home

New Texas Poll: It's Not Over Yet

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:14:21 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A new Texas Rasmussen poll shows Obama at 48%, Hillary at 44%. But, those numbers should be within the margin of error, and:

Eight percent (8%) remain undecided and another 12% say it’s possible they could change their mind. That latter figure includes 3% who say there’s a good chance they could change their mind.

Also,

  • 73% of the undecided have a favorable view of Hillary compared to 69% for Obama (among all voters, it's 76 favorable for Hillary and 75 for Obama.
  • Obama leads by sixteen points among men, but trails by nine among women.
  • Hillary is still leading among Hispanic voters by 7 points.
  • 79% believe Hillary "would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated" compared to 78% for Obama.

A negative: Obama's NAFTA spin about Hillary is working.

Bottom line: This is a fluid race where either candidate could win.

< More Than One in 100 Americans Now in Jail | Chicago Crime Update: No Appeal Bond for Conrad Black, Jury Will See Photos of Rezko's House >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Texas Poll: It's Not Over Yet | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    New IA poll shows Hillary ahead by 4 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    From a quick look, as a local, these demographics look realistic to me but who knows ...

    IA

    Dueling polls again.

    IA? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    Just a thought... you may want to use "Insider Advantage" instead of "IA."

    I was trying to figure out why we cared about Iowa polls.

    Parent

    Thanks. that never occurred to me :-) (none / 0) (#16)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:46:49 PM EST


    Parent
    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:45:30 PM EST
    ******************
    Don't mind me I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we logout, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

    Parent

    One worry about the IA poll (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    is that it shows Hillary with a small lead among republicans.  While that fits with my personal experience in talking to R friends, it's backward of the conventional wisdom.
    It does backward (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    the CW wisdom but Rush and other wingnut radio hots have been begging people to vote for Hillary. Who knows...maybe it's working.

    Parent
    Just buzzed through Ohio newspapers (none / 0) (#10)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:31:04 PM EST
    Not much coverage of Clinton today in major Ohio newspapers.Obama made it on one or two front pages. Obama stressed his ability to reach across the aisle in one article.

    Like other's we all remember the New Hamshire polls. Proceed with caution.

    Parent

    i know a thing or two about ohio (none / 0) (#105)
    by joei on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    and math, this one is in the bag for Clinton. i say atleast 10+ points. she is running 20+ points on the ones who already voted.

    polls from texas are just bad. underlying data from one poll to another are just inconsistent, its not just model projections but total contradiction between the various demos.

    Parent

    I have to say (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:30:37 PM EST
    polls have been so crazy that I try to ignore than even if they show Hillary up (which of course means they are right).

    I think anyone who invokes CW has it wrong (with no offense meant to americanincanada, an excellent poster) because, if this race has shown us one thing, it's that CW doesn't really apply anymore.  There's a need for new rules to explain some of the crazy crap that has been going on.

    Polls really have not been very good (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    this primary season.  And a lot has to do with the way the questions are posed something we usually are not privy to.

    Parent
    nah... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    ... I think it actually has more to do with faulty turnout models than anything else.

    The questions, at least the main one we care about, are pretty straightforward - Obama or Clinton?

    But the turnout this year has just exploded, which has thrown a lot of projections into chaos.  

    Parent

    Yeah but Polls are supposed to projections (none / 0) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    they shouldn't be that skewed by large turnouts.  Unless a lot of people are lying about their intentions.

    Parent
    Yeah but Polls are supposed to projections (none / 0) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    they shouldn't be that skewed by large turnouts.  Unless a lot of people are lying about their intentions.

    Parent
    Thanks Kathy... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:35:28 PM EST
    and I agree. I was definitely not touting CW. The CW says Hillary will lose and I don't believe that. It also says repubs will vote for Obama and I believe that the poll may be showing evidence that a campaign by some repuibs may actually be turning the tide.

    I don't care why they vote for her I just want them to.

    And I respect your posts as well...I am glad to have found some sanity in all the insanity surrounding this primary.

    Parent

    When I voted yesterday (none / 0) (#14)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    there were a boat load of people there, and I was practically alone in '04, so the turnout really could be huge.  I don't know what that does to the polls but the old models are probably wrong.


    Parent
    What is your assessment of those voters. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    You know, low information, wine track, young, etc.?

    Parent
    In the crowd where I voted (none / 0) (#36)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:16:19 PM EST
    there were several elderly men and women, one man was 96 years old and a hoot.  He was a Hillary voter.  More middle aged than young and more women than men.  I would guess 50/50 wine and beer track but I'm terrible at that kind of thing.

    In Austin it's harder to tell than other places I've lived because very well-off people tend to dress in jeans and t-shirts, along with the beer track folks.

    Parent

    I personally don't believe in voting in the (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    other parties primaries or caucuses.  But this Republican will be voting for the Democratic Candidate in the GE whichever is nominated.

    What will the media do if she eeks out a win? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM EST
    I can't imagine how it could get any rougher for her but they always manage to surprise me.  OTOH, all the ugliness that we knew was there in the Gore and Kerry elections has finally expressed itself so forcefully that even the non-political types have to notice.  
    My prediction is that they will say it is too close to call, it's not over for Obama yet.  He can still win Pennsylvania and North Carolina and he's the hottest thing since jalapeno poppers.  Well, I've got news for them.  My Bush loving mother in Pennsylvania is dusting off her Democratic voter's registration card and voting for Hillary.
    But seriously, what happens to MSNBC and the Villagers when they figure out they can't take her out?  Will they just be like Nazgul and fade away with one final scream?

    Don;t know but I think you could put (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    the media implosion on pay-per-view and draw record ratings.  I really like Hillary but even if I didn't I'd be rooting for her to win just to watch the media blow itself to pieces.  I really hate them!


    Parent
    Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Lil on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
    And I couldn't agree more.

    Parent
    I remember watching Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    and he had that twit political "reporter" from (I believe) Rolling Stone on after the NH win, and the guy said that when he heard that Clinton won, he felt like someone had told him he had cancer.  Then, he said that his next thought was that she had stolen the race.

    Nice, huh?  Really great "reporting."

    Parent

    Twit? (none / 0) (#37)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    Would that "twit political reporter" be Matt Taibbi?

    The same Matt Taibbi who pimps for Bill Maher?

    (excuse the use of the verb "pimp")

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    I know what Taibbi looks like.

    This was a fairly young (35?) guy in glasses with his hair all gellbed up into a kind of fauxhawk to distract from his receding hairline.

    Parent

    WAIT A MINUTE! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    It was Tiabbi.  The photo I saw of him looks completely different.  Man, that hair has been going fast!

    Parent
    Matt Taibi (none / 0) (#60)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:03:22 PM EST
    from Rolling Stone does not wear glasses --atleast not on Bill Mahr. However the statement  can very well be his. He is a bad reporter--does not understand  issues and has a disgusting attitude towards Hillary. I too love to see the reaction of all these reporters and talking heads if she wins.  That will be priceless.

    Parent
    "fauxhawk" (none / 0) (#46)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    I'm trying to imagine how this would look on myself ...

    hmmm .... I might like it if I could get that darn hair to grow again ...

    Parent

    Latin ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    that would be from the latin "pimpo," to pimp ...

    past and future tenses would be "pimper" and "pimporare," respectively ...

    Parent

    kind of typical "reporting" (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    have I mentioned I hate the media?

    Parent
    I think I know who you are talking about. (none / 0) (#50)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    I saw a guy on Bill Maher that was kinda balding had a big forehead, stalker eyes and a lot of chin. He looked like a botched attempt at cloning a Kennedy and was full of testosterone. He was cursing up a storm and rolling his eyes when the people on the panel mentioned anything positive about Hillary he'd roll his eyes or scoff.

    Parent
    I'm not sure the Obama supporters ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM EST
    can talk another fall from fortune.  I expect chaos in the village and MSM if Hillary wins both states.

    Eventually leading to Nazgul ... :)

    Parent

    It took a war, several eagles and (none / 0) (#45)
    by mg7505 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:24:31 PM EST
    Frodo to destroy most of the Nazgul; there are no such heroes to fight the Media. If she wins they will only step up their attacks, just like they destroyed Gore for no good reason. Instead of worshipping Bush or Obama they'll just glorify McCain.

    Parent
    I actually (none / 0) (#31)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    hope she wins for 2 reason....

    She need a win to keep in the race.

    Her remaining in the race gives an edge to the Dems.

    If she remains in this race... Sen Obama will improve in his campaign. I noticed a big difference in Sen Obama from his first debate to this last debate. He is learning from her. I listened to some of his answers... they ring familiar. And there in nothing wrong with that.

    If he should be the nominee ... he needs to sharpen his substance. She is forcing him to do that very thing!

    Parent

    what the pundits will do if she wins Texas... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:36:35 PM EST
    ...is shift those goalposts further to Obama's side.

    I've heard some really ridiculous statements, like "Clinton needs to win Texas by a 3-1 margin in order to catch up on pledged delegates." Never mind the supers, or FL-MI, or that the various caucus delegates won't be known for a month or so.

    The sheer margin in various media's delegate counts should tell you it's truly unknown how many pledged delegates will eventually be apportioned to each candidate, but of course MSNBC and a couple others are happy to take the Obama campaign's word for it that she can "never catch up now."

    Parent

    The way that the Texas Distribution (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    of Delegates is done you can win the vote count and loose the delegate count.  Similar or worse to Nevada

    Worse than Nevada (none / 0) (#25)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    with 1/3 of the delegates being apportioned by the caucus the ground game, where Obama has excelled, is a big deal.

    The Republicans in TX have no hybrid primary/caucus system.  Their primary rules are straight forward. Get 51% of the primary vote, get all the delegates from a district.  I envy their common sense!


    Parent

    stop me if y'all have heard this before (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    and before, and before, and before (and from me, because I am a broken record on this):

    What if Clinton has the popular vote and Obama has the delegates?  What happens then?

    Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST
    Also true if it works the other way.

    Obama rules, you know.

    Parent

    Honestly ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    it would almost be worth risking a McCain presidency so I could see one brokered convention in my life.

    I said ... almost.

    Hell, if Obama's nominated we'll probably get McCain anyway.

    Parent

    Al Gore ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:59:42 PM EST
    becomes president?

    ;)

    Parent

    SCOTU S decides the Outcome :-) (none / 0) (#30)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST


    Parent
    chaos :-) (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:03:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's another new poll (none / 0) (#2)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    That has Clinton four points ahead. It's Insider Advantage, which had Obama one point ahead in their last poll.  

    great minds think alike :-) (none / 0) (#4)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    Just posted the same poll

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    Well, your link shows the internals, which I actually hadn't seen before.

    Parent
    Could the fluid stop running downhill? (none / 0) (#8)
    by goldberry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    We really need a little good news.  

    Well, if Obama's NAFTA spin is working (none / 0) (#35)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    the other NAFTA "spin" should be brought forth more prominently, i.e. the whole Obama campaign call to Canada about his comments about NAFTA being "just campaign rhetoric, don't worry" (I haven't included a link because it's easily all over the news today).

    I wonder why our beloved TL'ers (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM EST
    haven't commented on that story?  The photo phlap had a more firm denial from Clinton than the Obama campaign has given over the call.  Waiting to see what the shake-out is?  It wasn't on the national news tonight.  Maybe folks are being very careful?

    Americanincanada, I am assuming you call yourself that for a reason--do you know the news organization (CTV) who reported the story and are they reliable, in your opinion?  I have only spent a few weeks in Canada, and to my recollection, they are pretty reliable. (Was there when they covered their PM-was it?-saying Bush is an idiot.  The second time.)

    Parent

    CTV (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    is very reliable and very trusted. There are also 'truth in broadcasting' regulations here that lead me to believe that the story would never have made it to air if it didn't have some kernel of truth to it.

    The Clinton camp flatly denied making any contact regarding NAFTA either directly or indirectly. Obama's denial was a lot more...parsed...to say the least. Hearing denials from low level gov officials is not really stopped the anger here from bubbling up. The ambassador himself hs not said a word and CTV stands by the story.

    The CTV National news doesn't come on until 11pm so we will have to wait and see if they do a follow up. They were getting flooded with calls and their website crashed at one point today. We'll have to see.

    Suffice to say CTV is as far from tabliod tv or Fox News as you can get. Canadian media is much more engaged than american media. I would also point to the fact that until last night, CTV's coverage of Obama would have bordered on glowing.

    I don't think they made it up and I am hearing they have named and there is more to the story. I hope they don't drop it from political pressure from the conservative government.

    Parent

    oopsie (none / 0) (#61)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    They have names...I mean...

    Parent
    thanks, american (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    You'll be our reporter in the field!

    question, though: did the Clinton campaign deny talking about NAFTA with them or did they deny ever having made a call in the first place?  Because, as I said, I have a real problem with would-be contenders making calls like that.  It puts you a tad above your station.  Calling as a senator is one thing, but this is quite different.

    Also, why is it that most of the hard-hitting news on Obama is coming from other countries?

    Parent

    I watch Canadian TV (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    when I actually want to KNOW what is happening in US national news....or I watch BBC.

    Yes, they both are much more "news-ish" than what passes for US News.

    Parent

    CTV JUST RECONFIRMED THIS STORY (none / 0) (#106)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    Here is the Video...Wow

    Parent
    It's been debunked (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    Denied by Canada and Obama.  See this ABC article

    Parent
    A quote (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:22:34 PM EST
    from the Canadian Embassy:

    "The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA," the statement read. "Last night the Canadian television network CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA."



    Parent
    Let's see if CTV comes out with some evidence (none / 0) (#75)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    to the contrary.  Personally I hope it's false because I don't want either of the campaigns to be giving the Republican Candidate ammunition for later use.

    Parent
    A visitor (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:36:09 PM EST
    overheard someone in the Observatory with the Candlestick....

    Gotta love those unnamed sources.....

    Parent

    Let's look at (none / 0) (#82)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:41:21 PM EST
    the original report, shall we?

    Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

    ...

    Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

    "Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

    So they go from not denying the story to flatly denying (whereas the Clinton campaign went straight to flatly denying any contact in the first place).  Hmmm.  So what does Michael Wilson have to say about it?  Where did he mysteriously disappear to?

    I guess we'll see what happens on Canadian TV from the above peeps.

    Parent

    A denial is a denial (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST
    Frankly, I'd prefer hounding McCain to reject and denounce Hagee....

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    It is a good thing..... for us. Hagee is a typical religious GOP nut case.

    Parent
    Do we have a denial (none / 0) (#89)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    from Mike Wilson in Washington?  That is, after all, where Mike Wilson works.  

    Parent
    Branding... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    sharp!  Good question!

    Parent
    According to Huff Post headline, (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    McCain "denounced" Obama today for speaking w/forked tongue on NAFTA, i.e., telling Wilson not to worry, it is just campaign rhetoric.  

    Parent
    no it hasnt now has been reconfirmed (none / 0) (#109)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    "That a call was made." (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    Pretty vague.  Also, the news story says the source said that there may have been a "misunderstanding."   Not as clear as the denial.....

    So, this helps Hillary, right?

      But didn't the source said Hillary did the same thing....Both candidates did the exact same thing on trade?  Remarkable.....  

    Parent

    can we first figure out if it's true? (none / 0) (#47)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    Canada denies it, although they did say that they have talked to both candidates about NAFTA.  

    Parent
    I want to know (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    why either campaign is calling Canada.  I mean--what fer?  They are supposed to be campaigning for the primary.  As I recall, they don't get briefed unless they are the actual candidate for the party.  I can see if they called as senators, but as primary contenders?  "Hey, I might get this job if I get two more promotions, so I thought I'd introduce myself..."

    I'd be really interested to know why the calls are being made.

    Parent

    As I Understand It... (none / 0) (#56)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    From the Taylor Marsh piece, Obama's campaign called some muckety muck in Canada to say that Obama had to talk tough abt NAFTA in the States, but not to worry - he would still uphold NAFTA and it was all talk.  That's my paraphrase.  Clinton's campaign has denied ANY calls, and said that they would urge the Canadian gov't to grant blanket immunity to ANYONE who came forward who had spoken to the Clinton campaign.  If yougo to taylormarsh.com, it has the original story and the follow-up when Marsh spoke to the people a CTV.

    I did want to say that it is TROUBLING that Obama's LIES abt Clinton's NAFTA positions have taken any hold at all.  And, you know I blame the media.  EVERY TIME she tried to state her position on this, Obama's take was given more weight.  Needless to say, HIS statements abt it back in 2004 were completely brushed off...

    Anywho - hopefully this will get SOME look-see from the media.  I know, hahahahahaha, yeah, right.

    Parent

    Ohhhh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    I thought that Clinton's campaign had called as well--and I had a problem with that.

    So...has anyone asked Obama's campaign why they were calling Canada?  I mean, that's a little cheeky, don't you think?  And why does it matter in the scheme of things?  Is he worried about Canada getting mad at him?  Does he have some special relationship with Canada?

    It just doesn't make any sense.

    Parent

    There is (none / 0) (#62)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    video on several sites as well of the CTV story last night.

    Parent
    From the Taylor Marsh Article... (none / 0) (#63)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    "The Clinton campaign, however, said no one directly or indirectly contacted the Canadian government. But in addition, the Clinton campaign said that they give the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to reveal who supposedly called them. I've confirmed both with the Clinton campaign. "

    See, you probably just THOUGHT the Clinton people did, because no doubt the OBAMA people said the Clinton people did, and that is all any of the media would talk abt anyway!  :-)  Ahem.  

    Parent

    Lies about NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    As an economist I must say that there is a lot of hype about NAFTA and its bad effects. What happened in OH and other places (job loss, factory shut down etc.) would have happened even without NAFTA. This is a sectoral re-allocation of jobs in a dymnamic economy. It may not sit well with people who have lost jobs because of plane relocation---but that is hard fact. NAFTA was a good policy---not a perfect one--passed by the Clinton administration. I don't  support the policies of Obama and Clinton. But you ccannot always agree with your candidate. But what is truely disgusting is Obama's action. It is the really dirty politics--he has learned it in Chicago--practiced by the candidate who is supposed to transform politics!

    Parent
    ah... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:07:41 PM EST
    thanks.  So, no call.  Good for them.  I had a problem when Edwards called Musharaff a while back, too.  And don't even get me started about Obama in Kenya.

    Parent
    I Like (none / 0) (#69)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    How the Clinton campaign offered the immunity thing, too - the Obama camp was not wiling to do that.  Gee - what a surprise!

    Yeah - I was kinda surprised abt Edwards making that move, too.  Less so abt Obama and Kenya.

    Speaking of Obama, so why ISN'T the media talking abt his not chairng ONE NATO/Afghanistan meeting in over a YEAR??  Can you IMAGINE if this was Clinton instead?!?!  Holy smokes!!

    And, why are they not researching his brag that he got a bill passed to help the WOunded Warriors when it ONLY passed after CLINTON added FOUR amendments to it?  It is on youtube, by the way.  

    Along THOSE lines, this link has an excellent expose on Obama and Veterans: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/27/105711/135  (Not to get TOO Much off topic, but it is all related!)

    Parent

    Taylor Marsh is an objective (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    source for fair, well-sourced coverage of Obama?

    Parent
    So It Would Seem... (none / 0) (#72)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:22:15 PM EST
    She uses a lot of material from reputable news sources, including videos, like from MSNBC, including videos of Obama himself talking, like in 2004 that he had no plans to run for prez...

    Anyway - she seems MUCH more balanced than any of the MSM.  IMHO, that is.

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    The quote above ontaining the Clinton denial came straight from the CTV news website.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#77)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    I just meant I GOT it from Taylor Marsh's site - I apologize for not being clearer!

    Parent
    Hmm... (none / 0) (#91)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:22:45 PM EST

    "From the Taylor Marsh piece, Obama's campaign called some muckety muck in Canada to say that Obama had to talk tough abt NAFTA in the States, but not to worry - he would still uphold NAFTA and it was all talk."

    Nooooooooooo, the Canadian Embassy is in D.C.  The call would've had to've been made to Mike Wilson in Washington, D.C. (if they contacted the Canadian Embassy).  

    Parent

    I meant to add... (none / 0) (#92)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    ...see how much more complicated this gets?  The call (allegedly) from the Obama campaign goes to the Canadian Embassy in Washington D.C. to Mike Wilson, a source "in the know" about this contacts CTV in Canada and they're all over it...it's not just some kind of thing like the Obama campaign tried to implicate with Clinton "possibly" contacting Ottawa directly about the same thing.  In D.C. things can get pretty sticky....

    Parent
    I Was Being... (none / 0) (#94)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    A bit flip - sorry.  I should have put in the full quote like I did with the other one.  You are, of course, quite right, and the article clearly states that.

    Parent
    Okey Dokey... (none / 0) (#99)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:33:12 PM EST
    Here is the actual quote:

    "Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. ..."

    Parent

    Taylor Marsh called up the station and they are (none / 0) (#51)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    sticking by the story.

    Parent
    NAFTA (none / 0) (#67)
    by 0 politico on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:08:25 PM EST
    NAFTA and talking to the Canadians during a US primary does sound odd, considering the party has not officially chosen a candidate.  Perhaps this should get more coverage in both TX and OH.  For both, this should call into question the integrity of the message from the BO campaign on this subject.  For TX, I would have to wonder what the reaction from the Hispanic community (which as I recall from the past has strong ties to Old Mexico) about any potential side deal with Canada that does not include the neighbor to the south.  Also, what would the Texas business community think?  Would they care?

    I am also curious as to how a message that is anti-NAFTA is gaining ground with the Hispanic community.  Perhaps I am out of touch as it has been decades since I lived in either TX or AZ.

    Parent

    I sure hope that (none / 0) (#95)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:28:38 PM EST
    CTV can help us with some more evidence, whatever they have (I assume since they're sticking by it and that they're known to be credible that they DO have SOME evidence, like maybe a caller ID/call/saved messages/recording/whatnot, heh).  Something, anything.

    Parent
    Was HRC campaign accused of (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    saying something similar to Canadian government?  If so, who made the accusation?  

    Parent
    NEW! Someone at the HC.com blogs posted it (none / 0) (#107)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    a Canadian poster (answer to your Clinton question is in this too):

    The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.

    "I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

    On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

    "At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

    But just yesterday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

    The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from the Obama campaign.

    "The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

    Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

    link
    link to the original blog post, too

    "Since said it was a miscommunication"...right.  The whole timeline thing was a miscommunication, too.  Methinks someone got angry at someone....

    Parent

    Let's ask emptywheel . (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:50:45 PM EST
    to get to the bottom of this.  Can't call it deep throat I guess, but there has to be a good story line there.

    Parent
    I think this spells trouble. (none / 0) (#133)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:51:35 AM EST
    Link to the YouTube of CTV news saying that the highest levels who confirmed that the call was made reconfirmed it this afternoon.

    Parent
    They're naming names, too. (none / 0) (#134)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:21 AM EST
    However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

    Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.

    link

    Fascinating...it doesn't look like it's going away, either.

    Parent

    I wish there was a little less spin (none / 0) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    and a little more substance on both sides.  But then this is politics.

    That's encouraging news (none / 0) (#42)
    by Paladin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    That IA poll.  But like everyone else here, I'll take it with a barrel of salt.  Encouraging none-the-less.

    BTW, I went to KOS for a brief visit and believe it or not, no anti-Hillary diaries.  I guess they must really feel like she's through!

    Even Kos-ers get tired (none / 0) (#48)
    by mg7505 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    of writing about non-issues sometimes.

    Parent
    OT: Bushism (none / 0) (#52)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:36:14 PM EST
    Y'all have probably heard this one, but a friend of mind just mentioned that he heard Bush say recently, in a derogatory comment about the wonders of the American economy vis-a-vis France, that, you know, the French don't even have word for "entrepreneur ..."

    (btw, "vis-a-vis" is french also ...)

    Hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    Good one, hadn't heard that one before.

    Parent
    Keep Hope Alive! (none / 0) (#54)
    by sar75 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    The delegate math is almost impossible, Obama is up in Texas and within four in Ohio, moving up in Pennsylvania, and ready to clean up the remaining states after March 4.

    But Hillary can still win.  Mark Ambinder does some calculations to show how:

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/we_need_to_start_with.php

    That BS (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:52:24 PM EST
    is just one more way of saying she should drop out.  If I believed the crap I read on most blogs ...


    Parent
    Why do you post this stuff? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
    If you are so confident your candidate has it locked up then seat back, open a beverage of your choice, enjoy, relax, be gracious.

    No need to rub it in. Seriously the minute I am sure Hillary has the nomination locked up I swear I will be SO NICE to Obama supporters, even will encourage them to keep fighting.

    Parent

    But can Obama clinch it? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    I read not -- both being too far away from the number to clinch it before the convention.

    Parent
    I have been wondering (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    considering that wages in Canada are about the same as Here if not higher in certain fields, and considering that their environmental standards are higher than in most of our states what would be our complain in trade with them.

    This is NOT GOOD NEWS- (none / 0) (#78)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:33:55 PM EST
    every recent poll has drastically underestimated the Obama surge. People are jumping on this bandwagon w/o thinking it through. I think he will win Texas by at least 15%, and Ohio by more than 5%. This makes me very sad for my party, Hillary wuld have made a GREAT president.

    Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    He has surged in a couple of places, yes, but TX and OH have been sitting there for a while. If he doesn't keep pulling ahead maybe we really have what it seems we have: a reflection of the national state in TX. Essentially tied.

    Parent
    Reuters/Cspan/Zogby - 47 - 42 Obama (none / 0) (#135)
    by sar75 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:47:23 AM EST
    Of course, they could be off.  But the trend is a slow Obama pull away in Texas.

    I expect he wins there by at least 5 and probably ties in Ohio.  

    Remember, folks, the math says Clinton needs to win both of these states by at least 10 points and then crush Obama in Pennsylvania and tie him in the remaining states.

    Good luck.

    No, Clinton can no longer win.  There, I've said it.  I think she should fight on until March 4, for sure. She should drop out if she does not win both Texas and Ohio (and Ohio decisively).  I'm pretty certain she will.  Ed Rendel in Penn. will probably tell her its over.

    Parent

    You're referencing (none / 0) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    Zogby?!

    Parent
    Clinton only up by 7 (none / 0) (#85)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    amongst hispanics?

    Wow. Wasn't the CW that she would approach 2/3?

    Hey Tano (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:16:13 PM EST
    I am glad you showed up (if only for a moment) because I didn't see Jeralyn's retraction about you using  a second name on here and I made fun of you for it.  I apologize for doing so.  I mean, I make fun of you a lot, and probably will continue to do so, but on that point I was incorrect and so here is my apology.

    Parent
    Couldn't bring yourself to just apologize (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    now could you?

    I make fun of you a lot, and probably will continue to do so


    Parent
    come on, oculus (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:39:46 PM EST
    what were you expecting, a group hug?

    Parent
    Thank you Kathy (none / 0) (#98)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    Didnt see the original comment - nor the controversy. This sounds interesting - I gotta go find it.
    Anyway, thanks for the apology. Now, be nice to Barack, ok?

    Parent
    yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    as soon as you take down that Clinton photo from your dart board!

    (to fill you in: apparently Obamamania was also posting as Halstoon, which Jeralyn sussed out. At first she thought Halstoon was secretly you, but then she found the real culprit.  You can see my fun-making on the fundraiser post, among other spots.  Squeaky really took up for you, too.  Heyyyy...you're not Squeaky, are ya?  Hahahaha!)

    Parent

    Just so we're clear on what happened. (none / 0) (#108)
    by halstoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn did wrongly accuse Tano and I of being one in the same. She apologized for that.

    It is also true that I wrote under the name Obamamania, and if you'll look at the comments for this handle, you'll see that there was no activity between 2/11 and 2/27. I switched to the Obamamania monicker b/c I thought it would be a nice, fun, snarky name.

    People didn't pay attention to anything other than that name, though, so I switched back.

    Don't pretend as though I was doing what Jeralyn accused me of: posting positive commentary on comments already made under another name. That never happened.

    I still agree with Tano, and will continue to salute that commenter's posts that I agree with.

    I am, however, touched that I garnered so much attention by some of TL's most active posters.

    Parent

    What? You entirely missed your (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:41:31 PM EST
    15 minutes of fame?

    Parent
    a travesty (none / 0) (#103)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    let's think of something else to say.  I am DYING to use that "Tanoon" somewhere.

    Parent
    I apologized too (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:30:38 AM EST
    in two other threads.

    Parent
    saw it,, thanks (none / 0) (#132)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:04:38 AM EST


    Parent
    anyway (none / 0) (#114)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:16:45 PM EST
    so what is happening to the hispanic vote in TX?

    Parent
    I hope that (none / 0) (#104)
    by mg7505 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    whoever loses can go out with class and maybe even humor.

    WSJ (none / 0) (#110)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    Of all places for a good editorial, the Wall Street Journal.

    link

    Periodically, when I read something (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04:38 PM EST
    like this, I'm feeling down.

    Parent
    HRC on ABC: (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    HRC INTERVIEW

    Parent
    of all places indeed (none / 0) (#113)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:13:42 PM EST
    Interesting that you find that to be a good editorial. For whom?

    I see the typical WSJ bilge. As a Clinton supporter do you really find it good that they basically say that she is stretching, to say the least (their words are somehting like - an integrity of her own design), in her protestations against NAFTA-like free trade? Implying that of course she is a free trader, it is only the netroot activists who have driven the party to the left that force her to pretend otherwise.

    Is it good for her when they claim that she is mired, intellectually, in the mid-20th century?

    The article is a broadside against all Democrats. They merely lament on her behalf that she seems not to be as good a salesman for the Democratic message as is Obama.

    You got a strange idea of "good".

    Parent

    the anti-trade argument (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    is largely just pandering on the part of both candidates.  there's no reason to deny that nafta is largely a convenient scapegoat for more powerful forces.  you seem to think it's a good thing that the current democratic party is basically a laundry list of approved issues.

    frankly for all the talk of "left netroots", i'm not impressed in that it seems to be merely an echo chamber of orthodoxy.  i hardly think that's 21st century.  other than a fund raising tool and a way to organize followers, i don't find it particularly inventive.

    you really should try to buy a sense of humor and not be so sensitive about your own orthodoxy.  sometimes it's "good" to stretch from your comfort zone.  the wsj editorial was thought provoking and you don't have to agree with every opinion.  nor does an editorial have to be "for" or "against" anyone.


    Parent

    Meter Blades has an interesting (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:38:52 PM EST
    diary on FP of DK tonight about the platform of the Dem. Party.  Guess who is on the platform committee this time?  Deval Patrick!

    Parent
    i didn't find it to be good (none / 0) (#118)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:42:11 PM EST
    I didn't find it to be thought provoking either.

    I think NAFTA is seriously flawed. I agree that it has had some enormous benefits, and the forces that it facilitates, globalization of markets, is inevitable. But trade argreement like this are potenitally mighty weapons to use to prod other countries into distributing wealth more fairly, so as to create their own middle classes, and to follow at least some minimal standards of environmental protection so that we don't all choke in thier waste outputs.

    In short, I agree with the positions that both candidates hold now. And that is very much not the position of the WSJ, or its hacks.

    The assumption that permeates this article is that any regulation of free trade is bad, and that it is only the crazy netroot lefties that cant see the light. And that they have pushed Hillary into lying about her true position in order to get elected.

    I don't understand your take on the netroots. Apparantly you are at the opposite pole from the WSJ article, beleiving that they are an echo chamber for orthodoxy. I've never heard that opinion before, and I dont really know you mean by it.

    Parent

    on the echo chamber comment (none / 0) (#124)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:20:30 AM EST
    what i mean is that i don't see enough dissent from the netroots version of CW on lots of blogs.  thankfully this one is not that way  :-)

    i guess an example would be the '04 election where i kept reading how great Howard Dean was doing with very few discouraging words, until it was too late.  throw up another bat, raise a few dollars, etc.  i was a supporter at the time and, off the blogs, it was obvious that all was not well in Deanland.  

    it seems the people who talk to each other just reinforce their own viewpoints and that leads to an echo chamber effect where reality can be tuned out.  as members of the reality-based community, we shouldn't let that happen.

    Parent

    ok, I think i agree with all of that... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:02:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Wow... (none / 0) (#117)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    CTV has reconfirmed this story in a VERY strong way. I can bet that since they are still getting confirmation from high gov officials, which I can only assume means the ambassador himself or someone like him, that if the denials continue they might name names.

    Wow...this may have legs after all.

    hey, that could be interesting (none / 0) (#119)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45:12 PM EST
    the ambassador says one thing. The embassy officially says the opposite, unambiguously? Somethings gotta give.
    Or were you just speculating about the ambassador?

    Parent
    I was speculating... (none / 0) (#121)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:54:52 PM EST
    about the ambassador. But it was clear they mean that their sources are high level officials both in the embasy in DC and the Canadian gov as well as a high level person from the Obama campaign.

    CTV is serious and standing firmly behind the story.

    Parent

    From Time (none / 0) (#122)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:10:42 AM EST
    "Early voting in Texas does not bode well for Hillary Clinton," according to Time. "It is up dramatically in counties with large African-American populations, as well as those with more highly educated and affluent voters -- in other words, in areas that would be expected to trend toward Obama. In those heavily hispanic counties that Clinton is counting on, not so much."

    Since the SUSA poll yesterday had Clinton ahead among people who have already voted, I'd say the blurb above is very good news for her and not bad at all.
     

    What to think. Meanwhile, (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:17:32 AM EST
    have you seen this:

    POSSIBLE TX CHALLENGE RE CAUCUSES

    Parent

    Hadn't seen that but I saw in the (none / 0) (#125)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    Texas Observer that Obama's Texas youth director had issues with the sign in procedures for the caucuses.  Seemed to think you could sign in for someone who wasn't there and it would be would rife for abuse.

    I didn't think much of it at the time but now ...


    Parent

    CTV has added more to their story (none / 0) (#126)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    and started naming names.

    "The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

    However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

    Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters."

    Smoke Fire. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:28:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Austan Goolsbee (none / 0) (#129)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:31:06 AM EST
    is a free trader economic advisor.  Classic DLC type and one of the key advisors or so I've read.  This might make sense now.

    Parent
    New Texas Poll: It's Not Over Yet | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment