the entire party leaders who they hold most in regard between Obama and Hillary, most would say Hillary. Please dont hold it against the party just because of its radical liberal media pundits for piling on and writing her obiturary. The party is letting her go on her own terms. Obama has been gracious. And lets face it, throughout the campaign he has been rather timid in attacking her. She is preceived as the tougher canidate.
I don't think Dean hates the Clintons. He was put in a very unenvying position and did a reckless and poor job of handling Michigan and Florida. In one sense you cant have states move up their primaries and break the rules. In another sense you cant disinfranchise voters. They should have did what the rebublicans did and just counted half the delegates from the elections. I dont hear any republican voters yelling foul, so I think thats the fairest option. Hillary would have a much more stronger argument if she didnt say that the elections from Florida and Michigan wouldnt count for anything.
Posted on May 28, 2008 1:03 AM
Most of the anger I see on this site looks to be from sore losers in Camp Clinton.
Ciccina, apparently, has taken it upon herself to throw out the baby with the bath water.
That's too bad, when everyone is on the same team....
Posted on May 28, 2008 9:09 AM
Nick08 -- I see a lot of projecting in your post. I never said that anything was "stolen" from Clinton or even that she should get the nomination. In fact, the entire premise behind my essay (that I linked) is that in November, I am not voting for Obama, which already assumes he will win the nomination. I also stated that my decision does not rest on hatred of him. Also, Dean does hate the Clintons because of their war position and because B. Clinton was secretly advocating for Gen. Wesley Clark in 2000 to counter Dean's popularity.
Finally - I am happy that you agree that the voters' intent is all that matters. YOU are exactly correct. The voters picked Obama. Great. I respect that. Now you respect our decision to do what we are doing. You don't have to "wonder" why or accuse of committing "suicide" or disagree with every argument we make. I am not asking you to defend your support of Obama. So perhaps it's best to let go of debating our withholding of support from him.
Apparently, it's a matter of perspective on how fair the process was. I respect the conclusion though. I am not protesting in front of the DNC. I am not engaging in domestic terrorism. I am not spreading hate mail accusing Obama of being a muslim terrorist. Instead, I am engaging in pure democracy and deciding not to vote for him. What law or ethic have I violated? You voted for Bush and now Obama. I have voted for Democrats for over 25 years!
Posted on May 28, 2008 9:22 AM
Nick08, sometimes people don't see things that don't concern or affect them directly. The fact that you seemingly see Clinton complaining more about sexism, than you you have witnessed sexism against her is shocking to me. But here's some research on the subject:
Also - Clinton made one or two statements about sexism and this was only recently. I find it odd that some men have portrayed this as a constant spewing about sexism. It's like when whites describe blacks as "militant" simply because they respond to discrimination.
Obama's surrogates have spoken much more about racism, and he even dedicated an entire speech to the subject when he was in the thick of racism and controversy with Rev. Wright (part I). Had Clinton made a similar speech about sexism --- when the "men" kept telling her to get out of the race, or when Olbmermann said that someone in party leadership should take her behind a barn and "he" should come back alone...or when Matthews said that she only got this far because her husband cheated on her, or when the guys in NH interrputed her speech demanding that she "iron" their clothes, or when Obama said she was "likeable enough" or Annie Oakley, or that her "claws" come out, or when journalists called her a "fratricidal maniac" or likened her to "Glen Close" and Tonya Harding, or when a commentator on CNN said she is a "b," or when Frank Rich called her "cold" and "whiny," or when she was called "shrill" or said to have a "cackle," or that she was a witch, or that she "plays the victim," or that she was pimping her daughter, or when ABC news runs a column yesterday guessing that she is in some "grieving cycle" (something I have never heard expressed about losing male candidates, even when they stick around until the convention), or when a brief moment of emotion is portrayed as a cunning woman tricking people for votes or real sadness because she was losing, or when she was derided for being ambitious, a trait that is seemingly negative only in women ----- even if she made a speech after all of this, she would be called a manipulative, conniving, whining, power-hungry, greedy, muderous, evil person.
Posted on May 28, 2008 10:19 AM
Your rant that you linked to earlier is filled with half-truths, lies, and guilty by association tactics that really is "Rove-like". I find myself embarrassed that people who think of themselves as "progressive" or "Democrats" spew such garbage.
I'll just give you two examples even though the post is littered with enough BS to fill a barn.
"Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts."
"If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership"
Hmmm, okay, I see, the guy whom a large majority of the progressives in this country support stifled (somehow - maybe by magic) progressive issues. Okay, makes A LOT of sense there. Especially since progressives are the ones who launched his candidacy. Funny, I thought Hillary with her "they are just a bunch of activists that don't really matter" line pretty much threw the progressive movement under the bus, but hey, what do facts have to do with anything, right?
Since when did Democrats do any of the things you mentioned above in the second quote? It is like saying Democrats invaded Iraq. It makes no sense. It's as if someone scrambled all the facts in your brain.
So, seriously, I must ask, are you on a volatile cocktail of prescription drugs?? Or is it that you were so invested (emotionally and monetarily) that you are now trying to rationalize Hillary's implosion?
The only other explanation is that you are a McCain supporter secretly pretending to be a "black man who supports Hillary", in order to create animosity within the Democratic party.
I feel the latter is the best explanation for your nonsensical rants, simply due to the probability of finding a "black man who supports Hillary". It's much likelier to find a McCain supporter that has nothing better to do than make up lies to create tension within the Democratic party in the hopes that some people will vote for McCain or abstain from voting for their nominee.
Posted on May 28, 2008 10:35 AM
Thatmakessense - if , accusing me of being a drug addict or a white McCain supporter pretending to be black is the mature conversation that you seek, then I am missing something. I am black. Clinton has received around 10-20 percent of black support, depending upon the state. And many longstanding racial progressives support her, including Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maya Angelou, Maxine Waters. There are actually websites dedicated for blacks who offer progressive critiques of Obama and/or who support Clinton. But if your mind cannot envision blacks being diverse in their views, that's your problem, not mine.
PS: calling yourself a progressive means very little to me.!
Posted on May 28, 2008 10:46 AM
PS: Adolph Reed a prominent progressive black political scientist at the University of Pennsylvani, who specializes in race and American politics, has written one of the most scathing critiques of Obama to date. http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508 I guess he's on drugs too....or maybe the liberal Reed is now a Republican.
Posted on May 28, 2008 10:51 AM
Hey damitjatao - "black man for Hillary"
or whoever you really are -
The fact that you don't have ONE legitimate quote of sexism from the Obama camp speaks volumes.....
We could sit here and cite random examples from various "sources" all night long. How many utterly despicable things were said and continue to be said about Obama by Clinton and McCain supporters?? Do you see Obama supporters lumping them all together and then accusing the Democrats of being racist? Do you realize how utterly IGNORANT that is??
By the way, the people in the press who attack her do so because she is an unscrupulous liar with no sense of decency. Not because she is a woman. Just like they tear into Bush everyday. Now I suppose you'll say they are reverse sexist against Bush....lmao....
Posted on May 28, 2008 10:55 AM
Well, thatmakessense: since Clinton is an "uncscrupulous liar with no sense of decency," we can end the conversation -- and definitely conclude that no Obama supporter has ever done anything to turn off a Clinton supporter. In fact, your own post embodies that sweet unity of Obama's entire campaign. Keep up the good work and see you in November!
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:02 AM
There are Jews who support Nazis......so what??? There are black Republicans too....and your point is?????
The likelihood is far greater that you are a covert Republican - simply because all your arguments are fallacious....yet mindly amusing in their chutzpah.
By the way, black support for Hillary hasn't been 20% for some time.....more like 5% or less.......
No matter how many times you repeat your lies, they still remain just that....lies.
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:04 AM
Well if you think that Clinton isn't an unscrupulous liar with no sense of decency, then maybe you should be on prescription drugs......as you have no comprehension of the world around you....
And guess what, even with ALL her flaws I still would vote for her over McCain. Like I've said before, she is despicable and unredeemable in the most profound ways, yet, I have no reservations about casting a vote for her over McCain.
See, it's not about the candidates but more about the parties and what is at stake. People like you are Nader voters, thinking that it doesn't matter who gets into the White House - you'll vote your conscience and hope nothing gets screwed up by the majority. Hmmmm, worked well in 2000 didn't it??
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:10 AM
See, it's not about the candidates but more about the parties and what is at stake. People like you (if you really are not a McCain supporter) are like Nader voters, thinking that it doesn't matter who gets into the White House - you'll vote your conscience and hope nothing gets screwed up by the majority. Hmmmm, worked well in 2000 didn't it??
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:13 AM
If you are going to cite obama supporters' actions as a reason not to get on board the Democratic ticket......well, I don't what to say.....because Clinton supporters NEVER, EVER, used racial slurs and downright horrific scenarios about Obama and his family. Oh no, they are totally above reproach!
The sheer lunacy of your arguments......
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:16 AM
Oh, please thatmakessense - I said her black support has varied depending upon the state. How is that a lie???? Anyway, it is clear that no sensible "connection" will be made here. Unlike Rick08, you are unable to engage in debate with someone who disagrees with you. Instead, you call me a liar, a Republican, a lunatic, someone who lacks "comprehension" about the world, a drug-addict, and someone who needs "prescription drugs," liken me to a Jewish Nazi sympathizer, etc. Post-racial unity is so blissful! Enjoy!
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:30 AM
Thank you... damitajo1... for engaging in civil debate. I am sorry to find that you are now the target of verbal abuse and bullying.
I checked out your link to Adolph Reed's article and it was very good.
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:44 AM
What "debate" damitjao???
You and sooyapi just spew lies and people refute them, time and time again.
And then you wonder why people call you on your lies! Huh?!?! That is the behavior of someone who is mentally challenged.
Posted on May 28, 2008 11:55 AM
If one truly thinks that another is lying, please refute with facts (as opposed to opinion). A differing opinion is not a "lie" but rather an alternative viewpoint.... ergo cannot be proved or disproved. The true mental challenge for some is being able to discern the difference.
The other challenge is controlling one's emotional impulses, sticking to the topic, and refraining from personal disparagement of other posters because one is in disagreement.
Posted on May 28, 2008 2:33 PM
I respect your position. From one American to another. Im not tryying to tell you how to use your right to vote. Of course I hope somewhere down the line you would reconsider and vote Democrat again. You dont have to vote Obama. Just vote democrat and look at it that way. I think your general feeling is that Clinton has been subject to sexism from all sides. I agree its sad to hear people talk about her shrill, or her crying or her cleavage. There is no place for that in our politics. But I think its equally sad and cringe-worthy when I hear pundits openly on certin shows talk about Ghetto-izing Obama.
Civil rights in this country go hand in hand for women and African Americans. I personally think Clinton should accept the VP if offered. Their ticket would embody everything people fought for, for so many years. Her campaign wasnt a failure. It was the complete opposite. She has shattered so many ceilings. There was noone tougher. To me her campaign paved the way for many women if they choose to pursue and serve in public office.
Posted on May 28, 2008 3:42 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR