First the CT poll, now this. More encouraging news that the SC victory and the endorsements might be closing the gap as we approach Feb 5. I will be phone banking until my fingers bleed this weekend.

Perhaps endorsements DO matter. (That, and Obama's rout in SC.)

Hopefully, this close competition will encourage both candidates to truly earn our votes from here on out. However, with the Clintons' tactics to date, I'm not optimistic that they'll honor that.

I'll stick with the mantra that the national polls are meaningless, which they are. It comes down to the states individually. Anybody have any info on recent polls in the 2/5 states. I would think that there would be a ton by now and it's only 6 days away. Thanks in advance.

I would think that someone would have done a 2/5 aggregate poll (like a national poll, but only done in 2/5 states) by now. That would seem to be the best predictor of where we will stand delegate-wise on 2/6.

Here at work

5 people who were for Edwards
3 who were for Clinton

they all have swithed to Obama in the last three days here in California

I hope it keeps up

Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 1:22 PM:

"In every state as well as nationally, the trends for Obama are consistently up, while for Hillary they are consistently down."

No. The trends for Obama were consistently up a month ago. Since then, Clinton has recaptured some of her lead and that lead has averaged around 8% or 9%. What you are seeing is slight temporary bursts up and down with a lot of sampling variation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The question is no longer if Obama can catch Clinton, it's become a question of whether there's enough time left for him to catch Clinton.

HRC supporters may not like it - but the fact is, she's the de facto incumbent. She's the most well-known Democrat in America (perhaps excepting her husband).

Serious hull breaches below the waterline, my friends... can she steer the ship into port before it sinks?

We shall see!

Man, I'm telling you, it's going to come down to American Samoa, that's what's gonna swing it.

You know, that place where they make those Girl Scout cookies.

Don't

trust

the

polls!

Every campaign must act as if it is 20 points behind. Otherwise, they're as good as brain dead.

Obama is gaining, but if the voters aren't motivated and mobilized next week, it makes no difference. Polls are inaccurate and misleading. Get out and talk to interested voters, do what you have to, but remember that if Hillary is the nominee it's John McCain's election to lose!

Whoa! The latest poll putting McCain against Clinton and Obama sure is different from those that have appeared prior. Yikes...

lombard:

Gallup is the best polling organization in America. Their methodology sets the standard. They use a 1,000-voter sample, call back up to five times, and use live interviewers. Look at the trend lines for the last ten days, and there can't be any doubt.

Even more dramatic: the narrowing of the lead is actually accelarating. It's down 3 points since yesterday, and even if support holds steady, the three-day average will be lower tomorrow. That means that for the past two days, the actual gap has been 4-5%. That's astonishing.

Ben

I agree
I am going with Obama myself because I think the "center" republicans will just tear the Clintons apart to be blunt.
I've only made up my mind the last two days because I wanted a women in the white house. If she was not a Clinton I would still feel that way.
But against McCain, she just will not be able to pull it off.

"Why is she so loyal to Mark Penn anyway? The guy is a union-busting Blackwater lobbyist and doesn't seem to have been very effective as her top adviser."

I realize that this is acceptable talking points for the uninformed, but to slander Mark Penn's name based on one (1) article in The Nation is absurd. The Nation magazine has no creditability and is only read kooks and communists. Mark Penn successfully lead President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, and Hillary's two successful senate campaigns. He has also steered a 'polarizing' and 'divisive' female candidate closer to the White House than any woman has ever come. His ties to alleged union-busting and Blackwater are much more remote than Obama having REZKO's wife buy the 'lot' on his property on the SAME day he bought his mansion and then selling it to him at a reduced rate. You want to talk about slimy associations. Your man Obama is a Chicago pol in the best tradition who has been selling the Kumbya Kool-aid with Hope & Change, but now is being taken down by his own ethically challenged ways.

Obama's a rolling stone. The momentum is undeniable.

"Obama's a rolling stone. The momentum is undeniable"

Sadly, the momentum is downhill from here -- see the state-by-state polling. He's droppoing out Feb. 6th.

Hey, Tony. Let's not throw stones.

I've always respected the Gallup organization.

Oh that's right tony, my mistake. I remember all the wonderful democratic, progressive legislation the clintons went out on a limb for during their first two terms. Wow, just think of the wonderful programs to help the american people that they pushed through congress. Let me think a minute . . . . . . . You know, I can't think of one thing. They didn't push legislation to help republicans did they? They wouldn't have pushed nafta or welfare reform, right. Nah, that's too republican.

I'm sorry, but if you're hanging your hat on Florida--an uncontested non contest--you're dreaming.

its a whole new ballgame following HILLARY'S MASSIVE BLOWOUT/ROUT/DOMINANT VICTORY IN FLORIDA. EXPECT A HUGE BOUNCE!!

HILLMENTUM!!FEEL IT!!

As always, look to the quality of the posts from the H. Clinton supporters. They've got the wonderful "innocence" of grade school name calling. So do we want _that_ spirit in the White House? Even the Republicans are rejecting it, insofar as they can, moving to McCain over Romney. If that trend is larger than party - and it sure looks to be from people I talk with around here - we Democrats will be moving to Obama over Clinton. As one older white woman just told me, "The Clintons just lie too much." She'll vote for McCain if she has a chance, but for Obama if the choice is Romney. From the other side, I'll vote for Obama gladly, but for Hillary only if Romney's the threatened alternative. Honesty is more important that positioning on an imaginary spectrum.

From the CNN Web site:

Why Edwards never caught on

Nice. After a year of ignoring Edwards, and only bringing up the damn haircut when he was mentioned, CNN/Time have the unmitigated gall to post that headline.

hey frankly0, it's jesse. i'm disappointed you're so vehemently anti-obama. you're really overstating differences on issues. and i'm much more convinced of obama's integrity than i am of hillary's, and frankly any candidate's. but that's all subjective. let me tell you why obama is way more electable than clinton if we're facing mccain.

mccain has gotten cocky about his resurgence and squandered his national security bona fides by flying off the handle with war mongering sound bites. "staying in iraq for a hundred years," "there will be more wars," etc. either clinton or obama would have the advantage in security over mccain at this point.

obama would attract huge democratic, independent, and crossover republican turnout. the only thing that might have spoiled that would have been republican fear mongering about his inexperience, and like i said, mccain's largely ruined that for himself.

so you're down to generic democratic advantage on the economy and war, plus democrats' enthusiasm for obama and republicans' antipathy for mccain. it becomes a contrast of old vs new. obama beats mccain handily.

on the other hand, we all know that hillary would unite the republicans to come out and vote against her. the democrats would be revved up but not as much as they would be for obama.

hillary has *less* experience than mccain, so she loses what's been her primary selling point. and she wouldn't have obama's advantages of charisma, youth, representing change. basically she'd have no personal advantage over mccain beyond being a democrat. and she'd have plenty of disadvantages.

and as much as this sucks, the media hates her and adores obama - and we've all seen the effect that had on gore and kerry. a lot of democrats dislike her too - and forget about any crossover republicans. i've talked with quite a few republicans who say they'd consider obama, because they find him personally appealing, but they hate hillary's guts. and finally, independents love mccain but they seem to love obama more.

basically, i believe obama would trounce mccain, whereas clinton/mccain would be a very close contest that mccain would probably win. it might be different with romney, who has youth and the appearance of economic credibility, but lacks experience. clinton might be the best candidate against him. but right now it sure looks like we'll be facing mccain.

meanwhile obama inspires people, especially young people, and i'm extremely excited by the prospect of people getting inspired by politics. especially young people. clinton doesn't inspire people nearly as much. in fact, on several occasions she's actually played the rove strategy of discouraging turnout among groups that don't lean toward her.

our democracy desperately needs a blood transfusion. obama would provide that.

jesse

Well said Jesse, well said.

Clinton & Clinton is a gift to the Republicans. "Royal Presidencies" have got to stop and they are the establishment.

Obama is the candidate of real change.

I'm no fan of Maureen Dowd but I had to chuckle at this line ----

"She was impossible to miss in the sea of dark suits and Supreme Court dark robes. Like Scarlett O’Hara after a public humiliation, Hillary showed up at the gathering wearing a defiant shade of red."

Yes, and that same defiant spirit quite possibly moved her to seek a photo-op of shaking hands with Ted Kennedy after his public humiliation of her. That's my girl!!!

Jesse B,

About your claim of Obama being able to whip McCain ----

I agree with Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report. He called Clinton a stock with a low ceiling but a high floor. She's unlikely to go above 52% or below 47%. He called Obama a stock with potentially more growth but considerably more risk. He said that if someone asked him which candidate could win with more than 54% or lose with less than 45%, he would say Obama.

I think Obama is far, far more risky than many of his supporters are willing to consider. The reason is that they are turned on by him. What they do not understand is that many voters are not attracted and some are turned off by his style. As a Democrat who believes that America is still a bit on the conservative side (at least when it comes to style), I think the potentially unattracted portion is larger than the potentially attracted portion.

@ jesse: "hillary has *less* experience than mccain, so she loses what's been her primary selling point. and she wouldn't have obama's advantages of charisma, youth, representing change. basically she'd have no personal advantage over mccain beyond being a democrat. and she'd have plenty of disadvantages."

That's about as good a summation of the problem of HRC vs McCain as I've seen yet. Well said.

Ben T wrote on January 30, 2008 2:28 PM:

"this could be bad for the dems if Hillary is elected. minorities and young people are the two key demographics that they need to have turn out for the general election, and right not it seems obama is mobilizing/motivating both."

And what if the older people or Hispanics, who are consistently favoring Hillary, walk if Obama is nominated? If you don't think that is possible, maybe you've never heard of "Democrats for Nixon."

Lombard, HRC will NEVER--I repeat NEVER--go above 48-49% at best. Leading to a 2000-2004 election all over again, and a loss. Her negatives are already sky-high, especially in critical swing states.

By the time the GOP slime machine is done with her, and McCain makes her look like a dingbat, hoisting her on her own petard of trying and failing to be a Democratic "hawk," she'll be mincemeat.

Obama is the only chance to draw a sharp, appealing contrast with McCain. If the Dems are too dumb to realize it, they have only themselves to blame for another frustrating loss this November.

In response to Michael A's poll question:

I encourage anyone interested in accurate poll updates to always bow to the VOTEMASTER:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

There is simply no site better on the Internet for this kind of thing.

sam's right. hope is just residual effects from drug use. !!HILLMENTUM!! is coming to a state near you. don't inhale it!

Guy Fawkes,

Scream all you want to but you don't know any more than anyone else. You just have opinions that you mistake for certainty.

'You know, that place where they make those Girl Scout cookies.'

O RLY?

'That's about as good a summation of the problem of HRC vs McCain as I've seen yet. Well said.'

Iraq War: Dem > Rep
Economy: Dem > Rep
Healthcare: Dem > Rep
Environment: Dem > Rep

McCain goes down faster than the Hindenburg against any Dem in the GE.

Unless McCain suddenly drifts towards the center after the primaries, which would turn the republican base against him.

Romney or the Huckster have room to wiggle on certain issues, McCain has nowhere to go but further right.

Prediction for 2/5:

Hillary carries 22 state, Obama carries American Samoa.

she'd have no personal advantage over mccain beyond being a democrat. and she'd have plenty of disadvantages

Well, and those disadvantages are rather huge (You can bet there'll be a young woman wearing a beret and blue dress at every campaign rally for Hillary), so I tend to agree.

BUT, and this is big: If McCain overplays his hand, and the media helps him along by dumping all over Clinton, that is simply going to piss off a lot of women who might not have been all that thrilled about Clinton.

McCain is tone deaf in certain respects (1oo more years of Iraq! More wars! Bomb-Iran!) so I can see him not appreciating this, and the media has shown itself (most despicably in the more of Chris Matthews) to be perfectly capable of going over board.

And if the Clinton campaign were to release some of the crap that's floated about Hillary, that would be an advantage as well.

But I see this scenario as the only way Senator Clinton gets elected. Her negatives are not going down, and haven't, for months. And her name recognition, which is a huge advantage in the primaries, isn't going to increase in the general, so it's unlikely her unfavorable ratings are going to change.

Jesse B: Great summary of why HRC is kryponite for the Dems in a general election campaign vs. McCain.

Lombard: Obama's "style"? What exactly are you talking about when you say that "America is still a bit on the conservative side (at least when it comes to style)"?

"Style" = ?

I think Obama is far, far more risky than many of his supporters are willing to consider. The reason is that they are turned on by him. What they do not understand is that many voters are not attracted and some are turned off by his style. As a Democrat who believes that America is still a bit on the conservative side (at least when it comes to style)...

Your take is the exact opposite of the sentiment already being recorded among American Conservatives, with regard to Obama. In fact, Obama's style, while poetic, is almost British. His rhetoric soars, but his entire demeanor never strays. He is young. But he doesn't act young. Like I said, it's actually this style that seems to be drawing the interest of many conservative writers.

Cynic,

You CAN'T make a judgement based on one poll. I don't care how good the polling outfit is. All polls have random variation and polls often exhibit very temporary blips. A week ago, Rasmussen had a big one day negative change in Clinton support, but the margin was back up to its earlier levels the next day.

I'm willing to concede that there may be some slight movement to Obama after SC but, even if that is true, we don't have any substantial evidence to indicate that the movement is solid and significant enough to change the outcome of states much on Super Tuesday. We also don't know the impact yet of how and if Edwards supporters will change their. And, please don't tell me how they will, because you don't know. No one does.

Interesting detail - for Florida, women made up 59% of the Democratic vote, but only 44% of the Republican vote. Is there a large source of disaffected female Republican voters waiting in the back?

We Obama supporters have to be mindful that Hillary has CRUSHED him among women over age 50. I have heard moderate GOP women in this age group say they felt sorry for HRC in NH, and would have voted for her.

This is the one, and only, demographic where HRC can rightly claim she has some crossover appeal. Obama has crossover appeal in myriad demographics. But let's face it, women over 50 vote. They show up at the polls very reliably.

3 days before the NH primary the HRC campaign brought out this woman named Ann Lewis. Glasses, sweater, white, articulate, modest in demeanor. Well, go figure, HRC crushed Obama getting the votes of the "Ann Lewis's" of NH.

Do not forget that Obama has never won an election that his opponent didn't drop out of.

He was elected to the U.S. Senate after his opponent Jack Ryan was forced out because of unproven rumors of a sex scandal.

He was elected an Illinois State Senator after paying lawyers to force all other opponents off the ballot.

According to David Jackson in the Chicago Tribune:

“A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.”

Pete,

OK, I'll give the "style" characterization it a shot. Preachy sermons with lofty visions and hollow sounding words and little policy specifics. The defiant "great man" visage he wears on the stage giving the impression that he is way-to-serious about and taken with himself. The way he seems younger than his age and a little green in debates. The swooning of his enraptured supporters may not really grab conservative America either.

Now, you couple this with the GOP mantra of preaching socialist backed by Ted Kennedy and I'm not too confident that we have a winner.

Ken wrote on January 30, 2008 3:09 PM:

"Do not forget that Obama has never won an election that his opponent didn't drop out of."

And Hillary?

Willy, the american people. Poll after poll after poll has indicated that clinton is the most untrustworthy, by a large margin, of everyone running. Sorry to burst your bubble.

How's the gravel campaign going? He's trustworthy. Why aren't you ever pushing his candidacy? Did you give up on him?

'Poll after poll after poll has indicated that clinton is the most untrustworthy, by a large margin, of everyone running. Sorry to burst your bubble.'

Link?

Lombard:

Let me get this straight because I think we're all confused: you honestly think HRC is going to score above 49% in the general? Bill himself never scored 49% (and that was even including 1996's Elvis v. The Late Bob Dole match-up). Somehow I doubt Perot's numbers would have gone to Bubba. Please explain how this works otherwise.

What's the difference between Mark Penn and Karl Rove?

About 2 1/2 pounds.

I debated why I should bother, but I decided to throw you a bone willy.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/19/472887.aspx

'it was to make the case that every one who thinks a Democrat is just going CRUSH McCain in the fall better think again.'

Your concern is noted.

This 60s style grudge politics that Senator Obama is running is already older than it was in the seventies.. First the offended unwarranted victimization by the mean white man then the righteous rage justified by a liberal mantle of faux social justice. This is a code and grudge I get.

The Fla exit polls say it all.

So...now we know that the Clintons have tried to race bait, lie about their respective records, and suppress voter turnout in NV. Based on the way the polls and momentum are moving right now, what is their next desperate move? Maybe Sandy Burglar can help.

Jesse offers a very cogent analysis. As for Lombard's "high floor" argument for HRC, that may be true, but 47 or 48% equals a loss -- a close loss, granted -- but a loss nontheless. Unlike in horseshoes, close doesn't count in Presidential elections (see,e.g., 2000, 2004). So why not go with the democrat who has better upside and is less likely to rally the republican base? Also, for what it may be worth, my in-laws are both hard-core conservatives who NEVER vote democrat, yet both have expressed admiration for Obama. I don't think they would go so far as to vote for him, but I can see them not bothering to vote for McCain in an Obama-McCain matchup. On the other hand, you can bet they will be in line on election day half an hour before the polls open to vote against Hillary. I think it may speak to a dynamic worth considering for those who want to see and end to republican rule in the White House.

Manlius,

"Also, for what it may be worth, my in-laws are both hard-core conservatives who NEVER vote democrat, yet both have expressed admiration for Obama."

Of course, because he is battling the Hillary dragon. I'm sure you could have found many Americans expressing words of admiration for Stalin and the USSR during WWII. Once Germany was defeated, those sentiments evaporated quickly.

@Greg

Thanks.

Fox News poll? Feh.

As for the NH exit polling, a 3% difference is nothing to chirp about, IMO.

Any national data to back up the claim that a majority of voters find McCain more 'trustworthy' than Clinton?

As for the NH exit polling, a 3% difference is nothing to chirp about, IMO.

Agreed; I threw that in mostly because it popped up near the top of the Google list and it seemed marginally germane. I would take away from that poll that, among democrats, there is no real advantage on the "honest" front for either candidate.

those of you who cite Florida as a barometer for hilarys success are about as pathetic as the clintons themselves. Its pretty impressive to win a state in which you were the only candidate campaigning...not to mention the fact that she signed a pledge saying she would not. I guess that no promises made before bill screwed up in south Carolina matter to the Clinton campaign. The establishment of the democratic party has spoken and the clintons need to let their dynasty dreams go

@Greg

Agreed.

My basic point is, I highly doubt a Dem candidate loses to a Rep this cycle, all things considered.

Something monumental would have to happen for a Dem to eff this up. Clinton OR Obama.

Once it becomes a matter of 'issues' and not 'personality', it's GAME OVER for McCain.

Now, Chris Matthews will spend an endless amount of time trumping up McCain's BS 'Straight Talk Express', but any close examination of McCain's history of flip-flopping on various issues leaves him vulnerable in the GE.

Dear Lombard,

I cited a survey that asked about voters' perceptions of candidates vis-a-vis "honest and trustworthy." You may parse the word "trustworthy" as you please, but I dare say that most competant Anglophones know what it means as well as you do. They answered the question in the ways I described. Blame them, not me, if they fail to conform themselves to your own prefered sense of the word "trustworthy."

As such, when you responded to Anonymous' contention that the "Clintons are regarded as less trustworthy than McCain" by saying that "so would be Obama," I really do not see how it is a "misrepresentation" of your rebuttal to point out that when voters are asked whom they consider to be "honest and trustworthy" McCain and Obama score a tie, while Clinton loses to McCain. Your point is not borne out by the data.

Once it becomes a matter of 'issues' and not 'personality', it's GAME OVER for McCain.

From your lips to God's ears. That said, I think that it is rather willfully naive to suppose that the real meat of the campaign ever will move from personality to issues. You are dealing with an electorate made up of human beings, not angels or Vulcans. I think that the results in November will not be nearly the cake walk which you predict, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

"Multifaceted Double Happiness..."

Huh? What does this even mean, in plain English? :-/

heh: Seems like it played pretty well in Topeka already.

seems like there are operatives here for their candidates that are playing it up.

too bad you fail to see Obama's blind spot and believe me it s not escaping the Republicans who are eager to throw in the kitchen sink to keep a Republican and the US in Iraq for eons while it takes down the country.
Hillary has nothing left for them to dig up, thats why the tradmed is propping up Obama. Women and Latinos deliver for her.

Oh and by the way Lombard....

The Pubs weren't the only ones who put blame on Iraq for 9/11.

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that Hil-dawg indeed authorized the War in Iraq.

Oh and just in case that's been "misinterpreted," she also voted in favor of giving Bush some room to move in Iran.

Is that a false statement too lombard?

i'd sure stay anonymous if i was using words like "hillmentum"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-in-2001-r.html

Re: link above, BFD. So he made a mistake. The great thing about Obama is that he won't strain to triangulate and try to have it all ways. He'll say he made a mistake. Bottom line is that he was against the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war and Hillary wasn't. Moreover, he voted against Kyl/Lieberman and Hillary didn't. I think Kennedy, Edwards, Nelson, Gore, etc. all carry a bit more weight than the shrill opportunistic and divisive Senator from New York does these days.

Hillaryland seems to be getting very desperate these days. I wonder if Sidney is going to get another DUI and Penn is going collapse in his corned beef.

Hey Anon - look at the trendlines Josh points out on page 1. Nice spin...but I'm afraid people have had it with your candidate. What has been most interesting is that as the going has gotten tougher, her true personality has come out. You know the one...the one responsible for all of those high negatives. She is not only divisive, she just can't keep her cool under pressure. Great qualities for, uh, Senator.

So he made a mistake.

Was it really a mistake? It is not obvious to me that Rumsfeld was outside the mainstream at that point. That quote was pre-Sept 11, pre-Axis of Evil, pre-"Mission accomplished," etc. I do not recall that the Bush administration was really that loopy foreign policy-wise until 9-11. He was still pushing the "humble" foreign policy then.

On polls, 2 words NEW HAMPSHIRE!

I'm sorry, but when did stating historical facts - like Jesse Jackson's wins in SC or M.L.K.'s ultimate dependence on L.B.J. for passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts - become some form of race baiting? Could it have been when the press decided it would make an interesting "narrative" to imply that the Clintons are racists or at the very least horribly manipulative of this country's racial divide?

Assuming the reader is NOT a Barama supporter (and even if you are), you might be interested in the following web page:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

It's a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site - titled "Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake" - which is pretty revealing. The reporters' second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered "no" at the time, but didn't he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday's SC debate? I guess my concern is that his "mistake" conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he's certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $44,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.

There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they've probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn't see any real estate docs in Hillary's hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama's Chicago mansion in living color. Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4192372&page=1

There is also a hard-hitting text article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1 - yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I'm afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama's lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko "mistake") because they don't want to be shut out of future interviews if he's the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We've had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don't want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!

'That said, I think that it is rather willfully naive to suppose that the real meat of the campaign ever will move from personality to issues.'

That's what debates are for.

McCain will go the way of Dole is my prediction.

'willfully naive'

Feh.

That's what debates are for.

Kerry ran circles around Bush in the debates, but lost nonetheless. I am not discounting the importance of substantial issues in voter decisions, but I think that you are making more of them than is realistic. More than a few votes will be decided based on largely frivolous reasons.

willyjsimmons: "That's what debates are for."

Ahahhhahahahahahahahaah!

Gore and Kerry both won their debates against Bush, according to most objective observers.

Yes, "wilfully naive" is just perfect for you.

ROFL!!!!!!

Anyone notice how many times the Clintonites use the term "silly"? Aren't they just so silly, particularly when Bill claims to have been against the war from the beginning and Shrillary claims that Obama hasn't been clear? C'mon guys. Stop being so silly.

Was Iraq really a mistake?

Definitely. That is part of the reason I support Obama. That said, Sen Obama's characterization of Sec Rumsfeld as "mainstream" in the pre-war, pre-9/11 era strikes me as about right. Rumsfeld was not pushing for anything especially crazy in Jan of 2001. At that time he was notably interested in 1) a smaller, more technology-dependant military and 2) a missile defense shield. Neither of these were especially fringe opinions. He was not pushing for an invasion of Iraq, for instance, at that time. I do not see how Obama was wrong to describe Rumsfeld as not "out of the mainstream of American political life" in Jan 2001.

How can anyone take the Clintons seriously these days? Wouldn't Obama's fellow Senators know best about how he would govern, whether he is honest (a virtue obviously not espoused by the Clintons), and whether he has the leadership capabilities to be Pres? How many of them have now come out in support of Obama? C'mon folks. If Bill can lose as much credibility as he has, what do you think people really think of Hillary? He was/is her best asset.

What I can't take seriously is ANY Clinton supporter voicing concern about Obama's "integrity."

Give me a freakin' break. I voted for Bill twice, but the Clintons reek to high heaven of corruption and scandal--with more on the way re: the Presidential Library, and rumors of post-Monica affairs possibly surfacing as well. God help us if HRC is the nominee! I'll vote for her, but how on earth can she beat McCain?

Hey anna-

Hilary voted for Rice as well as voted for Rumsfeld.

So, if the question you keep asking Obama supporters were turned around on you...how exactly would you explain it?

joyce, that feeling is what's known as !!!HILLMENTUM™!!! FEEL IT!!

there are hundreds of polls out there ......you can cherry pick and find one that suits your opinion......TPM likes obama so they pick this poll,,,,if you like HRC usa/gallop has her ahead by 23

Don't just talk Obama. Take a few minutes today to support him!

We're asking for your contributions!
http://donate.barackobama.com
Anything you can afford is appreciated!

We also need more volunteers to go for victory on Super Tuesday and get out the vote!

Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/statepages , click on your state, and find out what events are going on near you. Or click on the "visit our ____ headquarters" links on the right side of the page to find the headquarters nearest you. There are many, many new ones all throughout the United States, so there's probably one near you. They need people on the phones, and you can even find out how to make calls from home or reach out to your neighbors and encourage them to get involved.

The time for talk is over. The time for victory is soon. Be a part of it!

I live in NYC and was freezing my butt off tonight, holding up Obama signs and leaflets with about 20 other volunteers at 110th and Broadway. Man has the Upper West Side turned into Obama territory !

Also, several Edwards supporters came up to us and said they would now be voting for Obama. We didn't get any Edwards people going for Clinton.

I think Clinton is going to be in for a shock when she sees how many people in Manhattan are going over toward Obama. Brooklyn too. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he beats her in the city.

"Payback" is either a Republican or Clinton supporter and racist, attempting to raise the spectre (God help us!) of an Obama admin filled with "those people." What IS it with the undisguised racism emanating from this gang? I want to think this is all coming from freeper trolls, but difficult to imagine that it really is...

Boy, I thought I saw some wicked hatred in 2003/04 from some folks in the Democratic blogosphere during the primaries, but nothing to equal the venom I've seen coming from the HRC camp this time around. Again--I'll vote for her as the nominee, but I won't give a dime to the campaign...and I hope to God she's NOT the nominee.

What scares me most is hearing people saying, “What does Obama stand for?”. These are the same folk who watch a snapshot of a stomp speech and beg for specifics. All of the candidates have websites. Take the time to read what they plan on doing. Let me help you: (www.johnedwards.com; www.hillaryclinton.com; www.barackobama.com; )
As an African American, I am not afraid of Obama, nor am I afraid of Clinton. Here's why I am no longer supporter of the Clinton's, and why I will be voting for Obama on Feb 5th.
Let's examine the legacy of the Clinton’s (since both are running). Monica Lewinsky! Remember that. It destroyed the Democratic Party. How? It gave birth to George W. Bush (the worst president of my lifetime); for 8 years he ran the country in the ground). I say this as a former supporter of the Clinton's. (until 2005). Ask Clinton why he did it. His response, (read the record)
"I DID IT BECAUSE I COULD." It’s like asking a kid why he or she hit someone, and you hear the “I Don’t Know” response.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/eveningnews/main623570.shtml). It cost Clinton his name and put his marriage on the rocks; what did it cost the nation and the world? 1) Iraq; 2) a large deficit, 3) the Katrina debacle, 4) Dafur/Kenya, 5) The Senate 6) The Supreme Court...the list goes on. We need a change!
There is no distortion here, complete and factual. The sad thing is no one wants to talk about the repercussions of the Clinton's behavior in the White House, on the nation and world.

I'm so old that I remember when this blog was truly progressive and not an extension of the MSM.

Just curious, Do you all really hate her because she's a powerful woman and you're scared of those creatures?

The trend is clearly in Obama's favor. Obama just needs to make it fairly close on Super Tuesday to be able to claim (and have) a victory.
Democrats have to look at whether Clinton has actually expanded her support as she campaigns. The answer is she has not and has a low ceiling, and Clinton is not gaining support the more people know about her. This should make many pause when thinking about the General election.
Obama just needs to make it close in California for the walls to crumble and the party establishment to see that she is not viable. I do not agree with those that say 50+1 in delegates is enough. If the Super Delegates think it si so divided and Clinton needs them to get her the win, they will not be inclined as it will be clearly a weak victor over an insurgent candidate. In that case they will choose the insurgent who has proven to have momentum despite less institutional support.
The incumbent party establishment leader needs to be able to win and win big fairly convincingly this late i the process. And the more the race drags on the weaker Clinton will be in the eyes of the general public(Independents), the Democratic Party supporters, and the Democratic leadership.

It's great to see America taking such a powerful stand for change. We truly need to move away from the old school devisive politics and backstabbing that have become status quo.

Seeing 10,000 plus Americans at each of Obamas rallies excited and motivated to be involved is monumentally exciting.

Let's keep up the good work. We can do this!

Obama in 08!

The cult of personality that is the Obama campaign is wild. The media has given a complete pass to Obama - a gifted individual and excellent strategist, but has a razor thin resume and performs terribly in the debates. The media is gushing over him. The Republicans will not be so enamored. Doesn't it matter to anyone that Obama has accomplished next to nothing as a state Senator or US Senator? Suddenly he will then implement systemic change?

John Edwards was the only candidate talking about the two Americas and our moral obligation to do something about the growing underclass in our country. One of the reasons Edwards did not catch on is beacsue folks do not want to admit that most of the middle class now have more in common with the poor than they do with the rich. Now it is just the desperate scramble to be one of the us and not them - the poor. This is the same reasosn millions of lower to middle class Americans vote against their own self interest- let's repeal the "death Tax" - just in case I win the lottery and beome a millionaire.It is too bad that Obama has abandoned his grassroots organizer roots and stopped talking about the poor and disenfranchised.

Let's see past the propaganda. Obama is just another politician - for example, Obama is playing both sides of the immigration issue - pushing enforecement to appeal to moderates and those who fear immigrants, and on the Spanish language channels promising driver's licesense for undocumented persons. Which is it? He was aganist the war from the start, but since arriving in the Senate has voted to fund the war every time. Now he, along with the other candiates, will not even commit to getting out of Iraq nine yers from now! At least Kucinich put his money where his mouth is on the war.

Big crowds at rallies? Are we serious? Is this how we are making decisions-based on pep rallies?

Iowagirl: clearly you have not read his policy releases and papers or seen the record of bills he has sponsored. Give me 11 years of Obama's service as a legislator against Hillary's six years any day.

Welcome to the fantasy anti war league. Your leader Senator Obama from Illinois. When it did not matter, he was against the war, when it did, he voted like everyone else.

Yes, folks, you never have to take a risk. All you do is give a speech (which you can take down from your website), then you can claim in sound bites that you were right about the war. That you have great judgement (but not in real estate deals with slumlords).

The inspirational leader could have lead anti war marches with his inspirational speeches? He could have led hunger strikes? He could have voted against the war when he was in the Senate. But, he did not, that is what makes him great. He does not do things the old way, he does it in his fantasy world.

Tell your other fantasy anti war players in the blogosphere. You get to rant, rave and oppose but never risk losing your standing at college, never lose the money from mom and dad, never go out in the cold, never have to stand around old fat hippies, never have to walk away from your fantasy girlfriend.

Yes, you can be a Junior Senator Obama.

Still, when it comes to voting, you vote just like everyone else. But remember in your fantasy world, you were against the war. Dude...awesome.

Stellaa, you piece of shit your comments offended me.

I was a soldier serving in Iraq in 2005, imagine Sen.Obama and other senators did not pass the funding bills, I would've died because I'd have no armor, no good food rations, and no decent place to stay at the least.

If a war has been started, the congress must pass funding bills to keep the soldiers protected, You IDIOTS appearantly think otherwise.

Us soldiers are fighting and dying in Wars to defend people like you, so you can live your life and say STUPID shit such as this.