ABC/WaPo Poll: RVs, Obama By 6, LVs Obama By 4

ABC/WaPo poll:

Obama maintains a narrow, six-point edge over McCain among registered voters. Among those most likely to vote, 49 percent back Obama and 45 percent back McCain.

Curiously, WaPo shows a narrowing from the previous RV result but a slight increase in its LV result. It all amounts to no change really. But the changes in the RV result track with two key indicators - President Bush's approval rating, which ticked up 2 (from 28 to 30) and the right track/wrong track result (right track went up from 14 to 19).

The other curious result here is this - "Obama's overall lead in the new poll is attributable in large measure to a nearly 20-point advantage among female voters. He trails McCain by nine points among men." This does not translate for me. Women are likelier voters than men. this should translate into a 6 point LV lead for Obama. the only explanation I can see is that Obama does not have as big a lead among the likeliest women voters (older womnen). More . . .

This poll also gives Obama his best result with Clinton voters:

The conventions are also about solidifying support among the party faithful. So far, Republicans have been slightly more likely to back McCain than Democrats have been to support Obama (84 to 79 percent in this poll), in part because 20 percent of those who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries said they now favor McCain over Obama. But 70 percent of her supporters back Obama -- the highest level since she suspended her campaign in June.

The NBC poll had Clinton supporters at 52% support for Obama, the CBS poll had it at 60%, and now the ABC poll had it at 70%. In any event, John McCain has an ad aimed at Clinton supporters:

In a blistering new ad, John McCain’s campaign accused Barack Obama of passing over Hillary Clinton as his running mate because she pointed out his flaws during the Democratic primaries. . . . “She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth,” the narrator in the ad says.

Here is the ad:

I am watching MSNBC this morning and A.B. Stoddard is talking about "what Hillary needs to do." I got news for Stoddard, Hillary is not running in November, Obama is. The question is what does Obama need to do. He had a layup for handling this problem and decided not to take it. Now we get to see how he wants handle the problem, a problem he could have avoided and chose not to.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Gang's All Here | M-D NV Poll: McCain By 7; Q CO Poll: McCain By 1 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I watched that too (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    and parts of Pelosi and C Kennedy on Meet the Press.

    You know what?  I can't stand any of these people. The only person who had any integrity at all was Tom Brokaw trying to get Pelosi to give an answer to any question. What kept coming out of her mouth was "we're for change". He appeared frustrated.
    BTW Nancy, nice face lift.

    What comes out of this is one obvious point; the Democrats in Washington know nothing about the people they represent. They just keep spinning in their own little world.

    That narrative (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jb64 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    will continue at least through the convention, and probably beyond. Biden may have been the next best choice, but let's face it, next best is still not best. The AP Stoddard's of the media will never accept Obama's culpability in exacerbating this situation, it is simply too convenient to blame Clinton. I hope that Stoddard understands that he is doing real harm to Obama by continuing this narrative.    

    It is her intent to do harm. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    She's not friendly to Democrats based on what I've seen of her.  She is into stirring the pot.

    Your heart doesn't include (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton, I gather.

    I am talking about AB Stoddard (none / 0) (#54)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    The Hill reporter - not Hillary Clinton.

    I realized that after I hit send. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:22:02 AM EST

    Obama left a opening (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    big enough to drive a semi through.  Predictably, the McCain campaign did exactly that.

    What would be the ideal Obama response?
    As far as I can tell, there is none.  This is one of those situations where prevention would have been best.  Not necessarily putting Hillary on the ticket, but definitely making a sincere, public effort to give Hillary her propers and ditto for wooing Hillary voters.

    Right now Obama has the option of using IACF! as a response, which is an all around loser.  The other option is to have Hillary give Obama and Biden her full, unqualified support - again.  Obama painted himself into this particular corner by essentially ignoring and taking for granted a large constituency.  

    Now McCain gets a twofer.  McCain makes it all about Obama(negative framing) and tries to peel off Hillary voters.

    What's IACF? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    It's All Clinton's Fault. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    With "Clinton" singular or plural, depending on context.

    It's a persistent refrain among Obama followers (as opposed to supporters) that started in the primary (Why won't she drop out?) and will continue on through November.  It's blatant scapegoating.  (And pathetic, IMO.)


    I believe that Hillary Clinton will (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    find John McCain's ad insulting and that it will piss her off.  She is a Democrat and she knows what it would be like to be in the Senate with a President McCain.  I don't think she is going to let him get away with co-opting her campaign.  She was always in this race to win it because she cares about this country.

    I see this one as being between Clinton and McCain - he over stepped a boundry - that ad comes off like McCain is trying to make people think that Clinton has endorsed his campaign - I think she'll be livid and I am looking forward to seeing her nail him for trying.

    Here's a tip John McCain - better to try that stuff with dead people who can't respond - not with fighters like Clinton.


    It's not her campaign any more. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    Besides, McCain released that Best of Biden ad.  What should the response to that be?

    As someone on the teevee said (none / 0) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    yesterday "they'll make new tape"...

    And I am not suggesting at all that this is Senator Clinton's job to respond - I am saying that I believe that she - like many of us would be - will likely be very motivated by this ad to tell John McCain that he doesn't speak for her and that she is not endorsing him.  I'd say "Wait just one minute bucko!  I have may have had my differences with that other guy, but you definitely don't want me to get into my issues with you."


    Why should she? She (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Xanthe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
    may work with him again in the Senate and needs to retain some balance there - Plus there may be some nasty comeback - let it be and let Obama/Biden handle it. But who knows?  And it's above my paygrade to hand out advice to her - she's the pro.

    And now on to Obama please....


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    I think McCain has painted her into a corner with that ad and she has proven that, when cornered, she will fight.  She is not going to allow herself to be used by McCain in this manner.  I think McCain is wise to go after her voters, but he needs to do it in a way that doesn't cause HRC to come out swinging in a way she might not otherwise have done.

    Also, McCain's camp put out a statement yesterday that Obama had chosen "his harshest critic" as a running mate and now they say he didn't choose Hillary because she was critical of him??  Something doesn't add up there.


    I would say that he's painted himself (none / 0) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    into a corner and watch out - lol

    I wouldn't mess with her - she's tough and good.


    Not about Obama then (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    is it?  which means McCain may have gotten a hit.  Clinton goes after McCain, he can compliment her intelligence and strength, oh yeah, and he agrees with her... may come back to bite the Repubs in the butt if she ever ran again, but this time around.... go after her voters and weaken Obama by keeping the attention on her.

    What happens if McCain flat out says on the trail... "she HAS 18 million voters, I just don't get it" or some such.....


    Hillary has (none / 0) (#88)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    already issued an condemnation of that ad.
    She is a proud democrat and will respond like she should..with righteous indignation.
    We all saw how tough she can be in the primary when she gets fired up. I look forward to her turning that indignation on McCain.

    Well (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    if we can have a Clinton McCain face off, I'd be all for it.

    It would, however, reflect poorly on Obama.



    Why aren't Obama and/or Biden (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    on the TV politico shows this a.m.?

    abc/wapo Poll (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Lowtideppm on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
     I don't know how Obama would get the vote  of many more Clinton supporters at this point.
      I also don't understand why the media makes such a big deal about women who won't vote for Obama - and associate that with disgruntled old lady Clinton supporters or something.  
     Obama gets the support of MOST women.  Thank you for mentioning it.  It's the men who aren't going for him.
      Perhaps the fightin' Joe Biden will get their vote.  
      For this Clinton supporter (in the primaries) the choice of the person who most closely echoes the Clinton appeal to traditional Democrats, someone who voted for the war, someone who called Obama's amazing candicacy "something out of a storybook", is just another reminder that the Obama campaign narrative was truly a combination of "just words", the exploiting of racism and riding the well-ingrained anti-Clinton narratives.

      The campaign was skillfully run, but It was NOT indicative of Obama's experience or his leadership skills.

      The general election resembles a primary in that it's the electoral votes which count.  But the GE involves all voters, and the Unifying Gifts of Obama are apparently not as effective at this stage  of the campaign.

       Of course, the obvious statement is that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.  Obama has some work to do before then, but it's clear that it won't be New Politics that wins the day.  

    Men vs Women (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    I haven't dug into the poll BTD cites, but the Democratic candidate lagging with men, and esp. white men, is nothing new.  Lagging with women could cost him the election.

    Plus, it allows them to still play the CDS game.  Hillary has endorsed Obama, so they can't go after her directly (well, mostly, CNN felt free to criticize her enthusiasm level at her FL appearance, after she'd just lost 2 good friends in a week and been campaigning more for Obama than he had for himself for 2 weeks).  But they can blame her supporters.  It still riles everyone up and it's an easy story (no pesky research or factchecking involved).

    That's why.


    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    That piece about her enthusiasm was false. I live in Palm Beach county and she was a big hit where she campaigned for him.

    Hillary's enthusiasm

    I wrote to the Public Editor about this and am waiting for a response. :-)

    Just trying to keep the press honest. heh


    Yes, sorry, I didn't make that clear (none / 0) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    CNN and the NYT painted her as unenthusiastic, but I've seen local reports sounding quite to the contrary.

    My point, had I made it better, was that even if it were true she wasn't enthusiastic, she just lost 2 friends in as many weeks, and it's pretty cr*p of CNN et al to do the pile on on her for it.

    As I said elsewhere, even Chris Matthews, when mentioning the CW that she looked tired in FL, also said, not without sympathy, that it was expectable.  So when Chris Matthews is leading the graciousness competition toward Clinton, you know CNN and the NYT is just smokin' crack, for jeeper's sake.


    One Word: Infuriating (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    ...well, mostly, CNN felt free to criticize her enthusiasm level at her FL appearance, after she'd just lost 2 good friends in a week and been campaigning more for Obama than he had for himself for 2 weeks...

    Wow, I didn't even see it that way, and it makes me really angry now. Thanks for highlighting that angle.

    Now, I'm questioning whether the New York Times reporter sought out Obamans to pose as Clinton supporters who are questioning her enthusiasm for the Democrat's pick for President.


    Stereotypes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    There's plenty of Hillary voters who are men but the stereotyped PUMA (via various media) is an older white female.

    I believe the polls, not the media.  The Dems constant demographic weakness has always been white men, not women.  This poll doesn't vary there.

    The question is: Who will vote and who will stay home?  Are Likely Voters and Registered Voters starting to stray from their historical norms?


    I got 3 calls yesterday (none / 0) (#52)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    All from Florida. Two were Hillary supporters and one Obama supporter. The Obama supporter mentioned angry Hillary supporters. She can't understand why I gave up politics. Ha. I lied. She said Hillary lost. End of story. I pointed out she got more votes. She still lost. He got more delegates. I reminder her she wasn't saying that in 2000.  And Biden is such a wonderful choice. Then my Aunt and best friend who have been working on me since June to vote for Obama called. Aren't you excited they said. He chose Biden. He gets experience. We can't let McCain win. So I finally said ok, I will vote. I lied again. Ha. The VP spot was the deal breaker for me added with all the other deal breakers so far.

    I find it interesting that the Hillary voters who had already made the change over and been willing to vote for Obama are the ones excited over Biden. From what I understand from them is that they were worried over Obama's lack of experience. And, they did say after Biden's speech they wish he was the head on the ticket. Maybe Biden did the party some good, but there are a lot of Democrats who still are not that excited and over the snub to Hillary and the 3AM call to rub her face in it didn't help. Now that was arrogant.


    The Obama Plan At Work (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    Then my Aunt and best friend who have been working on me since June to vote for Obama called. Aren't you excited they said. He chose Biden. He gets experience. We can't let McCain win.

    So this is all part of the "big plan" to get the Obamans working with scripts and all, yes?

    According to the campaign, in the hours prior to Obama's speech, campaign workers and aids will be on stage encouraging the crowd to use their cell phones to text message friends and family to garner support for the Senator. In addition, aids will be among the crowd distributing "micro-targeted" call sheets and scripts for supporters to use their cell phones to contact Obama supporters or unregistered voters to encourage their support. According to one campaign official, Steve Hildebrand, "There will be a lot of idle time. We put idle people to work."

    I said ok, I will vote for him (none / 0) (#69)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    It is easier to just say yes because then they let me alone over this. They think I am thinking like they are. But my choice is when I get into the voting booth and mark my X or not mark my X. I hated Joe L on the Gore ticket but I voted for Gore. My Aunt did not vote that time. She figured Gore was going to win anyway. Ha. I keep reminding her that when she says "You have to vote."

    The NYT today reports (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    that according to two sources inside the VP process, Hillary asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked.  

    If true, and this one has a ring of truth to it, then it would explain why TeamO seemed to give her the complete shutout in the Veep process, which seemed to be politically tone deaf and a serious unforced error.

    Today's talking point? Irritating. (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    Let them say this on the record for attribution.

    I have a bridge for you (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    heh, they're still Obama's worst enimy (none / 0) (#31)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    with this sort of stuff. Will they never get it.

    That anonymous revelation sounds more (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    like damage control than truth.  'Don't vet me unless you're going to pick me?"  Ridiculous.

    No more ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    than assuming TeamO, very smart in managing to best Hillary in the primaries, suddenly got stupid in the much less difficult matter of merely putting her name in the small hat even if just for appearance sake.

    I think the story could be true.

    It would have cost TeamO very little to put her name in the mix, but for the apparent condition from Hillary, which would have enabled O's camp to later say with credibility that they'd put her in the list of finalists.  Certainly would have avoided the unfortunate bad PR that came from the bare story that she wasn't on the short list.


    Um (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    Revenge is sweet.  And the Obama's like their revenge.

    Obama brushed Hillary off his shoulder and shoe.  He likes giving her the brush-off.


    Could be, but I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    -- not as well as you apparently -- that revenge is the primary motivating factor for Obama.

    I would have thought doing the smart thing politically was.

    Further, since O was getting some input on the VP process by others like Clinton-friendly "C.D." Rahm Emanuel, do you think he wouldn't have advised the OTeam to be sure to at least put Hillary's hat in the ring, even if they only considered her a very longshot, if for no other reason than to avoid unnecessarily offending her and her supporters?  I suspect such input was there, and from other nonstupid pols too.  

    Such a simple matter to do, with no downside, but plenty of downside if not done.


    Doing the smart thing politcally (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    was NOT what Obama has done re: Clinton since the primaries.

    Even this leak is stupid.


    I've never contended here (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    that TeamO has handled the HRC situation perfectly -- far from it in fact.

    But this story makes sense, certainly from a political pov.  I just don't believe that O, even if he were so personally inclined because driven by Hillary hatred, would allow himself to operate solely based on emotion, at least not on a highly important matter of the VP process.

    We might learn more about this story in the days to come, who knows.  Perhaps Hillary will drop some hints which could validate it further.


    Do not use O (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    Jeralyn has repeatedly asked that commenters use the candidates names (exception made for McSame as it is a campaign strategy).  Initials can be used as insults.

    Thx for that interesting info, (none / 0) (#85)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    walden.  Ironic you should note this  because I'm one of the few regular and consistent  Obama-backers on this board.  Obviously I'm using it only to shorten the typing load, and always typing out "Obama" gets repetitive.

    Can we use candidate initials?  

    Since I don't set out to run afoul of the law, particularly at a site to which  I've made a couple of financial contributions in just a few months time recently, perhaps you can point me to where I could find the updated and complete list of rules for close study.


    No initials (none / 0) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    Obama's are especially open to abuse....'BO' is stinky, using O as a zero etc.  You get the drift.... I can not describe how annoying it is.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#62)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    whether this story is true or just convenient, but in some ways I think it is better for them to not make a big show of "vetting" HRC if they had no intention of picking her.  Why should she have to go through the motions of turning over records and documents and being "interviewed" by Caroline Kennedy when there was really no chance?  That seems like jumping through false hoops, which I think would make her team madder.

    No it does not make sense (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    And the leak does not help.

    When it comes to the Clinton factor (4.80 / 5) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    The Obama campaign has been horrible handling the primary fallout.

    This is pretty evident.


    This grates me (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    ...the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.

    (emphasis mine, from the linked NYT article) Have the balls to identify yourself if you want this information to be taken seriously and believed.

    Roland Martin -- also known as Obama's biggest cheerleader and water-holder on CNN -- said the same thing yesterday.

    So if Roland and two Obama officials, who insist on being anonymous, are the sources of this information, I'll take it with TWO handfuls of salt.

    Axelrod was on ABC This Week, spinning like a top, because he couldn't answer out-right, when asked why Hillary wasn't picked. Shortly after, Brazille was also on, at her same-old antics.

    Not choosing Hillary was reprehensible IMO, and unless Hillary herself says what Roland and the two officials said, it is all hot air.


    Not to worry, though. According to AP (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    Europeans approve of Obama's VP pick.  

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Nadai on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    Then the Europeans can vote for him.

    I'll happily pay shipping fees to send them (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    their winner.

    Please explain why (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    it has a ring of truth to it.  Personally, I think it has a ring of "CYA" to it.

    Why would she do this? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Xanthe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    It seems an odd statement for a good politician to make.  It casts in her in the usual dark light in the dank basement.  She is, after all, a good politician.  It has the ring of wrong number to me.

    Perhaps she is anxious about being vetted, never having been examined in any way before.


    It rings true from her end (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:18:48 AM EST
    -- has some cred -- because she may well have suspected, as I suggested above, that TeamO was just putting her through the vetting for purely PR and/or emergency backup purposes.  

    There is a good deal of highly sensitive info req'd, including not only the financials but the physical checkup intimate info, so you just don't lightly hand over stuff like that unless you're convinced it's a serious process.  She probably sensed, rightly, that it wouldn't have been.

    Those are some valid reasons right there -- and I haven't even mentioned the Bill angle yet ...


    It's just spin (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    Suspicious timing -- only after the leak that she wasn't vetted was getting a negative reaction -- and the Obama campaign is pretty tight on leaks, except when favorable to them.  It's a pretty old trick.

    Remember the AP leak that Clinton was 'definitely' conceding the primary race before South Dakota had even finished voting?  Or the leak (multiple sources) that Clinton was 'definitely' against putting her name into nomination?  Or the leak (also multiple sources) that Clinton was afraid to put her name on the ballot and it was the Obama campaign who graciously insisted?  Well, she didn't concede on June 2 and she explicitly contradicted the other 2 in the fundraiser video a few weeks back.  Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

    Anonymous staffers, however, are so abundant this season I think they deserve a demographic breakout of their own in the polls.

    Favorable 'leaks' should pretty much meet with disbelief unless there's corroborating evidence.  Unfavorable ones, too, come to think of it.


    it gives cover to TeamO as you (none / 0) (#57)
    by Xanthe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    call them - and as such, it is suspect.

    But you believe -


    I think that ad is not just aimed at the (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    Clinton supporters; it raises the lack of specificity of his plans, the incomplete vetting by mentioning Tony Rezko, reminds people of the negativity of his campaign, and then reveals Obama to be driven by pettiness and ego instead of by what might be best for the country by passing over the person who came within an eyelash of beating him.

    This will, of course, be all Clinton's fault, because she dared to call Obama on his BS in the primary, and all along we heard from Obama supporters that Clinton's real agenda was to undermine Obama by providing the GOP with fodder for the general election...

    And there are still people talking about what she needs to do - for him, for the party, etc?  

    Someone needs to tell them that if their ultimate goal was to be able to savage her all the way through to the defeat they longed for her to suffer in November, they should not have worked so hard, hand-in-glove with the Obama campaign, to make sure she never got the nomination.

    As for the poll itself, this is the narrative from the article that ought to be of concern:

    The results show little movement from the last Post-ABC survey, conducted in mid-July, before Obama embarked on a highly publicized trip overseas and prior to a series of fierce exchanges between the campaigns. Other recent national polls also show only limited changes in the overall race heading into the conventions, although several of those surveys indicate an even-tighter race.

    Relative stability in the race stems in part from both sides' legions of committed supporters. About three-quarters of supporters on both sides said they will "definitely" vote for their current choice. Still, about three in 10 registered voters, and nearly as many likely voters, are "movable" -- those who are less solidly behind their pick or who have yet to decide. The number of swing voters this year is substantially higher than it was at this time in 2004, highlighting the importance of the next two weeks as the candidates strive to define themselves and their opponents.

    Why isn't Obama doing better?  It's not just those pesky, bitter Clinton hold-outs, but given the tightening of the race, it sure would seem like he ought to be trying to bring them into the fold instead of continuing to pretend they don't matter.

    the visuals are interesting (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    Hillary looks great and sounds reasonable and intelligent.  Someone millions of people thought should be President.  The shots of Obama -- especially the last one --, he looks ... I don't know, pissy?  Displeased?  

    People seeing this ad will remember Why they liked Hillary and perhaps wonder Why Wasn't She Picked?  It knee-caps the Obama-Biden partnership right off the bat, puts them on defense and off-balance, re-opens the already open and bleeding wound of many Hillary Supporters and introduces a side of Obama to those on-the-fence which may be hard for him to redefine.

    Now there will be people looking for specifics (ain't gonna find 'em) and wondering what they don't know about Obama (I'm sure McCain will fill 'em in).  And perhaps even a few will now be subconsciously comparing Biden to Hillary and find him lacking.

    It was a very good, effective ad.


    all Obama (and Stoddard types) have to do (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    is act like Hillary demographics are voters that they'd like to have. And, here's the kicker, actually court them and not insult them. Saying "Hillary has to do more" calling them bitter Appalachians, saying they're not real democrates, etc., believe it or not (shocker), doesn't win them over. Threatening them with end of the word scenarios if McCain is president doesn't work.

    There's all sorts of spin and hype about the new coalition and new voters and republicans voting for Obama and the like, but it's PR, don't actually believe it. Fight for the voters you need.

    Here's the secret. Act like adults. And treat them (like any other group you'd like to win) like adults.

    The Big Man Has Spoken (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Alright folks, it's time to light the candles and bid adieu to "the Clintons." Jim Clyburn says its widely believed that it's time to pass the torch on to Obama. (On CNN just now)

    Amen! (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    Let the Clintons drop quietly out of the picture and shine those spotlights on Obama and Biden where they belong.  It's all on them now.

    Shaking head (none / 0) (#72)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    I heard Clyburn...explaining away Biden's clean comment and saying get in there, get it done. no roll call, no votes, just pass it on and go home.

    What else is there to say?


    They lack imagination (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    and intellectual curiousity. (polite version)

    Their fear of a "divided party" makes them think the best way to address dissent is to ignore it, apparently.   I'm not sure why.  It's especially irritating to women who have heard the "Shut up and fall in line." message explicitly or implicitly many times before.


    See (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    that is the kind of mistake that Obama supporters seems intent on making.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    McCain is going for the GOP women who supported Hillary's historic run and crossed over to vote for her. Bet he gets them too.

    The GOP is creating mischief (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    And as long as its doing so provides a chance to put a Clinton in a bad light the Obama and congressional Dems, for whom cutting the Clintons out of power is more important than winning the election, are too dumb to try to stop it.

    In just the last week alone the media has been fed, and gleefully amplified, talking points from the GOP about how "the (evil, plotting, power mad) Clintons" have "taken over" the Convention (and made Obama look weak), how McCain is supposedly using lessons he "learned" from Clinton against Obama (thus excusing McCain's tactics while providing the media with another opportunity to trash Clinton), and now they are openly exploiting party divisions -- and the media's willingness to take up and amplify anything that gives them an excuse for bad mouthing a Clinton -- with this ad.

    What Obama and his surrogates need to do to counter this nonsense is to point out what the GOP is doing and STAND UP for the Clintons, show some outrage at the way these dedicated, competent and successful Democratic leaders are constantly portrayed, castigate the media for using these GOP talking points and for their obsession with tearing Clinton down.

    They don't seem capable of comprehending that destroying the Clinton brand is harmful to the party brand. Obama doesn't have a decades long record of demonstrated dedication to health care, protection of vulnerable children, dedication to pay equity, family leave, etc. Hillary Clinton does. Obama didn't tame an historic deficit and leave office with a projected budget surplus. Bill Clinton did. Obama doesn't have a record of supporting small business creation, job creation and over-seeing an economy in which working class wages saw real increases for the first time in decades. Clinton does. The party can't afford to let these values and successes be diminished. And Obama can't afford to run a campaign that continues to suggest, or fails to object when others suggest, that the most recent history of the party he leads contains little more than hypocrisy, corruption, power mad manipulation and failure.

    If I believe everything the Obamacons claim about the Clintons -- the evil of their policies, their personal deceptiveness, their unseemly political manipulations and ambition, their pandering hypocrisies -- why would I vote for the party that produced them? And, most especially, how can I vote for Obama, who differs little from them in policy and "panders," who has proven himself equally adept at "manipulating" the levers of power, and who has show himself to be many, many times more brutal and impatient in his personal ambition?

    Great points. (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    It's almost as if the Obama campaign is targeting the lowest of the low information voters who apparently don't know anything about the Clintons and can be convinced they are irrelevant or worse.

    This does the dirty work of the GOP with their dependence on the older voters.  The older voters might actually remember the Clinton years being better than the Bush years.  But by ignoring or denigrating the Clinton years, the Obama campaign undercuts the Democratic brand and gives aid and comfort to the GOP campaign.

    You know how the Obama followers love to say "Cut off your nose to spite your face."?  Well, ditto to the Obama campaign wrt the Clintons.  


    I'd respect Hillary more (4.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    if she gave them all a big fat raspberry.  Really, is she that much of a joiner? Is belonging to the "party" worth sacrificing her dignity? There's only so much a person should have to take and still maintain "loyalty" to an organization.  They don't want her anymore.  She needs to find her own and much stronger place.

    Maybe she'd be a better "Democrat" if she dropped the Democratic Party altogether.  She needs to follow MY lead.

    FYI (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:24 AM EST
    This is in reference to Mzzzz. Stoddard and her worthless commentary (so not off-topic)

    I'm sad to read that (none / 0) (#17)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    your respect for Hillary has waned because she is looking at the long-term consequences of her actions on her career prospects.

    Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE! LOVE! LOVE! for Hillary (and Bill for that matter) to stick the finger up to Obama, Dean, Pelosi, Brazille and their minions and move on.

    But, in the possibility that Obama loses in November, Hillary sets herself up for a better prospect in whatever she plans to do after Nov. 5 -- be it seek a higher position in the Senate, at state level (Gov. of NY? or Gov. of AR?) or maybe a second run in 2012.


    Long term career prospects? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    If Obama wins, the Obama-venge faction will do everything in their power to drive Hillary into the ground. It won't matter that they won. They are about nothing if they aren't about revenge. Lord, look at the 3AM text message announcing Biden -- rubbing salt in that wound for sure.  And the fact that the person who won arguably more popular votes in the primary wasn't even vetted?  They certainly hate Clinton more than they like winning.

    If they lose, that is the only way she has any power.

    Okay, she can wait until after November.  If he wins and she remains with the Democrats, I lose respect.

    I'm not good at politics.  I can't be profoundly about certain issues and then just concede and say "oh, okay, maybe next time" when those issues don't win (e.g. healthcare).  I also can't see people losing all dignity and staying with the victimizers -- especially in the case of a woman.  Call me crazy, but that's me.

    As long as the Kerry wing is in power, my issues won't win and Clinton's dignity will be in the garbage.  I tbelieve that's a cold hard fact.


    I think this is true even when they (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    lose. Hillary still has to gather support from her colleagues to get anything done. They will use his losing as their reason to punish her, because we all know it was her fault.

    I think this could be the most vivid example of someone who just can't win. She raises the bar higher than people want to jump. I've seen this in corporate settings more than I care to remember.


    Right (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    good post.  

    I agree that they keep trying to make her a victim
    but the more they pile on, the stronger and more popular she becomes - out side the ruling circle that is.

    The conundrum is how much pressure can she take as they keep trying to box her in. Does she tell her supporters to "get over it" or does she keep taking the heat. She is doing everything she can for Obama except hold his hand. The party will punish her either way.

    Unfortunately, none of these jerks with opinions about this, still do not get it.  It is no longer about Hillary. It really isn't. She became the conduit for women's rage against a party that, in reality, doesn't want them.


    It's impossible for me to understand how (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    the Democrats can think silencing their greatest, most respected voice is a smart move.

    Hillary is doing whatever she thinks she has to in order to protect her ability to get good work done via her Senate position. I doubt she wants to be NY Governor, that limits her service to one state, and her aspirations are to make things better for the entire country, and world.

    When I look at who Hillary's strongest supporters are, they are women and men who share so many of her strengths, beliefs, and goals. They have the characteristics every voter should be looking for in the people they send to WA DC to represent them.


    Except - we none of us can (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Xanthe on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    pedict the future - who would have figured out that Sen. Gore would win an oscar and a nobel prize and be admired widely in the world and that bush would be where he is in ratings and held in contempt by citizens here and elsewhere.  What can we know exactly?  Would you have thought that when bush et al were at the top of their game after 9/11.

    Will Sen. Obama really think twice about HRC when he is in office - won't he be too busy extending the Democrats' olive branch to the Republicans should he win.  OH PROVE ME WRONG, TEAM O.  And - won't he need her skills in the Senate?


    You're Mad as a Hatter! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cugel on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    If Obama wins, Hillary will have EVERYTHING to do with it.

    She'll be universally admired by all Obama supporters, as she is generally liked right now by most because she's supporting Obama gracefully.

    She'll get to pick her job: Senate Majority Leader? Write the health-care bill? Done! Want to be in the Cabinet, or Supreme Court Justice? Ok.

    What's to stop her? Nothing. She will have proved herself.

    Obama will OWE Hillary and she will be in a position to collect. She knows this.

    She won't screw up her chances by being bitter.


    You still believe (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    despite the way she has been treated in the GE campaign, that she has first pickings at appointments?  

    Senate Majority Leader is a position a bit out of her power to obtain anyway.  Obama hasn't moved at all toward her health bill.  He appointed the Edwardses as his health care guiding angels.  

    Since Obama has done almost everything in his power to minimize Clinton as a partner to his administration and Nov victory, I don't see him doing much different once he's President.  But once he wins I can see Hillary making more demands of him than she can now though.  


    By All Means! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cugel on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    Instead of becoming Senate Majority Leader and getting her universal health care initiative passed, she should march triumphantly off into a wilderness of stones with her head high!

    Really good advice! I'm glad Hillary isn't listening to you!


    Not Realistic (none / 0) (#95)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    HRC is a hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and she'll stick with it because that's what she thinks is best for the country and its people.  She's a sticker.  I'll leave it to her to decide whether or not she is sacrificing her dignity - it seems intact to me.

    If she thought it was best for the country and its citizens for her to go indy or third-party, I'm sure she'd do it.  Given her record, I'm sure she won't - and I for one respect her for it.  


    Re your last sentence: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    that's Biden's job, per AP:

    AP snippet

    Well, that ad would suggest (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    that the only reason McCain even appears to still be in this race is because some Hillary supporters haven't decided who they're supporting yet. It's a confirmation of the other polling we've seen.

    If Obama gets 60% or so of the remaining undecided Hillary supporters, he begins to approach 50%.  

    The 3AM ad was pretty good (none / 0) (#7)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:35:30 AM EST
    too bad it is for McCain.

    If you ignore that point, she looked very Presidential. :-)

    See. Once again Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:58 AM EST
    undermines Obama.  

    LOL. See. This is why she should have (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    been so extra-sweet to him during the primaries. Because exactly what Obama was afraid of is happening.  She was shown to be a better candidate and he was shown to be a weak one.  But gosh darn it it would have never come to light had she just not run and let him get the nom unimpeded.   That evil Clinton!

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:41:13 AM EST
    Q Poll finds a deadlock in CO.

    Well, McCain by 1, actually.

    And Mason-Dixon (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    says McCain by 7 in NV.

    If there is a national lead for Obama, I'd really like to know where it is in the states. Time for SUSA to do a 50 state poll again!


    Agreed (none / 0) (#90)
    by BrianJ on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    Heck, Siena has Obama only leading by eight in frickin' New York!  Where can this lead be coming from?

    What happens in two weeks? (none / 0) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    After both conventions are over, vacations are over, and there will be no real reason to talk about Hillary?  (Not that the MSM won't try).

    Those are the polls to start watching....Right now this poll (and others like it).  Obama will get a little bounce now with the announcement of Biden as VP nominee and into next week with the convention, but come Friday, when McCain announces his VP in the run-up to the Republican convention, watch any bounce disappear.

    Speaking of polls, one done in Michigan last week had Obama up by 7, but the interesting part was that nearly 2/3 of those polled agreed with the statement:

    "There are some things about Barack Obama that I'm not that comfortable with."

    A lot of people say they're not entirely comfortable with Obama -- a lot of people you might not expect. Like more than one out of every three Democrats responding to the poll and nearly two out of every three independent voters. More than a third of people who said they're supporting Obama agreed with the statement.


    What is this site you link to? (none / 0) (#16)
    by katiebird on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    Freep?  I've never heard of it.

    The Detroit Free Press (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    One of the two major newspapers in Detroit (I think the biggest circulation in Michigan)

    Thanks I just didn't recognize (none / 0) (#21)
    by katiebird on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    their Web Name...

    Detroit Free Press? (none / 0) (#24)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    I'm An Obama Supporter/Voter (none / 0) (#84)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    and there are certainly things about him I'm not comfortable with --his FISA renege comes to mind.

    I was an even more avid Mario Cuomo supporter. In fact, I probably felt more whole hearted support for him than for any politician I've ever voted for. But there were also things about him I wasn't comfortable with.

    I'm voting for Obama, comfort or little comfort. I envy anyone who gets to support/vote for a candidate they feel completely comfortable with. I've never met a politician I felt that degree of connection with.


    Is Frank Rich correct, i.e., is everyone over (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    50 McCain's base?

    Does anyone else find the woman announcer (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    in the McCain ad to have a cloying/annoying voice?

    Voice ok, bad ad (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    Bad ad from them, surprisingly.  They have been on the mark.  The humorous ones get more attention than gloom and doom.   I don't like how they presented Clinton.  They could have hit Obama by complimenting Clinton.  They have the 'selected not elected' attack.  They should focus on her 18 million in a positive way.

    I think they might have gotten the attention of Clinton supporters by building her up.  Show her supporters cheering to compliment them.  Show he's 'weak' in comparison to Clinton, keeping her supporters focused on her, keeps them from shifting to Obama and the GE.

    McCain camp has to keep her supporters motivated while attacking Obama/Biden.  They missed with this one, it was boring.


    hmmmmm (none / 0) (#77)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    I think it seductive and speculative.

    Seduction sells, right? As a female, I say use it. All is fair in love, war and politics. :-#


    Wow (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    that ad was pretty ineffective, IMO.  I guess it drives home the point some Obama supporters made in the primaries though - everything she says can be held against Obama!  Everything!

    I mean, how dare she answer questions or criticize him at all.