That site imploded weeks ago.

I recognize that it's still linked like crazy.  I also recognize that the "Dudge-like" style gives that site lee-way.  

I sure gave it lee-way for a long time.  I figured the headlines and the bias......big deal.

But I also want to be on record that Huffington Post crossed a line.

It's a mysterious line.

But it definitely crossed a line.

It has no credibility today.

That site will die a slow death.  She really did great, until this election.

But.....it's over.

I am convinced of this.  She's become a "Greta" of politics.

blech

actually BTD, you were kind, absurd is really giving mr. blow's piece far more credibility than it deserves. truth be told, i'm not at all convinced sen. obama is better liked, by anyone, than he was when the campaign first started, surveys notwithstanding.

i'm sure he's a nice guy, in that "i'm really so much superior to you intellectually, but i'll dain to talk to you anyway" kind of way, and his wife is his equal in that regard.

the clinton's both come across as genuinely warm and nice people, who you'd be smarter after having dinner with them, as well as having a great time.

He claims his data is from CBS/NYTimes polls.
Well here are the overall numbers from February, and now...

2/20-24/08  Favorable 45%   Unfavorable 23%
4/25-29/08  Favorable 39%   Unfavorable 34%

to me, that looks lie a 6 point drop in favorable, and a 9 point rise in unfavorable.

"I find it ironic that Hillary is being done in by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy"--Dennis Miller

Wait. The numbers show that the cynical effort to turn the 2008 campaign into a race riot has hurt the popularity of one candidate among an important demographic, and it's not Barack Obama:

On the other hand, black Democrats' opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

And it will only support something that I think will be very bad for America, the idea that if Obama doesn't win here or even in the General Election, it's cause America is still a racist country.  NOT because Obama himself might have been an insufficient candidate, NOT because non-racist Americans looked at him honestly and decided against him.

His problem isn't with white voters.  Someone above says his problem is with workers.  I think that's a fair way to put it.

Basically, we have seen at the very least some swing.  Some voters who HAPPEN to be white (given that Obama gets 90% of the black vote and that will never change, it only stands to reason anyone else still on the fence is non-black) were perfectly OK with voting for Barack Obama.

Now they are second guessing that choice.

All I can say is Obama is not having a problem with white voters here in this case, he is having a problem with people who are beginning to question his electability, his judgment, his ability to get things done.

Etc.

Milissa McEwan (Shakesville) report from a recent Hillary Clinton Indiana townhall-style event (well worth reading). See "Democracy" from 4/30. Sorry I still have to learn how to post a link on this site.

I also read in another report that Obama talks and complains a lot about Hillary in his speeches these days while Hillary talks only issues.

btw. I do not believe that Obama is better liked than HC. Plenty of voters (like me) are not moved by him at all re charisma and completely unimpressed re his knowledge of policy and just about any issue discused so far in debates.

Basically he just criticized Hillary's gas tax idea.

Of course he said nothing about ANY IDEA HE MIGHT HAVE - just criticized her idea.

It has been said here numerous times that this reace is about demographics. Hillary wins the places she should win, Obama wins the places he should win. In PA, he lost by less than 10 (technically) after having trailed by as much as 25, so he clearly picked up some votes that weren't there for him at the beginning of the race.

Meanwhile, the column you dismisss as absurd points to a very real affect on Hillary Clinton's reputation among black voters. Losing 36 points among blacks while Obama has picked up 5 among whites is not "incomprehensible." It's very clear evidence that Sen. Clinton is alienating voters who are very important to the Democratic party in the fall.

This is another example of holding up the race card without admitting that it's a race card. When I point out that 162,000 whites citing race as an important factor in PA made a difference in the spread, I get blasted as playing the race card in his loss. But if all I say is that "they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states"--casting the net much wider than my analysis did--then I'm only promoting CW.

And I learned all that from Obama. Not Hillary.

  "Rich people, god bless us"??? I'm constantly amazed at what people who claim to be all for unity and acceptance(i.e., liberal) think its great to bash on people merely for the amount of money they have. I don't think that its any nobler to bash on people with money than it is to bash on those with little. Attitudes are the problem and they can be changed. I fail to see why one can't say "god bless" to rich people, especially when you are making the point that the American economy has been good to them and that having them pay a bit more in taxes would not only help those less fortunate but also help the rich themselves in helping to preserve whats good about our country.
Because that was Hillary's point. Do you have a problem with that? Or is it more important to bash people than to get a more progressive tax system? Is it more important to fix the system or find someone that you can blame?

We need the Clintons now more than ever, to fix the economy, which they've already done brilliantly, and deal with two wars strategically.

Despite our mass of political capital, it's starting to look like Obama could actually loose the ge. Even if he did win, his ignorance would show up real quick, and we'd loose the congress, then the presidency. It's not clear that the party could recover in our lifetime. That doesn't matter to his worshippers. The far left live in a dream world and don't care about the damage they do. To this day, Nader's Traiters have not admitted their role in putting Bush in office. If Obama melts down, they'll just find someone else to blame. I'm guessing Hillary's third cousin's butcher's wife, who bought a new watch and betrayed the tinkers union for a loaf of designer bread, which brought the entire party crashing down.

"And Votes are what count"

Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That's what is meant, in politics, by the term "Teflon."

If she gets the nomination, she and her supporters are going to have a lot of fence-mending to do.  

i have not seen it

is it an old poll?

Rasmussen usually includes more reps and indies in their samples

Didn't Arianna just get herself banned from NBC/MSNBC/CNBC because of the 7-8 pages in her new book that slammed Tim Russert? Lovin' Karma.

[W]hite folks like Obama but ignores the fact that, as of now, they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states...

Obama is more popular with whites now says Giordano. Which begs the question - then why does he get less white votes now than he did in February?

As for white Democratic primary voters not supporting him, you have not provided a shred of evidence that their preferences are anything other than Clinton > Obama > McCain. If that pattern holds, as it has held for every party nominee who won the disappointed supporters of his primary opponent, he'll get Hillary Clinton's primary voters, lose the white GE vote, and win the election anyway.

As for the reduction of Obama's share of the white vote in February vs. March and April, this is not exactly a Sherlock Holmes mystery either. White Democratic primary voters in the February states were comparatively younger, more educated, and more wealthy and those of March and April.

Many of us, myself included, wondered about the role Bill would play.  It's really not OK for him to get a 3rd term.  I love him....BUT.

And then there's the 15 years of Republican slime.

No, I don't agree.  Her name got her foot in the door.

as is often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong, the demographics, as always, tell the brutal truth.

the brutal truth is that AA's constitute a mere 12.4% of the total population. they are, without exception, concentrated in the states of the former confederacy, states that will vote republican in the fall, despite the average 20% AA population.

as for the rest of the states, several on the east coast (ny, nj, pa) have a roughly 10% AA population. sen. clinton will win these states even if she gets no AA votes at all. as for the rest, their AA populations are statistically insignificant, and will have no bearing whatever on the outcome of those states votes come the GE.

this is the primary strategy that will do in sen. obama come the GE, should he be the dem. nominee. by alienating a fair chunk of the non AA voting populace, he's doomed himself beyond the primary.