ABC News National Poll: Obama Favored, Restrictions on Superdelegates Disfavored

There aren't too many silver linings for Hillary Clinton in this ABC News/Washington Post national poll. (Full poll results here, pdf., Washington Post article on it is here.)

The poll, out today, is a national one. It finds Democrats believe Obama should win the nomination and is more electable in November.

The silver lining: The views of those polled on superdelegates:

Only 13 percent of Democrats say superdelegates should support whoever’s won the most regular delegates in primaries and caucuses – a count in which Obama’s ahead, and seemingly likely to stay so. Instead a plurality, 46 percent, say superdelegates should support the candidate who’s won the most popular votes, a tally in which Clinton still has hopes. And 37 percent say superdelegates should go with their own sense of which candidate they think is best.

In other words, if Hillary does well in the remaining states, and she should, at least in PA, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, a whopping 87% of those polled don't think it's a problem for superdelegates to vote according to either the popular vote total or their conscience instead of by the pledged delegate total.


Each superdelegate can decide on their own whether to count Florida and Michigan in arriving at their calculation of the popular vote. I think a great argument can be made to count both Florida and Michigan's votes as is.

Not quite as significant, but important, is the majority belief that Hillary should stay in even if she loses PA and that the long race is not hurting Democratic prospects in November.

I think PA is critical and Indiana very important for Hillary. I also think she'll take both easily. North Carolina, South Dakota and Montana aren't going Democratic in November no matter what, so I don't think they matter as much. Same for Kentucky and West Virginia. For example, since 1964, the only time the Dems took North Carolina was in 1976 when they voted for Carter-Mondale. Neither Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry won North Carolina. Of course, Puerto Rico won't count in November either, but from a popular vote standpoint, a nice win there could be a boost to Hillary.

I think it's too early to call the race. We've got a debate to get through tomorrow night and PA next week. I'm going to wait until after PA and perhaps Indiana before starting my number crunching.

< DNC Party Venues Announced for State Delegates | Supreme Court Hears Case on Death as Penalty for Child Rape >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Also (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:21:44 AM EST
    On better experience she leads Obama by 67-24 percent.

    A theme she has hammered on at (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM EST
    and staked her campaign on in the early states.

    Unfortunately for her voters so far have tended to side with "Change" over "Experience".


    Short-Term Thinking (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    Obama's inability to change the perception about experience is a real problem for him in the GE against McCain.  Democrats have been more forgiving here - as they have elsewhere - than the general public will be.

    I agree (none / 0) (#134)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    and, long-term, I will put up with almost anything from either candidate as long as I think they can beat McCain in the GE.

    My problem is, I really think Obama cannot do it and I am terrified of a McCain presidency. The demographics are just not in Obama's favor. This piece from RealClearPolitics illustrates what I mean.


    That's Because He's Bradley (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    only with 90% of the African American vote in the primaries.  

    Democrats don't lose elections because we can't get African Americans, young people, and urban liberals to vote for us (except Gore when some of those young people and liberals voted for Nader because Bradley had helped convince them that Gore was just like Bush, thanks Bill).  We lose elections because we don't carry enough of the white vote and the most likely places for us to pick up that vote is with working class whites and women.   That was Bill Clinton's coalition.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#160)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    Obama should have reversed "I'll get her voters, but I'm not sure she'll get mine." She is the one with the potential to expand the tent.

    that works both ways: (none / 0) (#176)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    Obama's inability to change the perception about experience is a real problem for him in the GE against McCain.

    Hillary's inability to change the perception about her being the real change candidate is just as hard too. These dumb little brandingpoints...

    Obama has all these dirty industry guys on his energy policy advisors group The BipartisanPolicyCenter like chairs Conoco Phillips, and the CEO of nukepower Exelon are among the 3 puppetmasters pulling those strings...

    William K. Reilly, Bush I EPA/ Conoco Philips
    John W. Rowe CEO, Exelon Corporation

    thats just not change baby.

    The relentless media attacks (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Foxx on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:28:05 AM EST
    on Hillary and praise of Obama must be having an effect. Otherwise how could people so seriously misperceive both of them?

    That will probably change (none / 0) (#27)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:24:42 AM EST
    by August when the convention is held.

    The media is starting to treat Obama like a Democrat.


    Of course that is the ONLY reason (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:56:15 AM EST
    they could hold these views.  Poor deluded fools that they are.

    Condescending . . . much?


    Bias (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:44 AM EST
    This view is a clear indication of bias.

    hate to say it but... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    ...if god made 'em into sheep he intended them to be sheared.

    Pathetic (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:28:31 AM EST
    More experience and better leader.  All the other stuff is MSM damage.  We are going to lose to McCain.  Pathetic.  

    convenient poll FOR tonight's debate (none / 0) (#20)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:38:08 AM EST
    Very marginal on better leader metric (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:00:30 AM EST
    and the Experience argument has worked so well so far for Hillary.

    The way they presented it on the 6:30 news (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:33:13 AM EST
    was first about her leading in PA, and then following up with more voters think he will get the Nom. It was interesting and they didn't spin her out of it. I've noticed their coverage is up and down, but mostly trying to stay on the neutral end. But a dropped out word can really change a neutral slant on certain broadcasts.

    We deserve what we get (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:04 AM EST

    Who's we? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:44:03 AM EST
    The one's We've been waiting for! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:09:04 AM EST
    Couldn't pass that up :))))

    Good night.


    This just blows me away (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Fredster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:48 AM EST
    I really just can't see or understand how those surveyed see it this way.  

    I truly believe that if Obama is the Dem nominee we will see a blowout like Dukakis or McGovern.  It's not going to be pretty.

    Daily barrage of misinformation (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:01:35 AM EST
    Hardly any major "news" network presents the stark GE reality that awaits Obama in terms of focusing on the critical GE states the Democratic nominee must win and his profound weakness in those states.  People incorrectly think that the national polls are indicative of GE strength.

    I don't care for these polls at all because they're desperately trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: 1. Obama is the nominee to be (when it's still a close contest as superdelegates will likely decide the nominee); and 2. Obama is much stronger than Clinton (when in fact it's quite the opposite).

    I wonder how Clinton is doing in the PA media.  She needs to combat this nonsense head-on.  She must constantly repeat: "Neither Barack nor myself can win on pledged delegates alone.  We both need the superdelegates to win."


    It is hopeful that (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:13:33 AM EST
    people think the popular vote is the most important metric.  But they probably don't know that Clinton can still win the popular vote.

    Wow: 2-1 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:05:41 AM EST
    I must admit I am completely shocked so many people are clueless.  Two-to-one believe Obama is the stronger GE candidate.  Wow.

    some of poll conducted before Cling-gate (none / 0) (#17)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:29:39 AM EST
    Poll conducted April 10-13.
    Cling-gate posted Fri afternoon April 11.

    btw - has Hillary ever run a negative ad against Obama?


    You can ask that question with (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:12:40 AM EST
    a straight face?  

    Consistently in exit polling, even in races where Hillary won, voters who felt that the race had been too negative overwhelmingly blamed her for it over Obama.  


    You are joking, right? (none / 0) (#36)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:08:07 AM EST
    How about the commander-in-chief test. Negativity is in the eye of the beholder

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    That was a negative ad?

    When I think of negative ad, I think of the Willie Horton ad, or the swift boat veteran ads.

    Hillary has not run a negative ad directly attacking Obama.


    That was a remark-not an ad. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:01:52 AM EST
    Shocked? (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:30:19 AM EST
    Remember, they 'elected' GWB 2Xs.

    And even if the elections are questionable, imo, they shouldn't have been close enough to be.


    Those were Dems (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:41:12 AM EST
    Democrats believe by a 2-1 margin that Obama is the more electable.  That's what shocked me and especially by such a wide margin, when in fact he's an exceptionally weak GE candidate.  Mind you, the media hasn't even hit him hard yet.

    Reason #1 (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:48:36 AM EST
    that I don't want him in the GE - I do not want to have to use the words "Unity" "postpartisanship" in any real life discussion about a presidential candidate.  I'll feel slimy, like I'm supporting Reagan the Younger.

    Even Maureen Dowd (none / 0) (#132)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    stuck pins in him today in her editorial where previously she has been fawning.  I hope he didn't take her early glowing op-eds too seriously.  She disses everyone.

    I predict that Obama will win (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:26:41 AM EST
    three or four times as many states as McGovern did.

    McGovern won two.


    hehe (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:51 AM EST
    Respondents blame Sen. Clinton 4-1 for Negativity (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:35:11 AM EST
    There are other strong signs of the toll of the long Democratic campaign. The number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who describe the tone of the contest as "mostly negative" has risen by 14 points since February, from 27 percent then to 41 percent now. Those who say so mainly blame Clinton over Obama, by nearly a 4-1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent. (An additional 25 percent blame both equally.)

    (That's a direct quote from the PDF linked above in Jeralyn's post.)

    Is this even a problem? (Maybe.)

    Is it outweighed by the extra votes Sen. Clinton will pick up as a result of pointing out Sen. Obama's weaknesses? (Yes.)

    Can Sen. Clinton point out that Sen. Obama is just as (if not more so) negative than she is, without going negative in the process? (No.)

    Numbers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:28:33 AM EST
    So 52% of Democratic/leaning voters who believe the campaign is "mostly negative" (41% overall) believe Clinton is to blame.  So basically, about 20% of all Democratic/leaning (21.32% to be precise) believe Clinton is the negative one, while the vast majority of voters don't.

    Ten bucks it'll get spun as "Half of all Democrats blame Clinton for negativity" or "Four out of five Democrats blame Clinton."


    Of course, (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:49:17 AM EST
    what one expects is that of the roughly 20% of Democratic leaning voters who believe that, almost all of them are Obama voters anyway.

    In general, when you get down to numbers that small in a poll like this, they are close to meaningless from a statistical point of view. I don't know exactly how many voters get counted as "Democratic leaning", but if one assumes it's about 40%, then 20% of that would be only 8%, and the difference between 8% and 2% (as entailed by the 4-1 ratio) in an overall sample of about a 1,000 may not even be statistically significant (I think very small numbers require still larger gaps for statistical significance).


    Just to be concrete (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    this result would basically imply that something like 80 voters out of 1,000 thought Hillary was being negative, and 20 thought Obama was.

    Somehow it all seems rather less impressive when you think of the relatively paltry numbers backing up the trumped up meme.


    And just to make one more point, (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:00:16 AM EST
    what's certainly true is that the claim that by a ratio of 4-1, voters think Hillary is the negative one is completely unsupported by the underlying statistics. As I said, it's probably not even statistically significant that more blame Hillary than Obama, but to act as if the ratio of 4-1 is in any way strongly supported by the polling is complete hogwash.

    Your head must be spinning! (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:14:25 AM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:37:21 AM EST
    If you're going to harass, at least, make sense.

    Of the respondents who believe (none / 0) (#52)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:46:43 AM EST
    the race has become too negative, and who blame one candidate over the other, they are overwhelmingly blaming Hillary Clinton.

    I like your spin on the issue though.


    If you read all the polls (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    presented here yesterday, and then looked to see which polls MSNBC and CNN focused on you would understand why some here are blaming media coverage.  The media only covered the LA Times poll yesterday which favored Obama.  No one in the media, yesterday, mentioned SUSA which has been the most accurate so far and show Clinton creaming Obama in PA and IN, and Obama creaming Clinton in NC.  While it may be overstated by some here, the media narrative is in part responsible for the perceptions in the ABC poll.

    I'm sure it has something to do with (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    it,  I accept that and I know it must be frustrating for Hillary fans and for her campaign.  I'm sure she bears some responsibility for how she is perceived as well though.

    Equally Obama is having to suck it up that he is the subject of negative and almost coordinated hits from Hillary Clinton and John McSame.   Such is life.


    "hillary fans" (none / 0) (#77)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:13 AM EST
    strikes me as a condescending phrase. why not "supporters of hillary clinton"?

    I was using it as shorthand, its alot (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    less unwieldy than "supporters of hillary clinton".

    Let's go with Hillary supporters,  I hope that's ok.


    Probably do to this... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated.

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Oh poor Obama, Hillary has (none / 0) (#130)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    been so mean.  You ain't seen mean yet.

    You do realize it is VOTERS that are (none / 0) (#136)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    finding Hillary more negative, right?

    Yes, just as it is voters who are (none / 0) (#149)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    finding Obama more negative. Or voters that find them equally guilty.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    I'm referring to polling that demonstrates (none / 0) (#169)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    who voters feel is most negative. Not just my own opinion

    If you're referring to the poll cited above? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    That polls shows that 42% find Hillary most negative, while 48% don't find that to be the case, yes?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    oops, should be 58%, not 48% (none / 0) (#191)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:47 AM EST
    You are missing it (none / 0) (#142)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    Its not frustrating because of what is happening. It is frustrating because there is an alternate reality of coverage that Obama fans don't see, as it favors them. They will notice it if he is the nominee and the minute it happens.

    Or we could say that (none / 0) (#144)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    59% of those who think the campaign is mostly negative do not fault Hillary for that perception.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    oops, should be 49% not 59% (none / 0) (#190)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    ABC -Disney news (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by miguelito on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:41:30 AM EST
    Where's that grain of salt I just had..

    I really distrust national polls... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:29:13 AM EST

    distrust national polls, especially this far out from the GE, simply because they are national, and aren't sensitive enough, eg any big spikes or dips in key states are washed out.

    Californians might be a laid-back easygoing bunch, shrugging off Wright and all the rest as no big deal, and will vote for an ashtray as long as its got a (D) next to it. But in other states, some issues are a much bigger deal than others and matter more, not just in who they vote for in November, but whether they vote at all. National polls averaged across the spectrum, aren't sensitive enough to pick that up.

    Good point (none / 0) (#31)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:38:35 AM EST
    I find it really difficult to believe that so many voters are not concerned about Wright.  Even my Obama-loving mother finds it disturbing.  

    One thing that strikes me as odd is the disparity between this poll and others re the numbers of voters who will defect if their candidate isn't nominated.  The polls that I've seen have shown  significantly greater numbers of Hillary supporters refusing to support Obama than vice versa.


    I don't hate Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:20:03 AM EST
    but I do despise his fan base at huffpost, dkos, and msnbc.  Their coverage has been mean, nasty, and condescending to women in particular.  I still have not been able to understand how this man has inspired so much hatred and animus. It seems like it should be the opposite.  Why aren't they all unifying and positive at those places?

    If some large part of it is sexism (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    then you could argue that Hillary would face it to a degree against any male candidate.

    Hillary is going to face misogyny against any male candidate.

    Obama is going to face racism against any white candidate.

    In the white woman against black guy I'm assuming the racist misogynists will just hold out for the GE and vote for McCain.


    Yes. Since there is sexism (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:20 AM EST
    we should just accept it and make sure she loses so she doesn't have to suffer through it in the GE. How sweet of you.

    Yeah sure, thats really what I said. (none / 0) (#82)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    Replace sexism with racism, (none / 0) (#105)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    she with he, and you have pretty much reiterated one of the big pro Hillary electability arguments.

    I think it's offensive whichever way you phrase it.  I'm naive, but I believe you shouldnt be voting for one candidate, or against another candidate based on sexism or racism,  whether ours or our perception of the wider electorates'.


    Hillary does not condone or (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:42:42 AM EST
    encourage racism. Obama tacitly encourages sexism toward Hillary. Likeable enough. Beauty contest winner. Many other remarks of this kind. Given that he is a running an identity politics campaign, that's a flaw, perhaps inevitable, in his strategy. Anecodtal evidence alert: I know many lifelong dems, who are women, who will stay home in November if Sen. Obama is the nominee. They've seen too many less qualified men promoted over them b/c other men are more "comfortable" working with other men.

    A stretch in my opinion. (none / 0) (#87)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:46:54 AM EST
    If I was being equally uncharitable about Hillary's remarks then it would be

    he's not a muslim "as far as I know" . . . etc etc.


    I understand you may see this as a (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    stretch but the point is that others don't and they get to vote or not vote too. Obama supporters--not necessarily you--seem naive to me about how elections work. People may not vote for what you or I think are the right reasons. But they vote. And there are consistent voting patterns in this country's history. And Obama's likely supporters do not add up to a GE victory. I don't see Obama doing much to address this situation. Too often he seems to insult supporters he will need and then his supporters make the problem worse by telling would be supporters their point of view is "a stretch" rather than trying to address their concerns in a sympathetic manner.

    That is a crappy example of (none / 0) (#137)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    a newsman (Steve Kroft) trying to twist and turn to get someone to say something that can be construed as an "aha" see she is a racist after all.  That is junk and you know it.

    I agree, I think it's junk. (none / 0) (#150)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    and I think the supposedly sexist utterings of Barack Obama are also junk.

    Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    saying that Hillary's claws come out and that periodically she feels down while shooting six-shooters and calling her Annie Oakley IS sexist. Apparently liberal boys are missing what sexism actually is.

    and if Edwards was his opponent (none / 0) (#175)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    in similar circumstances and been opportunistically attacking him for his "clinging to guns" remarks, then he could easily and just as effectively substituted Edwards for Hillary, and Jesse James for Annie Oakley.  I don't think he is sexist,  I don't think those remarks were sexist or intended to be sexist.  I respect that you view them differently,  but I just disagree.  I know I'm a guy so maybe thats why I dont see it.

    wait till your candidate is edited (none / 0) (#183)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST
    like that to discredtit him!

    You just don't see how many times he kept asking.

    By the time he asked her

    You don't think hes a muslim do you....???....????

    (and dismissed her immediate answer of Of course not)

    and kept going till she sarcasticly popped her eyes at him and said as far as I know!

    But then the Obama campaign spun that 5th answer into a waffle. That was no waffle. Come on.

    She took one second to say Of Course Not!


    Also wasn't Obama (none / 0) (#147)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    offering kisses to women at some campaign stops if they would vote for him???

    hmmm (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST

    That has always puzzled me too, why Obama's base, on the MSM, and on the 'nets, are sooo nasty. My view of Obama was basically neutrality in the beginning, but he has attracted some of the most vicious, nasty people to his cause, both public high-profile ones, and everyday folk. His campaign's dog-whistles and wedging has resulted in a tendency to attract those elements that enjoy hurting others, and were just waiting for a suitable target to come along.

    FWIW, just my personal experience, was that I had no problem with Obama until the race card was played around the time of south carolina.

    At first I thought, the GOP was playing games, but why would they play it so early in the primary season when their own Party primary race was still in its early stages? Didn't make sense.

    Then second question was, why would ANY Dem candidate play the race card? Let alone either of the Clintons? With the Party history and the Clinton history? Didn't make sense either.

    So, then I go looking to find out who played it & why, and I find Obama's campaign did it. At first, I was forgiving and saw it as a stupid blundering fumble, from political inexperience, and that would be the end of it.

    But everything since, has just escalated my opinion to confirm that Senator Obama is not suitable as a representative of the Democratic Party for presidential office, because I am now convinced he played that race card deliberately and knowingly, and his campaign has been a long series of dog-whistles to stir up some of the lowest of the lowest-common-denominators of human behaviour.

    They may not have been strong dog-whistles, but they sure got results. They worked.
    Yes, brilliant campaign tactics and strategies. If he hadn't done it, I would never have learned about things like playing "Chicago Smack Down". I genuinely admire the skill, but, I wont vote for it.

    Then I looked at his friends. Does he have any "nice" ones? Even if he himself has done nothing wrong,illegal or immoral etc, even if they don't bother me in the slightest - the Rezcos (and the list goes on) of this world, are not very nice people. And, there are plenty of churches in Chicago, couldn't he have found one with a pastor, just a teeny-weeny bit more mainstream to help his spiritual life, or his political career? (A career outside of Chicago anyway).

    OK, granted the Clintons probably have a good share of shady characters, and scandals, in their baggage train too, (along with plenty of other politicians high and low), but they also have far larger and longer lists of highly respected individuals in that train, from all walks of life, nationally, and internationally as well. Senator Obama's character references are pretty thin on the ground, like his professional work resume.

    At least the national poll did indicate that people could see that Hillary's experience, and her record of achievements on her own, do significantly outweigh Obama's.


    Corrente/Lambert has (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    a screen capture from a web site I now call "Orange State".

    The capture has some of the more colorful nasties toward Clinton that I have ever seen....and the comment highlighted has 41 recs.

    Our own AlienAbductee says in the same thread, "shouldn't we try and mend fences with Clinton supporters and this doesn't do that?"

    Alien's heart is in the right place, but the consensus of the others in the thread is pretty much, no.


    wow. that is ugly (none / 0) (#185)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    OrangeState it is indeed. (none / 0) (#186)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:41 AM EST
    Rainsong, FWIW (none / 0) (#139)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    your trajectory on Obama is pretty much mine too.  I think we are not the only ones either. Thanks for your account.

    Hey swing: not condescening much, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    I have spent the last year reading/watching/researching this race and have seen NO hatred towards Obama on a personal level. On the other hand I have never (in 25 yrs involved in politics) seen such personal vicousness towards a canidate as that spewed by Obama supporters towards Hillary and anyone supporting her. I am sick o the lie that there is hatred on both sides when it is nearly all on one side.

    Then you should tell your (4.66 / 6) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:13:46 AM EST
    candidate to be gracious since he's "winning."  And for the record, a lot of us WON'T come around. And it's not a matter of "Oh noes we never expected him to win anything!" It's more of "I can't believe he tried to destroy Hillary and Bill with 90s right-wing talking points and character assassination!" And you can think we'll come around all you want.  But I guarantee you this: if Obama is the nominee I will absolutely NOT vote for him.  I'll never give the DNC $ ever again and I'll de-register as a Democrat. You can take that to the bank.

    I am leaning that way myself. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    I am so disgusted by the way the Democratic Party has treated Senator Clinton while boosting a non-qualified contender. If Obama gets the nomination it will prove to me that the Dems talk a good game on women's rights, but when it comes to actually backing it up with action they run the other way. It will prove to me that the Dems are more interested in charisma than actual work ethic and accomplishment. And I will change my registration from Democrat to Independent. Let them EARN my vote instead of assuming I am going to vote the way they direct me to. So far, the only candidate who has earned my vote is Hillary Clinton. I will support the Dem undercard locally, but not Obama, not Obama. He would be worse than McCain, in my opinion. Lack of experience coupled with arrogance is not a good combination for the White House. And not one I will vote for. Ever.

    And FYI, this is a switch from my previous "will vote Dem no matter who is the nominee". Why did I switch?? Obama. He keeps showing me he is not qualified for the office he is seeking. And he keeps doing and saying things that prove it beyond any doubt. So, if you want to blame someone for losing Dem support and votes, blame Obama. He is the one dividing the party, not unifying it.


    That's how I feel. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:19 AM EST
    I don't feel "Any Dem is better than McCain" I simply think Obama is not. I think he'd be a disaster. And we'd lose every election for a generation if he wins the Presidency.  I will not be "coming home" to anyone.  And I was still behind Obama when he was first winning. So the fact that he's still ahead has nothing to do with it. The fact that he has perpetuated misogyny, sexism, hatred for the Clintons and has tried to eviscerate our last great Dem President and tie him with Bush sealed it for me. I will not vote for him. He is not qualified. And if a woman had the exact same qualifications as him going into a primary, she'd be more like Ron Paul in level of support.

    Yep (none / 0) (#153)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    I am still struggling with what I would do in the GE, but these views are also my own.  The sexism this campaign has unleashed from within our supposedly "progressive" party has shocked me to the core. I worked my whole life in part thinking it would somehow make things better for my daughters and now I know it is not so, especially as much of the venom comes from younger bloggers.  And coming on top of the last 8 years, it just seems like more of the same the right wing has dished out. How is this a campaign of hope and unity?  I just don't get it.

    wow I am sooo tired (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:08:36 AM EST
    of polls not meaning anything unless they are in Hillary's favor then they show that Obama can't win.

    why can't Obama win a GE, is there anything to point to, no its well I know he can't I don't like hiim. the Big bad GOP machine will be mean to him and not Hillary or if they are mean to Hillary apparently only Hillary can stand up to it, though she has done such a great job in the primaries.

    just because people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they are clueless or need to wake up. you people insult MILLIONS of American each time you say this and its ok? I am sick of it. some of us democrats think someone else will win. this well the GOP will do this or the GOP will do that, doesn't mean crap to us we don't vote based on fear. I am just so sick of Hillary supporters some how thinking its ok to insult everyone who doesn't vote for their candidate.

    we are just as awake as you are, we have just as informed as you are, we made a different opinion. if you can't take that and need to call us ALL clueless kool-aid drinkers who need to wake up, 14 million americans? time to reexamine who just might be out of touch.

    Um, I didn't do this. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:39:10 AM EST
    You did:
    call us ALL clueless kool-aid drinkers who need to wake up

    I've never seen anyone paint themselves with the broad brush before.


    oh wow are you seriously (none / 0) (#50)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:41:01 AM EST
    saying you have NOT seen that?

    really? you think I am just making that up huh? maybe you should visit, Taylormarsh.com, mydd.com, hillaryis44.org and just see what they say about Obama supporters.

    and in fact the clueless one came from THIS very thread, do a search for the word.


    I am not Talk Left (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:51:29 AM EST
    Talk Left is not me.
    I am not Daily Kos(thank the FSM!)
    Daily Kos is not me.

    If I. personally, said that, feel free to point it out to me so I can retract it.


    I cannot individually call (none / 0) (#59)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:56:10 AM EST
    out everyone who does it, its a problem and people need to start calling out people who insult others just because they don't like their opinion.

    I have been called a kool-aid drinker for 2 months whenever I visit a site that has more then 4 Clinton supporters on it, and its dumb.

    I am tired of thinking I have to avoid HRC supporters or deal with being insulted.


    No kidding. Really? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    There's probably been a dozen diaries, some of them at the top of the daily kos rec list, saying that it is the responsibility of each side to rein in their own hyperpartisans.

    Of course, such deliberate and well reasoned ideas get swamped by the next tidal wave of emotion, but some still do try.  The progression over there went from "We don't do that here." to having to identify as an Obama supporter to prevent people from attacking the commenter as a Hillary supporter.  Now, the state of that community can be found in this diary which would have been universally condemned only a couple months ago.  Now, it's a great example of how few people are taking responsibility for upholding standards.  A couple months ago, that diary and diarist would have been steamrolled flat in under an hour by dozens of commenters.  Community moderation depends on the mores and standards of the community....

    That's why I don't go over there so much any more.      


    I should (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    NOT have clicked on that link.  I want to cry.

    I'm so sorry! Didn't mean to upset you. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    Should I put in a warning next time?

    The Obama partisans are now the community over there.  Their standards are the community standards.  It's not fair to extrapolate that to Obama partisans in general, but...I think it does say something about what is deemed acceptable in the blog world.


    I stopped going there (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    months ago. I cannot believe what it's degraded itself to. It's not even that people are condemning it either. Before, someone like that wouldn't have even wanted to be part of that community.

    Unfair (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    The diarist was trolled repeatedly, with only 21 comments.  Don't be Bill O'Reilly.  

    (If you want faith in Kos, read the Cong. Schaeffer diary.  He's the CO Sen nominee, and he's inadvertantly bringing overdue attention to N. Marianas Islands).


    I used to get excited over (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    candidate diaries.  This primary season seems like a big old "DONATE NOW!" advertisement over there.

    All comments on that post (none / 0) (#114)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:23 AM EST
    that express any opinion about it (i.e. most of them) are condemning it, in fact one says they were e-mailing a frontpager to have it deleted.

    There's only a handful. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Way back when, that diary would have been pounded into rubble and you'd see more than - what - a dozen recs on the "Please delete" comments.  That's how many people are taking an active role in moderating their community.  A minority.  A handful.

    I see your point. (none / 0) (#126)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    It is sad that there is that kind of moronic rubbish out there.

    I could link to anti- Hillary comments (none / 0) (#195)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    that are recced to the moon, but there's no point.  But if anyone ever wants I'll post the links to the Cindy McCain diaries.  Sexism was not only on display, but rewarded.  All poor Cindy did to deserve it was to say "I've always been proud of my country.".

    The diary you link to is completely (none / 0) (#108)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    gross and offensive.  However reading down the first few comments they all seem to be condemning it, so surely that suggests that the community moderation was working?

    I don't think (4.66 / 6) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:28:35 AM EST
    Obama nor his supporters should say a word about who is insulted by anything, actually.   He and his supporters have so far insulted: FL, MI, now KY, women voters, older voters, those dolty bitter voters and so many others it's hard to keep up.  

    Talking about a candidate's GE prospects is actually what we should do.  If your candidate is a strong as you so obviously believe him to be, he will win the nomination and then the GE.  Good luck.

    I still hold that Obama is completely unelectable. And I find ALL polls suspect. Not just this one. The polls seem to go the way of the wind.  She's ahead in PA allegedly yet Democrats think he's a better candidate? Did anyone tell that to the people voting for her?    I find it suspect that after it comes out that super-ds are worried about his electability, ABC comes out with a poll addressing exactly that concern.  I don't trust the media one bit. Not when they say she's ahead and not when they say she's behind.  


    what are we 5? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:39:39 AM EST
    the they did it first so  I think we can do it? are we really going to list all the insignificant states outside of Illinois that Obama has won?

    and all polls are suspect thats fine, Hillary can beat McCain because what? of who she is married to? what else am i looking at to determine her electability? can't use polls, can't use primaries themselves, because they don't mean anything to the GE. so its basically well he can't win because I don't think he can win. oh well in that case lets all get together and see how many people think he can win and how many think she can win, maybe we can have people vote in some way, before the GE and have the majority of Americans choose?

    oh wait wait thats right anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary, was too stupid, star struck, kool-aid drinking, party activists, who only think of Obama as a messiah and need to wake up. yeah damn you obama for being an elitist, listen to these people who can just tell us why you are winning.

    now someone can some tell me to stop drinking the Kool-aid, because that will certainly prove their point.


    Projecting. (none / 0) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:50:20 AM EST
    That's what you seem to be doing. I didn't call anyone kool-aid drinkers in this thread. LOL. But way to internalize.  All 50 states matter in the primary. Like I said, perhaps Obama will be a good GE candidate. I don't think so. But we'll find out in November won't we?  

    And when you throw a little hissy fit you should probably refrain from calling people 5 years old.


    Obama did take his name off the (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    ballot in Michigan and then, after the votes were counted, cried, no fair, my name was not on the ballot. Meanwhile, he did what he could to get people to vote the "none of the above option." This is a de facto voter disenfranchisement strategy more in keeping with Karl Rove than MLK. He did nothing to support a revote--b/c he thought he would lose. We'll see if these tactics can get him elected in November. Obama has brilliantly exploited the flaws in the democratic party nominating system. All this means is that he might win the democratic nomination. Ask Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern or Humphrey what that means in a GE.

    He most certainly did not cry (none / 0) (#101)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    "no fair" my name was not on the ballot. If you cannot back up that statement with a link to substantiate it, you need to retract it.
    Obama has said all along he will abide by the DNC decision. I realize this has benefitted him in the end, just as Hillary has made much noise about the need to count FL and MI votes when it became apparent it would benefit her.

    They are pols. They want to win. You can find plenty of factual statements to pick apart without manufacturing quotes.


    NO he didn't cry. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    He just strategically planned with everyone else to take his name off the ballot because he knew then he'd lose.  So good on him. He's a typical politician.  

    I want someone that can win. (none / 0) (#104)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    If the primary is any indication (which I do believe it is) that someone is Obama.

    If the primary is (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:02 AM EST
    any indication, Obama will have major trouble getting swing states like OH, PA, FL and MI. But he'll totally get all the Democrats in Utah, Idaho, MS, GA, and VA.  If it's enough to turn those states Democrat then he'd be the most excellent candidate. Somehow I do not see that happening.

    Given the history of Democratic Primaries (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    since 1968, what makes you think that winning the Dem. nomination proves one will win the GE? Why is Obama a better candidate than Kerry or DuKakis, for instance? What makes you think he will do better than they did? Who in the electorate will vote for Obama who did not vote for those candidates? Which states will he win that these others did not? How does he get to 270?

    The poster (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    may be new to politics.

    How is he different? (none / 0) (#124)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    He knows how to deflect potential problems. He is excellent at changing the dialogue to what HE wants it to be. That is and will be invaluable.
    He is defeating a political machine that goes back many, many years and enjoys millions of loyal supporters. IMO, Hillary Clinton is a tougher opponent than John McCain. He does not have high negatives even after some potentially serious blunders. People seem to genuinely like him (I fully acknowledge that does NOT apply to most commenters here)

    Obama could not have (none / 0) (#141)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    "changed the subject" without the help of a fawning media. They have boosted his campaign and given him NO critical coverage. That is about to change; and the Obamamaniacs are in for a rude awakening.

    Ah, deflect. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    It used to be:

    Delay, deny, spin.

    Now we can add "deflect" to that.

    Deflect, deny, delay, spin.

    You may be able to change the topic on the campaign trail - but in real life deficits, inflation, recession, and a devastating war are not going to be "deflected" away.  They'll need to be dealt with.


    Independents (none / 0) (#165)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    will vote for John McCain over Obama. That's what the "maverick" brand does for him.

    The primary... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM EST
    ...has been an inconclusive draw.  

    I know that you believe that. n/t (none / 0) (#133)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    How does he get to (none / 0) (#146)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST

    He changes the map n/t (none / 0) (#163)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    Let's talk (none / 0) (#167)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    if Obama loses every big, Democratic-leaning state between now and June.

    HAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#180)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    Sorry, that's just hilarious. He'll win Oregon! That will make up for HRC's wins in PA, WV, KY and IN!

    If she is the nominee, some of those states could indeed go blue in the GE. Is your goal to have Obama win the primary but lose the GE? My goal is to have the nominee win the GE.

    This is exactly where I'm coming from. I've linked to it before in this thread, but here you go.

    At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

    Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

    The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

    McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

    Like THIS exactly.... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Boia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    If I might emulate your PECULIAR orthographics, and rely on CAPS to make my POINTS, permit me to note that using HECTORING phrases like "...And come on..." and "...tired, flimsy, frame..." and, of course "...Get over it..." hints at a certain un-endearing IMMATURITY.

    As Dorothy Parker ONCE said, "He was a writer for the ages--the ages of six to nine."


    Is Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by dem08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:11:23 AM EST
    ever responsible for the way people see her?

    Now I understand that some of you hate Obama, the MSM, and regard Hillary as a victim of an anti-feminist backlash. But for many of us, Hillary Clinton is like Merril Lynch: she got our contempt the old-fashioned way: she EARNED it.

    I live in NY State and voted for Bill and Hillary twice each.

    Hillary Clinton is doing the "smart" political thing, talking about how Obama doesn't "respect" Religion, the Second Amendment, Small Towns, Jobs, Human Beings.

    But few of those who are not her fans believe that even she believes this moment of "Gotcha!"

    Here is Hillary attacking Obama. If you can vote for her fine. One can walk around my NY State area and find people who have hated her for years, and some who defend her and Bill Clinton. Not some of us. Not any more. This video shows why


    Sure as soon (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:29:59 AM EST
    as people hold Sen Obama responsible for and see him truly for how he behaves. Until then no. Right now nothing he does is reflected on how he behaves (being negative, etc). Why aren't you concerned about?

    When hell freezes over and that day comes I will immediately start holding Sen Clinton responsible for what she does.


    The fact that you voted for her twice (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:31:46 AM EST
    just shows me how indubitably in love with Obama some people can be. She wasn't evil before but she is now. She wasn't horrible then but she is now. She wasn't a corporatist jerk 2 years ago but she is now. She wasn't Satan 24 months ago but she is now.  Obama love clouds the judgment.

    we are all responsible for what we write or say (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM EST
     and that includes Obama.

    So you're from NY  and you find people who hated her for years, and some who defend her, not some of us, not any more. Do you live in the same NY as I do? Tell you what I live in NY too and I'll defend her and I'm not a republican or a democrat. This nation needs a twelve step program we seem to languish in hating the  Clintons for what? Just because you can?

    Obama is responsible for his word and yet few of his supporters hold him responsible. Obama sarcastically  attack Clinton by calling her Annie Oakley, he has no respect even for the heroic dead, that ought to tell you something. Throwing his white grandmother under bus was no different. You got to love his integrity.  


    If you have 'won' (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    why are you here?  I am just baffled by the Obama supporters lately.  They have 'won.' Yet they are still on the net... even going as far as claiming victimhood because some unknown poster has called you names, linking to supposed grievances, not just a story of conversion to Obama but a moral story of the angst involved in abandoning Clinton, being an apologist for Obama (he really didn't call people bigots) and a video of Clinton picking on Obama (Leave Britney aloooone).

    You 'won' why would you even care if Obama or you is being called names?
    You 'won' but have no joy in it.
    You 'won' but continue to complain about Clinton supporters.
    You 'won' it's the math, it's over, yet you continue to blog.
    You 'won' but continue to argue with Clinton supporters.
    You 'won' and instead of being out celebrating with each other, but you aren't, why?
    You 'won' yet aren't fundraising for November, why?
    You 'won' yet argue over polls.  Why?
    You 'won' yet continue to worry about what should be to you the natural result of the contest.

    For winners, you sure have an odd mindset.

    I, on the other hand, have 85-90% lost.  I like to watch the polls.  I'm looking forward the results of the next races.  I cling to my hope that I won't be seen as a bigot and feel that because of my sense of deep despair I may b!t@h all I want.  :)


    I think I have the answer to your (none / 0) (#194)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST

    Despite having "won", Obama supporters are starting to realize that the only people they have truly won over is their half of the Democratic party.

    A significant portion of the other half continues to be anywhere on the scale from grudgingly willing to support Obama in the GE to flat-out alienated by him.

    I don't think his supporters will be happy until all Democrats finally agree that Obama's message of hope and change will truly transform America.

    By the way, Salon had an article yesterday about the historic lineage of Obama's and Clinton's support, i.e. their supporters' ideological/cultural roots, and the significance of this for the general election. Thank God the myth of the racist Clinton supporter was debunked (even if the Obama supporters over there refuse to accept it). And the author points out that Obama's ge prospects don't look so good from a historical perspective.


    Thanks for confirming my suspicions (none / 0) (#202)
    by Camorrista on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    And we have zero tolerance for people who just can't grip reality...

    The voice of the Obama-admirer in full cry.

    Yes, we do understand that you have zero tolerance for us.  And we do understand that you believe all we're doing is hindering the Great Man's majestic march to the White House.  

    And, most importantly, we do understand that he's the Unity Candidate and he will bring us all together under the wondrous (zero-tolerance) Unity Canopy--just as soon as we benighted Clinton supporters all lie back, close our eyes, grit our teeth and enjoy it.


    Confirmation twice compounded (none / 0) (#209)
    by Camorrista on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    No, you have zero tolerance for anybody who supports Clinton, because--despite your disingenuous pretense at making distinctions--you believe anybody who supports Cinton is indeed denying reality and does indeed wish to win only by tearing Obama down.

    As so many of your posts indicate, you seem incapable of writing to (or about) a Clinton supporter without reverting to an attack.  

    In my case, you say that I can't (or won't) read; you imply that I'm willing to watch the downfall of both the Party and the Nation (your bizarre Teutonic caps); you, of course, label me a Clintonista (the favorite putdown of the unoriginal Obamabot); and you accuse me of--what a surprise--"faux-umbrage."   (Why not: yesterday, "zero tolerance," today, "faux umbrage--" once a borrower of threadbare phrases, always a borrower of threadbare phrases.)

    And, like every other zealous Obama fan I've encountered, you apparently believe that the contempt that oozes from your every sentence is justified, because for those who love Obama, contempt for those who don't is always justified.


    And yet (none / 0) (#203)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    The one thing Obama supporters are unwilling to do is think (for say, five seconds?) about how to bring Clinton supporters around to voting for their candidate.

    Wow (none / 0) (#42)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:26:03 AM EST
    I don't think I could be anymore underwhelmed.

    Your point?


    my point (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dem08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:58:23 AM EST
    People turn against Hillary Clinton because of HER behavior and actions.

    This speech she gave from a printed script is ludicrous. Her description of Gun Owner's rights looks like a speech at The NRA. And her interpretation of Obama is so silly even she doesn't believe it.

    Many look at her actions and decide, "The Clinton's detractors were right. They cannot tell the truth."

    Now I respect the fact that most Talk Left people hate Obama with more passion than I have.

    I am trying to explain that Hillary executed her own demise.

    Obama failed to get Talk Left/Taylor Marsh voters too.

    This Primary has shown that the Democratic Coalition is probably splitting the way it did in 1968.


    You're right she did. (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:05:36 AM EST
    She called herself a liar and said her husband's term was just as bad as Bush's. Nafta is her fault, but she didn't do anything in the White House.  Dave Matthews was right and she won NY because of Monica sympathy.  She called herself a f'n who**.   She is not the one that wants a unity ticket and told her supporters to wait for Obama's "tone" before voting for him. She is the one that said she'd get Obama supporters and he could not get hers. She is the one that keeps calling for him to drop out. She is the one that insulted small-town voters.

    Oh wait....


    You got all that from that vid? (none / 0) (#70)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:17:56 AM EST
    Again. wow.

    I restrict my video views (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:37:04 AM EST
    to music videos.

    All hail YouTube!  Clear Channel may have trashed the air waves, but YouTube has given me all the diversity that Clear Channel removed.

    Political ads?  Thanks, but I'll pass.  I loathe commercials.


    No - simple answer to a simple (none / 0) (#58)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:53:02 AM EST

    Hillary's poll numbers on trustworthiness (none / 0) (#118)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    won't be helped by the fact that one of her outraged Pennsylvanians in her Obama attack ad is a Clinton volunteer from NJ.

    Why do you bother (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    offering comments that blatantly misrepresent the facts?  I suppose there is a reason you don't provide a source for your comment either.  

    Clyde Thomas was born in Scranton, "lived his entire life in Somerville, N.J." and "recently moved to Bethlehem, PA."  He voted in New Jersey where he was a resident on Feb 5 when the NJ primary was held.  He has been volunteering for Clinton in PA, did not speak from a script in the ad and will be registering to vote in PA for the general election.  

    Now it wasn't that difficult to simply present the information from the Chicago Tribune.  


    If you were a campaign manager (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    wouldn't you want to find someone from a small town who made up their mind for Clinton because of bittergate?

    A lifelong resident of NJ who has been volunteering for Clinton is a careless move.


    I did not comment (none / 0) (#173)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    on the soundness or wisdom of having that volunteer in the commercial, did I?  Care to address what I ask about your tendency to post comments that misrepresent the facts?    

    The guy's from NJ and he volunteers for Clinton (none / 0) (#182)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    and although you claim to not comment about the "soundness or wisdom" of that volunteer in the commercial, my original comment did.  He's supposed to speak for the common Pennsylvanian, and he's supposedly just moved there.

    She's vulnerable to claims of being dishonest, and using a volunteer to speak for the reaction of the common PA voter is hinky.  


    And again (none / 0) (#197)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    my response to your comment was about your dishonesty.  Why do you continue to avoid that in your responses?  

    WTF? (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    No dishonesty. Your creditability is in question here. If you cannot call out your candidate for something you would howl over if it were Obama, you are FOS.

    First of all,  it is dishonest not to disclose that the person is your own campaign volunteer. The fact that the person lived his whole life in NJ and is being portrayed as one of the "bitter" from Obama's gaffe, is seriously dishonest.  

    I have no doubt that Obama would not hesitate to do the same because it is what Pols do. But you are the one looking foolish here not magster.


    Don't WTF me (none / 0) (#201)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    I am not stating Hillary was correct.  I am not stating Hillary was incorrect.  I know politicians are not honest.  But I am not taking issue with that but rather the issue of the honest representation of from someone commenting about a political ad.  What part of that do you not understand?  

    Did you read the article in the Chicago Tribune?  Is the volunteer in question a volunteer from New Jersey or a volunteer that recently moved to Pennsylvania from New Jersey?  Do you care about the facts or do you prefer a version that is more slighted in one direction?  

    I am tired of people twisting the information to suit one candidate over another.  I am well aware of the shortcomings of both and you will be hard pressed to find me pushing a tainted version of the truth to support one over the other.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  I think they do in this case without having to play with them.  


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    The point is that magster is correct. Harping on the technicality that Clinton's misrepresentation is based on makes you look like a certified kool aid addict.

    Look (none / 0) (#205)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    I'm not going to lower myself to your level with personal insults that you feel so comfortable making.  I was very clear on the issue that I take exception to Magster's misrepresentation of the facts and said nothing one way or the other of what I thought about Clinton's ad.  If you can't see the difference between the two, fine.  I am very tired of magster and others who repeatedly comment without regard for the truth.  

    Hahahahah (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    Blaming the messenger at best or knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, is what your argument amounts to. Bottom line this was stupid of Clinton, but that is show biz. Obama would have done the same.

    I do not fault you for the kool aid OD. We all have been there at one time or another.


    Magsters truthiness (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    should be questioned now.

    GE strength (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Munibond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:42:54 AM EST
    While I prefer Clinton, I would love to believe that either Clinton or Obama could win in the GE, because another 4 years of McCain or any other republican will be disastrous.  However, I think it would take just a few weeks of media and negative advertising on the following to blow Obama out:  1) lack of records from his state senate years; 2) Rezko assistance in purchasing house, for which Obama has provided no credible explanation; 3)possible Auchi connection to home purchase; 4) dissembling on having been at Rezko/Auchi event.  Obama supporters might think about why the media has failed to push on these issues YET.

    From today's Chicago Sun Times online (sorry but I have trouble with links):  "But according to two sources familiar with the gathering, the Obamas attended the Wilmette reception, which came less than a month after Obama's Democratic primary win for his U.S. Senate seat. Rezko had been a key fund-raiser for Obama, who has since given to charity nearly $160,000 in Rezko-linked contributions."

    Lack of records from the State Senate? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:51:37 AM EST
    Really? . . .  Reaaaaally?

    Of course you forget to mention "The Kindergarden Papers",  they are really going to sink his candidacy when the Republicans get their hands on them.

    It must be sooo difficult when Rezko, Wright, Bitter-gate each comes along and all the Clinton fans rub their hands with glee at finally something is going to derail Obama and help her to the nomination.  Each time Obama counters effectively, fights back (as Kerry and Gore did not do effectively and as most Democrats are looking for in a candidate) and sails through virtually unscathed.


    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    Try to dominate threads much?

    Can you tell me why Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    not held a single hearing on his committee on NATO/EUROPEANS or gone to visit any of those countries in the 2 years he has been the ranking chairman?

    You think BO (none / 0) (#62)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:00:35 AM EST
    is unscathed? You must mean in the primary. Right?

    Never mind Rezko etc. (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:32 AM EST
    well, not entirely. What the Republicans can highlight easily and with no problem is the lies Obama told about his "record" in the Ill. Senate. He claims to have written and gotten passed 27 bills. Not true. His name was slapped on legislation from other Senators to give him "political credibility" for his run for the US Senate. He only had anything to do with two of them. The other 25 were other peoples' work, not Obama's. But he had no trouble claiming credit for them, including getting them passed. Not true. Dems had a majority, still do, and the bills would have passed whether Obama was there or not. And don't forget the people in the housing that Rezko built, a mile from Obama's home, for Obama's constituents. The ones that were substandard, not heated, falling apart before they were finished, etc. Did he ever go a friggin' mile down the road to see how his good friend was treating his constituents? No, he didn't. But that good friend, who didn't have the money to repair or heat the housing, could give six figures to Obama's campaign, so that's what really matters, right? Not the people who he was elected to represent and whose interests he was supposed to look after. Since he couldn't be bothered to look after their interests, how can we trust him to look after ours?? We can't. The only thing Obama can be trusted to look after are his own interests. God help us if his diverge from ours, because we will find ourselves under that bus..along with his family, preacher and small town America.

    The Dems have two solid candidates (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:54:51 AM EST
    Both of whom will soundly defeat John McCain in the GE (excuse me, all you doomsayers, but have you ever watched or seen McCain try to inspire and lead?  He is incapable of it).  It is time to stop playing INTO the MSM's hands and start to play OUT of it.  How do we do that?  DEMAND that both candidates have an immediate summit and agree to fight it out to the end for the nomination but to clearly state that the loser support strongly the winner.  Attack McCain.  Period.  Neither Obama nor Hillary are going to make a dent at this point trying to knocking each other.  The partisans are sold on each side.  Those in the middle should be won not by the Dem candidates ripping each other, but by them ripping McCain and the right.  Make your case for being a better president than the Republican, the real opponent.  Focusing their wrath on each other is serving NO ONE's purpose except the oppostition.

    Nice Try (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    But it is impossible to reason with cultists, shills, or fanclubbers, because either their job, or the kool aid has made them entirely unreasonable.

    But, on the other hand your message bears repeating, because appealing to reason is never a bad thing.  


    Union Endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST

    Just saw this on the front page of yahoo.com.  Hillary has picked up an AFL-CIO endorsement.  

    Hopefully this will get asked about at tonight's debate.

    I (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:44 AM EST
    don't care about these polls.  I will wait for the voters to decide.

    Also, I have not forgotten about Michigan and Florida.

    In any case, I'm not voting for Obama under any circumstances.  His campaign is about not counting votes, playing the race card anytime against anyone, and a condescending arrogant attitude toward felloow Democrats.  

    WEhat an SOB.

    SOB? I don't think insulting (none / 0) (#102)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    candidates (or commenters) is allowed on Talkleft.

    Wait... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:29:57 AM EST
    National polls are bunk.  They don't mean anything.  Phew...I almost lost it.  

    The only polls that matter (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:19 AM EST
    are those showing Hillary ahead

    Exactly (none / 0) (#177)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    Just like what Obama supporters say when he is behind, your point?

    Hillary's supporters (none / 0) (#198)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    cling to the polls that have her ahead.  (snark)

    And some of those were (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:35:01 AM EST
    "of all Americans", and well, all Americans won't be voting Dem.

    "damage" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:38:06 AM EST
    So, the MSM and Obama people for all their whining caused damage to her.  This to me was the most despicable campaign.  I am disgusted.  

    Yeah, if the MSM hadn't played along (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:51:35 AM EST
    it may have not gotten that far. They played a major hand in encouraging the blogs and the Obama camp/supporters. They could have called them out on that crap early on, but no . . .

    I need to put together some sort of coherent comment that I can post on my different forums. I want folks to start writing the sponsors of the offending networks/shows and let them know what products we will no longer be purchasing from them. I successfully fired all the majors from my life during the pet food recall and it was real easy! One year later and I'm still free of their filth. Funny thing is, it has a positive effect on small local businesses, most importantly my local farms etc. The MSM needs to learn a lesson and well, we (women) are one heck of a purchasing power.


    I wish I could join the effort. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:54:26 AM EST
    But the truth is I dropped out of the commercial realm years ago.  My preferred brand now is "locally produced".  The trend is real and not fiction either.  OSU Ag department was going around to farmers' markets doing marketing studies on what motivates people to buy local.

    (Whole Foods dropped completely off my radar when they refused to carry local organic milk and local eggs.)


    I Agree (none / 0) (#188)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    Stellaaa and NYCStray...

    These polls have been NOTORIOUSLY wrong.  And if tey DO believe Obama is the nominee for the GE, it is ONLY because he and all of his minions (that includes MSM and DNC) have been SAYING he is!!!!  Maybe people are just reflecting back what they have been TOLD!!!

    And with all of this reporting on the news and all, HOW many times was it mentioned that Clinton was endorsed by 100 mayors in PA yesterday????


    I'm shocked (none / 0) (#6)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:33:24 AM EST
    I'm really surprised about the poll findings on superdelegates. I hate the whole superdelegate system. Actually I hate the whole system. But superdelegates annoy me. I don't like the thought that party insiders rather than voters can choose a nominee.

    That said, the bitter part of me would love to see Clinton leading in the popular vote and Obama leading in the pledged delegate count and the SDs giving Clinton the nomination. Not because I'm rooting for her, but rather so I can go around typing "Roolz are Roolz." Sure it won't be my proudest moment but I would still get joy from it. Evil, petty, twisted joy.

    Kate Harding said it best for me (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:42:26 AM EST
    Because you want to see all the bloggers and pundits who've been screaming, "Why won't the stupid b*tch quit?!?" forced to eat sh*t when she takes her boobs and moves into the White House.

    I'm shocked by the perception (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:06:26 AM EST

    - that Obama is perceived as the stronger GE candidate, and that they generally agree with super-deez voting as they wish.

    I personally support the super-dee system,  otherwise its not a political Party, and every candidate may as well be an Independent.

    But with the MSM running major narratives:

    1. the line about delegates, and super-deez should just be rubber-stampers etc(or better still not vote at all) - yet the poll responders seem to disagree - as in, if I can vote as I wish, then so can the Party officials.  

    2. line about Obama is the nominee already - and the stronger of the two - the poll agrees

    3. the line about Clinton should drop out, its far too negative and its damaging the Party's chances - the poll disagrees.

    To me, that suggests a majority are of the opinion, that it doesn't matter if it is a "foregone conclusion", the race should play out, and any candidate hopeful should have the opportunity, to play the race all the way to the finishing line.

    An attitude of, its just the primary folks, just like other years - ho-hum, can take awhile - and they seem to go along with Bill Clinton's "chill out" comments, as in there's no hurry guys, take it easy, don't get your underwear in a twist, it'll all work out with plenty of time to prepare for the GE.

    To me, thats encouraging, it's supporting a 'play fair' kind of attitude, and Dems aren't polarising as strongly as some think. And somewhat different to the 'net chatter, as well as the MSM chatter.


    kerry was more "electable" (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    i recall the polls saying back in '04. and of course dukakis was well ahead of bush I in the summer of 1988. bill clinton looked unelectable for much of '92. the only guidelines here are past elections--they suggest that hillary might win and obama likely will not. hence, one must believe that obama is "different." who is more electable is a question meant to deceive b/c it does not let people say how they will vote but asks them to guess how others "might" vote. a really stupid but very effective (in terms of enabling disenfranchisement) question.  

    Super Dilettantes (none / 0) (#24)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:55:40 AM EST
    It's one thing to say "let's get rid of the superdelegates in all future elections" (which I favor--I think superdelegates and caucuses are bad for democracy).

    It's another thing to say "let's change the rules of the game after it's started" which is what Sen. Obama wants to do because he's afraid.

    The rules are: they vote however they damn well please.  They can vote for whomever wins the popular vote, whomever wins the most states, whomever wins their state, whomever they like the most, or whomever they think is most electable.

    If they are candidates in November, they can vote for whomever has the best coattails, or whomever their own constituents expect them to vote for, or whomever donated the most money to their own campaign (seriously, Sen. Clinton gave 195k and Sen. Obama gave 694k to superdelegates, as of February).


    Wouldn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:41:26 AM EST
    that scenario harm the democratic party the most ?  A lot of AA's may not vote at all then (according to conventional wisdom) hurting the entire ticket.

    Most likely the newest AA Dems (none / 0) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:37:27 AM EST
    The AA base were Hillary people to begin with. You might lose some, but not all of them.

    Not according to that poll (none / 0) (#125)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    I haven't noticed the Democratic party being worried about hurting itself with any of its actions, including disenfranchising 2 states. So why should it be my worry?

    And according to that poll, people are agreeing that SDs can vote for whoever they want. So how does that even translate into a problem?


    Oversampling (none / 0) (#32)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:55:30 AM EST
    the AA vote and the Catholic vote.  I'm pretty ignorant on poll methodology, but wasn't there an MSNBC poll that "oversampled" a month or so ago and had some highly dubious results?  And what does "leaning Democratic" mean, as opposed to being a registered Democrat?

    In particular, I question the numbers that believe Obama is the stronger candidate in November.  

    Sadly, I do believe Hillary's high negative numbers and the preponderance of folks who hold her responsible for the negative campaign.  I've noticed this trend among some of my Hillary-supporting friends, the ones who get most of their news from TV.  

    There was some outrage (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:20:02 AM EST
    cooked up over a poll oversampling AA's recently,  but it was due to missunderstanding of how it works.

    i.e. Just because they were oversammpled doesnt mean their views were given any more weight,  it is just so they can get a more statistically significant sub-sample to get figures from.

    e.g. If AA's were 14% of the voting population,  but were oversampled so that 20% of the poll were AA,  then the numbers would be re-weighted back down to 14%.

    Over-sampling is not behind these results basically.


    i noted a huge gap (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:35:52 AM EST
    in the questions asked, which causes me to doubt the veracity of this poll's results: they never asked people how their perceptions of the individual candidates were formed. if it was solely from the mass media, it comes as no surprise at all they think sen. obama is god's gift to the world and sen. clinton has horns growing out of the back of her head.

    he's been (mostly) treated with kid gloves, by the media and the clinton campaign, that will end abruptly, should he be the eventual nominee. neither the republican or right-wingnut smear machine will have any compunction about going after sen. obama, he will be shredded.

    72 straight hours (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    of "God Damn America" is the worst press any candidate has ever endured.  He weathered it and came back stronger. I doubt the Republicans will never be able to recreate an onslaught like that.

    He weathered it (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    because the media is behind him. He would have forced out if he was not Obama.  The MSM? Remember them? We used to not trust them.  The fact that they prop him up no matter what should worry you. Considering they love McCain more than anyone.

    You overestimate the power of the media (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    as well as their bias. I don't believe Rush when he claims left wing media bias either.  True there may be more liberals working in their industry owned by right wing interests, but their only loyality is to sensationalism.  The ad dollars motivate them more than agendas or integrity.  Their goal in the Democratic Primary is a brokered convention.

    Yes. I overestimate the power of the media. (none / 0) (#168)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    Why did Howard Dean implode again? Oh yeah, a scream replayed on a loop by the MSM. It worked, too.

    If I put you in a situation where (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    you were limited to one media outlet - and only one - for your news - a newspaper, a network or a radio station - it would be very interesting to see what your understanding and perception of "the news" was at the end of, say, a 30-day period.

    I think you have to remember that those of us who are reading and listening to multiple sources on a somewhat obsessive basis are less likely to be influenced the way the majority of people are who may only watch one nightly news broadcast, or read one newspaper, etc.

    Your understanding of the Rev. Wright story, and Obama's reaction to it and the effect on his chances are worlds apart from those who only saw this story on their network of choice - which means that many of them heard very little, and many heard it coupled with the media's near-defense of it in some cases.

    Maybe something to think about, anyway, as we all judge poll results.

    And these are the people who likely comprise the samples for these polls - which is why a lot of us are saying "huh?" at the results.


    Poll Psychological Warfare (none / 0) (#84)
    by cdalygo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    The media spin will be in hyperdrive for the next week or two. Hence we have a "national" poll - meaningless when placed against the electoral poll - appearing the same night as the debate. We also have smug assertions that a big Hillary Victory in PA will mean nothing to the "pledged" delegate count. Gasp, we are even hearing that certain states - like Kentucky - don't count in the GE (unlike all of Obama's red state caucus victories in bastions of Dem support like Utah).

    Take some deep breathes people.

    Right the MSM is even more desperate than the Obama campaign. If Hillary pulls this out - and she will - then their impotence as kingmakers is revealed. Similarly the more virulent Obama supporters, who have projected their emotional wellbeings on him, will be left bereft.

    This primary campaign goes beyond Hillary and Obama because it will determine whether the Democratic voters or the MSM aided by party leaders will determine the outcome. The media's falsely paints Obama as the insurgent, while ignoring his kneecapping of Michigan/Florida, the actual closeness of even the pledged delegate vote, and his numerous gaffes preceding Bittergate. In contrast it portrays Hillary as scheming and amoral, while never acknowledging how she held back on the worst information she had on Obama for months.

    Mind you, I said primary campaign. Voters are always going decide the GEs. Right now that spells a blow out loss for Dems because many Hillary supporters are not going home after this campaign.

    I agree with your assessment (none / 0) (#179)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    I also think the Dems should compare Clinton and McCain demographics as opposed the the D or R behind their name. I think if Obama wins the nodd, a greater portion of Clinton supporters will move to McCain based on their socio-economics which includes  the age. Obama will have a tougher time reaching his majority.

    Some can say McCain Clinton cancel each other out, but I think she offers the change that can draw others to her, and she has weathered the attack of Republicans before, but has gained some respect because of her work in the Senate. I think her centrist leanings will be of benefit in the general.

    The republicans will only open the curtain wider on Obama cause he's got more to expose, and Clinton's is already wide open.


    The (none / 0) (#96)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:25 AM EST
    fact that the MSM props him up at every turn does worry me.

    He surely does not deserve it.

    My (none / 0) (#109)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    comment was not insulting.

    More a statement of fact.

    hear, hear!!! (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    Anyone seen Obama's latest ad? (none / 0) (#128)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    He features HRC being booed.  The event it depicts has been altered, in that the soundtrack was 1) amplified and 2) moved to a different place in her speech.

    Right now neither of these candidates is looking all that good. It appears HRC overplayed clinggate.
    And folks just hate her when she calls Obama out. I think this is sexism at work. She's between a rock and a hard place.
    Her credibility gap is likely inherited from her husband. What a shame.

    Other Than the SD Issue (none / 0) (#143)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    These polls are worthless, IMO.  Most folks in states that have already voted aren't paying any attention.  They catch a brief clip on the nightly news and they've been told since Super Tuesday that Obama has essentially won the race and Clinton has been negative.    So what?  Neither of those things has anything to do with beating McCain.  Heck, even Clinton's negatives don't have that much to do with beating McCain.  In the Ras Florida poll out yesterday she had a lot higher negatives than he had and was still ahead (albeit within the MOE).  Those negative numbers are very dependent on how the question is asked.  

    The only reason the SD issue is important is because it gives some guidance on what most voters want to see going forward and that is the primary to continue and the SDs to either use the popular vote or their own judgement.  Given how much "pledged delegates" have been shoved down the national throat, it's amazing to me that that appears to have had little effect.

    My personal belief at this point is that the party has little choice but to go with the popular vote winner.  Most Americans believe that elections are decided by who gets more votes and will accept that and that's the most important thing for the party, the legitimacy of the nominee (which I includes some accounting for Florida and Michigan).  Unless something awful comes out about either candidate, I don't see any reason why the SDs would need to exercise their own judgement - these are two candidates each with strengths and weaknesses, but neither of them clearly more electable than the other.   I have my own opinion about electability, but it's just my opinion and I don't know that that would be any reason to overrule a clear popular vote winner.  

    Should've Added (none / 0) (#145)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    That going with the popular vote winner is probably even more important in a close race because in a race with little separating the two candidates, the fairest thing to most people would be to simply go with the candidate more people voted for.

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#151)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    makes a lot of sense to Americans. "Pledged delegates" hasn't worked in a larger sense because people know that the SD's are going to decide anyway.

    I do think that to have legitimacy, the popular vote totals should include MI and FL; and I'm hopeful that the SD's will take that into account, even if the party continues to shoot itself in the foot on this issue.


    I generally agree with one problem (none / 0) (#189)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    There are some states that have no tally of popular vote at all.  They just didn't do it.  We can make estimates, but in a race this close estimates don't cut it.  So while I think popular vote should certainly be considered, and in a perfect world would decide the nominee, I don't think you can make it the ONLY criteria if the information isn't accurately available.

    I am going to post this link (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST

    Everytime an Obama supporter calls Clinton a liar so that while the Obama supporter won't be able to see it, everyone else can see just how despicable the Obama supporter is.

    "Cling to".  "Turn to".

    Whatever.  It's a fundamental misunderstanding that these things are a part of the culture because of an economic situation.

    The people who hold these things as valuable would still hold them valuable even if they were all employed making 200k per year.

    That is your misunderstanding.

    That is Obama's misunderstanding.  And it shows how he views his own church.  It shows that his own church is fueled by bitterness and he projects that on to every other church in America.

    No he cries and whines, looks to the sky defiantly, maybe even shakes a fist or pounds a podium, and gives a non-apology apology when anyone else in the world calls him on it.

    Truth from politicians? Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#155)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:17:55 AM EST
    Wow, what world do you live in???  Truth from politicians?  Hell, I'd love "truth" from everyone, but you ain't gonna get that either.  

    Obama isn't honest about everything and Hillary isn't a pathological liar.  They are both politicians and they are trying to get your vote.  Don't try to make Obama out to be some "soul-healer" (like Michelle says) or some great power of change.

    He isn't.  And he isn't going to take away the so-called "bitterness" and "hopelessness" of Americans because it's not there.  People are always frustrated and angry.  The nature of the beast.  But to think one man will make it different just because he's in the office is a farce.  One big, fat joke that I, for one, am getting tired of.

    Tighten it up a little and that would (none / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    be the best parody of the "serious" Obama supporter ever.