Poll: McCain, Hillary Gain Sizable National Leads
New poll numbers just released by USA Today/Gallup find that John McCain has taken a sizable national lead over second-place Mike Huckabee -- a suggestion that his New Hampshire victory, combined with all the media talk about his comeback, have provided him with a big national lift:
Republicans:McCain: 33%, up from 19% a week ago.
Mike Huckabee: 19%, down from 25%.
Rudy Giuliani: 13%; down from 20%.
Mitt Romney: 11%; up from 9%.
Fred Thompson: 9%; down from 12%.
Rep. Ron Paul: 3%; down from 4%.
Meanwhile, the poll also finds that Hillary has jumped 12 points to regain a national lead comparable to the one she enjoyed in some polls before her Iowa loss:
Democrats:Clinton: 45%; up from 33%.
Obama: 33%, unchanged.
John Edwards: 13%; down from 20%.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: 1%; down from 3%.















McCain does not have the temperament to be president. He already knows everything he wants to know. He may be even more inflexible than Bush.
We need a person aho can talk to people he disagrees with, who can multi-task, who can listen to advice.
Listen to him - he talks about himself, mostly. He has good qualities but not for the presidency.
By now it is clear that the president is NOT a CEO. It is a different sort of job altogether.
January 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill n Hill - the Babbling Bickersons
Durbin Warns Bill Clinton
January 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Analysis:
Americans like a winner. Especially when said Americans are on the fence, and haven't decided yet.
Americans also like underdogs, in some fashion. Find a way to bring those two (pretty much mutually exclusive) desires together, and you have victory. Every time.
I also except these numbers to change after pretty much every primary/caucus. If Obama wins NV/SC, then what'll the polls say?
I am one of those who still puts their faith in polls. At least as an accurate picture of the electorate at the time the poll was taken.
January 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what I was thinking as I read the above post. I am sure that this poll really does reflect the thinking of actually American voters at this time, but I would not bet on anything staying the same once results come in from NV and SC.
January 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that every possible thing regarding race is being played up and over-interpreted---it does not matter whether it makes the Clintons look good or bad---it helps them either way---but SEX-----even when it is from an easily documented meet the press transcript with a FEMALE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI is taboo to mention or discuss?
Claire mcCaskill is not part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
McCaskill to Endorse Obama, Might Have Something to Do with '06 Comment
By Antonio D. French Filed Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 8:53 AM
The AP is reporting that Senator Claire McCaskill is going to endorse Barack Obama for President today.
McCaskill has praised Obama often and was widely believed to favor the Illinois senator over Clinton. But the Senate freshman had resisted openly supporting a candidate until now, saying she wanted to preserve working relationships with Senate colleagues.
She said last week that she identifies with the desire for change that Obama supporters have reported to pollsters.
One factor in McCaskill's endorsement may have been that her relationship with Hillary Clinton has been a bit shaky dating back to when McCaskill was running for the senate in 2006.
During an appearance that year on NBC's "Meet the Press", McCaskill said she didn't want former President Bill Clinton, who had previously appeared at a rally for McCaskill in St. Louis, anywhere near her daughter. PubDef.net learned that the next day a fundraiser the Clintons had scheduled for McCaskill in New York was canceled.
Here's the transcript from that October 8, 2006 show:
MR. RUSSERT: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?
MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think—I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...
MR. RUSSERT: But do you...
MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, “I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”
MR. RUSSERT: You said that, according to New Yorker magazine, that you don’t think Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee because she couldn’t win Democrats in Missouri. True?
MS. McCASKILL: Well, you know, honestly, the presidential politics is going to get very intense and very, frankly, there’s going to be a lot of back and forth after November. I don’t want to get into presidential politics today.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you like to see her president?
MS. McCASKILL: You know, I, I, I think any Democratic nominee is going to be better than this president
January 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are lies, damn lies and polls.
January 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well either race-baiting, lying about your opponent's positions and playing the victim to the media work very well, or this poll is about as unreliable as all the others.
January 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
An oral history of the Clintons:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3185449.ece
January 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, as usual we agree.
BTW, "accept," not "except." I guess my Evidence prof threw my brain out of whack today. Not surprising, really.
January 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry....it's like the Borg. Repeat after me.....Clinton/Obama 08.
January 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if a McCain/Huckabee ticket is a possibility. Besides respecting each other, their political strengths are complementary. Huckabee could get McCain in good with the Christian coalition and McCain has the foreign policy creds that Huckabee clearly lacks. I'm sure Huckabee isn't thinking that way yet, but it would be a tough ticket for the Dems to beat.
January 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very funny that when the Wapo/ABC poll yesterday showed that BO had made a sizable inroad into HRC's lead, the TPM headline did not make such a claim. However with this poll, I see HRC's sizable lead headline.
January 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A calm is settling over me ... I'm 56, I despise the GOP and thought surely, until last Tuesday, we would nominate the best person to win in November. But now ... it seems God is indeed a Republican, as everything slowly falls into place for a Hillary-McCain matchup, one we will surely lose after a nightmarish flailing by the Clintons to preserve themselves. And I'm making my peace with it. 4-8 more years of the GOP will be a horrible disaster, one of our own making (thanks again, NH women). Yet at the very least, the Clinton era will be over and someday, people younger than I will be able to see our party evolve and prevail. I have no power, as one person, to change what's coming in the general election, and I dont want to die from campaign stress. So I'm just going to accept President McCain and hope for the best.
January 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donald-
I suspect you are right with McCain/Huckabee. Eerily reminiscent of Bush/Quayle?
As for Clinton/Obama- No way in hell. Hillary already knows who she wants her Veep to be, and it sure as hell isn't her challenger (nor anyone else who is not currently openly supporting her candidacy).
Of course, I'd like the unity candidacy, and it sure would look good on the cover of Time, maybe. Especially when juxtaposed against two aged white men.
Crazier things have happened. But I don't foresee that this go around. Look who Bill picked in 1992- A southern, young, senator, much like himself in many ways.
Ms. Feinstein, anyone? Or, most likely, Mr. Bayh, I am sure. He's almost a southerner....
January 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's simple. Murdoch and big media make up some fake polls where the business [read: wealth] candidates win and those favoring the poor lose. It publishes thes polls like there's no tomorrow.
This gives those favoring other candidates the impression their candidate is a loser. Some then change their votes, and the poll is self-fulfilling. Don't fall for it. Vote your concience.
January 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCaskill is not a memeber of the vast right wing conspiracy, but neither is she an anti-establishment Dem. When speaking about her endorsement of Obama, she said she is a centrist and usually finds Obama right there with her. I don't think all of these endorsements are helping Obama, since they are all coming from mainstream centrist Dems that won't fight Bush and the Republican Senate. Kerry likes to think of himself as a firebrand, but c'mon, really? Obama does not fight the establishment in Washington by getting endorsements like these. I believe they are a practical organizational help in the state primaries, but do not help his image nationwide.
January 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go on record with my prediction of Hillary's VP pick, since we may never know the answer: Wes Clark.
January 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I don't understand why Hillary Clinton pulled the rug out from under McCaskill in 2006 after she made the gratuitous comment about Bill, do you?
What kind of classless, ungrateful jerk would tender such an insult to a former President and, by extension, a US Senator in the face of the fact that they were already helping her campaign with public appearances and a fundraiser? Did she really think her daughter was in "danger" or was this her idea of a cheap laugh.
Maybe if she meets Nancy Reagan sometime, she can say to her "You know, Nancy, he was a great President, but I wouldn't want my Nicaraguan maid to meet him."
Haha. What a riot!
Well, I guess Hillary just might have to struggle along without the mighty McCaskill endorsement which I'm sure she coveted hotly.
January 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe the Dems are about to squander this election. McCain vs. Clinton is a dream matchup for the GOP and probably the only conceivable matchup they can possibly win.
January 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what little my opinion is worth, I do not think that it has anything at all to do with that "'06 comment." Rather, Sen McCaskill knows that Missouri has a governor's election this go around and does not want to see Jay Nixon (D) get trounced by Matt Blunt (R - think 'GW Bush on a smaller scale') because Clinton's name on the ticket brings every knuckle-walking troglodyte out of the caves of southern and central Missouri to vote against Clinton (and for Blunt while they are at it). It is the same reason that Gov Napolitano, Sen Nelson, Sen Johnson, Sen Daschle, Dr Millin, Gov Kaine and a host of other red-state democrats are endorsing Sen Obama. They know how costly a Clinton nomination would prove to the larger democratic party.
January 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's right colonpowwow, McCaskill must be sexist if she says anything against clinton. Or, maybe she's a commie, or a pinko, but at a minimum she is unamerican. Of course, she is not allowed to have any opinion that goes against the clinton personality cult.
January 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re Brian at comment 1;
You're right; the country needs something other than a CEO Prez. But was well established well before 2000 that the current occupant wasn't any good as a CEO either. If the likes of Bonzo Jr. and the '08 crop are the best they can do, the Republicans should rightly and soon follow the Whigs and the Know-nothings into richly deserved oblivion.
January 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure they could win a McCain-Obama matchup too by playing up the military experience angle. Hillary did her best to prepare for the possiblity of running someday by using her Senate years to educate herself in military affairs. She has a slight edge on Obama in that area.
January 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nick:
The ADA rates Senators on their voting on progressive issues in the Senate.
Here are their ratings on the top three Democrats lifetime:
John Edwards (6 years) 78%
Barack Obama (1 year) 95%
Hillary Clinton (7 years) 95%
Nick - could you tell me which Republican can even match the mediocre voting record of John Edwards on progressive issues?
Let me know and I'll be happy, like you apparently are, to consider him/her.
When are some Democrats going to stop swallowing discredited, rightwing lies about the Clintons and start working to support all progressive Democrats running today, like nearly all (if not all) of us Clinton supporters have promised to do?
Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, even (ugh) Edwards. If one of these fine Democrats win, us fellow Democrats are going to work our donkeys off to elect him/her.
January 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A.
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 2:27 PM:
"Oh, that's right colonpowwow, McCaskill must be sexist if she says anything against clinton. Or, maybe she's a commie, or a pinko, but at a minimum she is unamerican. Of course, she is not allowed to have any opinion that goes against the clinton personality cult."
Uh, Michael. Where did I call McCaskill any of these things? I must have missed it. Thanks to your deep insights and understandings, you are able to point out what I must have said between the lines.
What's wrong with me anyhow?
BTW Michael, (I'll write this next part real slow so even you'll understand it) -that's a joke. I already know what's wrong with me IYHO.
January 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, colonpowwow---I can tell you that i am finding it easier to accept hillary now that Bill has been reminding me that it was his behavior so much more than hers which was offensive. His race baiting brings back the memories of the execution of Ricky Rector, and the contrived thing with minor rap singer Sister Soljah. It is not fair to saddle her with the blame for the---what was your phrase----classless (ungrateful) jerk that is her husband. I would change the ungrateful part to----rapist.
If she loses, she divorces him. If she wins---she might have to, anyway.
January 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly. I could hardly discount the prospect. That said, they could play that same angle just as effectively against Sen Clinton and I dare say that Sen Clinton's "edge" on this issue is not even "slight." When they pull out the shots of former POWs endorsing McCain and the pictures of him after his release, even a "slight" edge would disappear entirely. This is just not a good field of battle for any democrat, so it is rather beside the point to mention it, for whatever my opinion is worth.
January 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are some Democrats going to stop swallowing discredited, rightwing lies about the Clintons and start working to support all progressive Democrats running today, like nearly all (if not all) of us Clinton supporters have promised to do?
For me, the problem is not Democrats swallowing the lies, it's the average Joe who really doesn't care about politics, and just wants to vote for the guy/gal that makes them feel good. Lots of people don't like Hillary Clinton because they really aren't into politics, and they believe everything our media tell them. There are a lot of people out there who just don't like Hillary and will vote for McCain. I believe the whole "impeach Clinton" was part of the Republican strategy to make Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, look weak and without morals -- and ruin our party's chances for a generation. Someday, people are going to wake up and see the error of their ways.
January 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect we will see these numbers back and forth from now until the primaries are over, especially if Edwards stays in the race. In the general election, I can't see either Obama or Clinton losing to anyone the Republicans trot out. It'll be like Clinton-Dole in '96.
January 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The change in the poll shows movement from from edwards to clinton, defying the logic that obama and edwards split the same voter pool.
January 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
ColonPow: I honestly don't give a shit about ADA ratings. And we can "work" all we want. McCain will crush Hillary and anyone who's honest to themselves will admit it. Presidential elections have little to do with 'issues.' They are about personality/likability (she has neither) press coverage (they despise her and worship him) and perceptions of honesty ('nuf said). Edwards would have a shot but has none at the nomination; Obama can win men and independents, blunting McCain's strength. Hillary? Please.
January 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick, someone ask how all those leads in national polls worked out for him? Not to discount Hillary's strength, but she's a long, long way from the nomination. My gut says we'll see many more twists and turns in this thing before it's over. Maybe Edwards wins Nevada, or Obama wins Nevada and SC, or Hillary and Obama split the two. Then what? Fact is, I'll support whoever gets the nomination. I did so wholeheartedly in 2004, and all three Dems are much, much better than him. I get to cast a vote on Feb. 5 (go Obama!). In the interim, I might need a break. What's on boingboing today?
January 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you are probably right about that. It is impossible to strategically pick a candidate based on likely Republican opponent - especially since they are doing the same thing on the other side.
January 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
kjoe:
If it wasn't for the part abour your defending Sister Soljah, I'd think you'd just accidently wandered onto this site while looking for RedState.
Yes. Bill Clinton's a rapist. And Hillary murdered Vince Foster. Can I be on your side now?
You do remember some of the things SS said at the time, don't you?
January 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nick wrote on January 14, 2008 2:46 PM:
"ColonPow: I honestly don't give a shit about ADA ratings."
Equally well-thought-out and put, Nick.
Can you show me where Senator Obama did so much better than Hillary did in the head-to-head polling matchups with McCain nationally and state by state? I think I missed them.
Actually, Edwards did the best I think. But I don't like him so much so I don't give a shit about it.
January 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably irrelevant, but my workplace is vastly Republican majority. You know what all the politcal smalltalk is always about? The Democratic primaries. They don't even want to talk about their own guys - don't like any of them. I think they secretly like Clinton and Obama. Well, maybe Obama.
January 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that Obama's numbers don't move much (and I think that was the case with the NH polls), but that Hillary's jump around along with Edwards.
Not sure why that would be the case. Perhaps Krugman's case that Obama is to the right of the other two is something people are considering (though I don't think his column today was persuasive he was better on the health care issue).
January 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, Hillary Clinton proves that the democrats have balls. Her race baiting was perfect if that is what led to her comeback in NH.
And I am African American.
January 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know anything about any murder regarding Vince Foster.
Sister Soljah was not worth defending--which made the contrived episode so easy for Bill.
January 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"start working to support all progressive Democrats running today, like nearly all (if not all) of us Clinton supporters have promised to do?"
Oh, shut up. It's a primary, for God's sake. And, apropos Claire McCaskil,, I don't want that moderate Republican Bill Clinton anywhere near the Democratic nomination.
BTW, do you see how Bill's getting as much, if not more, press than his wife these days? She clearly can't stand on her own.
Maybe Michelle Obama should come out and talk about how Bill's philandering ruined any hopes of having a Democratic majority in Congress to fight back against the Bush insanity.
January 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
kjoe:
You don't know that Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Why, it's as commonplace knowlege as Bill's career as a rapist!
If you're going to come on here and rant discredited rightwing talking points (now that Falwell is in heaven and there's an opening), please get them straight.
Report at once to Karl Rove for "re-grooving."
January 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people have mixed feelings on Obama's preference for conciliation rather than fighting. Barney Frank had a great op-ed last week about the fights of the 90's. There was no conciliation with DeLay and Gingrich - they supoenaed Socks the cat, for gods sake.
Bottom line is that many people are genuinely undecided at this point, which is fine.
January 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a resident of MO, McCaskill's endorsement is no plus for Obama at least for me. Her voting record on Iraq and FISA is atrocious.
January 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this Hillary-Obama race baiting crap back and forth is being done for one reason -- to marginalize Edwards.
Hillary wants Edwards out of the race because she thinks she'll pick up more of his voters. And she's probably right.
Obama is happy to have this as a two person race because Hillary's negatives are so high.
And apparently Greg is happy to play along. Has anyone mentioned Edwards, at all, since NH?
January 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Greg and Eric? Not an accusation of bias or even an insinuation of same, just a plea for more info from someone too lazy to go dig it up himself.
Could I ask that you guys please state in the lede of stories about polls whether its a poll of likely voters (LV), registered voters (RV) or the population overall? Even with that data, I'm having a lot of trouble making sense of Gallup, ABC/WaPo, CBS/NYT and the Rasmussen daily and weekly numbers. Two of those polls say the race is close to tied, and the other two say it ain't even close.
Without it, however, I don't see how anyone can make any sense of this stuff at all.
Thanks. I now return to our regularly scheduled programming of unhinged partisan ranting.
January 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
brewmn:
As ridiculous as you usually are, I find that I agree with you re Bill's philandering being a bad thing. You know, I think most Democrats (led by your chief spokesbiddie, Joe Lieberman) were dismayed at the time that happened (what was it 10-12 years ago now?).
Oh, by the way, I was also dismayed by the fact that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000 due in no small part to the progressiver-than-thous who apparently are zeroing in on the Clintons this year. Oh well, Gingrich-politics-as-usual for you I guess.
Isn't it amazing how styles go around?
January 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insofar as endorsements have seldom had a measurable impact on election outcomes (Gore endorsing Dean did not save him, etc), your logic (and that of the endorsers) appears to me to be flawed because they think that they have the power to affect election outcomes. Clinton will be on the ballot in November regardless, so what would the endorsers do then?
Hillary/Wes Clark '08!
January 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be a McCain-Lieberman administration -- looks like we'll get that war with Iran after all.
Thanks much to HRC (who will be massacred in the general if she is up against that ticket).
January 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comments have fascinating insights into polling methods, and the tiny differences between the candidates on the issues and their personalities. Obviously a lot of people, including many Democrats, hate Hillary Clinton and many people love her. I admire and respect her, myself. But to me, the fact remains that if the Republicans nominate McCain or Huckabee, THEY WILL RETAIN THE PRESIDENCY. All of the liberal and moderate judges on the Supreme Court will either die or retire over the next eight years and if we don't capture the white house this time, I predict that there will be no democracy and very little else of value left to compete about by 2016. This one matters! We should thank Hillary, sincerely, for her valiant campaign but we MUST NOT NOMINATE HER!
January 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats pick Obama as their nominee, it's all over. The next president WILL be a Republican. And it doesn't even matter which Republican is running.
The GOP has to be giddy at the prospect of an Obama candidacy. They're going to expose him as a phony and as a person thoroughly unsuitable to be president. It won't be pretty.
January 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my defense, I would plead that this is not really my logic, it is Sen McCaskill's logic. I agree that her endorsement (like all of those other endorsements) will do little to help Obama win. That said, you cannot blame her for trying every little bit she can. She does not want to have to run for re-election in four years with Clinton's name on the ballot above hers. She does not want Jay Nixon to have to run against Matt Blunt in a few months with Clinton's name above his. No democrat in MO wants 4 more years of Blunt or a possible return of Jim Talent, both of which become far more likely with Sen Clinton at the top of our ticket.
I say this as a man who agrees with MO Blue above - I strongly dislike Sen McCaskill and had to hold my nose to vote for her last time. Her endorsement does not make me think any more highly of Sen Obama than I already did (although I suppose that the fact that she endorsed Obama makes me think slightly better of her). Sen McCaskill is completely correct, however, if she supposes that Sen Obama's candidacy would do a lot less harm to our party in this state than would Sen Clinton's.
January 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve,
I plead guilty to occassional sloppiness not to unhinged ranting.
In view of several of the above comments, some people have trouble with the cognitive dissonance involved recognizing that one can be a stellar politician while lacking sexual probity: Roosevelt, Kennedy and MLK come to mind.
January 14, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be McCain-Lieberman and it will be a tough ticket to beat, as much as it pains me to say that. It will be the greatest media whore ticket of all time....
January 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't believe I'm saying this but count me in for Bloomberg or McCain in November if things turn out like this, regardless of who Obama or Edwards endorses. After witnessing what has just transpired, if Hillary gets it, I can no longer vote Democratic this year. She is no leader. She does not have the experience she proffers. She's a phony. And she will not win.
January 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnout is what wins elections.....if we want to win it this time....someone has to let loose. Clinton/Obama 08. The Dems can blow this away if they are smart.
January 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard for me to believe Obama supporters would really go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee. You really think she would be less likely to get out of Iraq than McCain, or as conservative in appointing judges? There is more at stake here than campaign tactics you don't like.
January 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're going to ignore polls and say they were wrong if the election comes out differently, then why bother to report on polls?
January 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, forgot the close tag in my ire about a McCain-Lieberman admin. The below is me, not William G.
And there we go. Dems are so angered by the events of this last weekend -- and events to come -- that the more moderate among them go McCain and the more disaffected stay home. The choice of Lieberman assuages the evangelicals, who are also motivated to come out by their hatred of HRC. The Repub establishment gets behind McCain because they have to. etc. The narrative essentially writes itself. Or, I should say, has already been written.
January 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it is worth. I friend of my mother's who
voted for Bush but is now a Democrat and a strong
supporter of Hillary's was at a luncheon in Denver.
Two Republican women strongly asserted that
Obama was an Al Qaeda plant.
January 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Dawn, re: Wes Clark as Clinton's VP pick - I have been thinking the same thing.
There's no way she'd pick Feinstein, it's too risky and problematic on many levels, and would not in the least help her in swing states.
Other options:
Evan Bayh
Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
January 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooops, meant to say:
Evan Bayh
Mark Warner
Bill Richardson
@Daniel Greenbaum - my mom (life-long, true-blue Dem) told me that my step-dad (arch-conservative but other than that a great guy) received one of those chain emails from his brother stating that Obama was really a Muslim, had taken his oath of office on the Koran, and was an Al Qaeda plant. My mother was dubious, but a little bit concerned -- at 78 she's sharp as a tack but not exactly on top of things when it comes to the Intertubes and the phenomenon of urban legends. I explained to her that the story was just that, a story; that Senators do not take the oath of office over any holy book; and that Obama was a member of the UCC. She was greatly relieved. I was not relieved, however, hearing that kind of crap is making the rounds, and that even life-long Dems like my mom can be thrown off-balance by it.
There's a lot of disinformation being
January 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just so everyone notices, the Intrade (and all the betting sites) are just as flip-floppy as the polls.
January 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else thought of the possibility that at least some of the comments in the press are being planted by Republican operatives? Isn't the Rovian plan to have the Democrats self-destruct on
January 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all above--and on other threads throughout this fine forum--who have pledged to not vote for Clinton no matter what...as the great 'dcshungu' once said: You don't matter! Get it? Nobody cares about your vote! You can now go crawl back under that rock Michael A is keeping warm for you. Thanks.
;^}
January 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, the Al Qaeda plant ... you would think the terrorists would be smart enough not to plant a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn't you? Maybe a John Jefferson or Ralph Smith ... pretty dumb. As for the effect of the e-mails and all that; who knows? This country is beyond fucked up; might work; except we'll nominate HRC and McCain can snooze his way to 1600. I've come to terms with it all.
January 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill and Hillary just proving what Karl Rove and George W. taught many times: going negative wins.
January 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite where we were a couple of months ago as Obama has gained a few points -- a good sign.
National polls aren't good predictors yet as much of the country hasn't had the candidates around much. BTW: what is Obama's name recognition up to now? Probably not as high as Hillary's.
Hillary or McCain? I think McCain.
Obama or McCain? I'm going Obama.
Not my preferences, just my opinion on who'd win the national election. A young, tall, good-looking, articulate, intelligent candidate versus an old, crusty, calls everybody "friend", inarticulate-has to read his acceptance speach in NH, has-been who the GOP establishment hates. I wouldn't be surprized if a conservative indendant candidate runs and takes away 10% from him.
Clinton-Obama would make me puke. Obama-Edwards is a winner!
January 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I do not think that "Hillary Gained Sizable National Lead" is accurate. The ABC poll showing Obama that high was probably off, so Clinton has managed to keep at least most of her national lead.
January 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone thought that at least some of the comments ON THIS THREAD are the result of some nutty and less-nutty wingers?
January 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see how much we don't matter loki when your bitch gets slapped around.
January 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
---If Hillary gets the nomination, I have to vote Republican, so vote Obama so I won't puke. Be afraid, be very afraid---
Is Obama atracting the whining wing of the democratic party? No wonder dems can't win.
January 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
These upcoming primaries are especially hard to predict with all the cross-party voting going on, what with Kos encouraging Dems to vote for Mitt in Michigan, and Obama courting Republicans in Nevada.
January 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another poll just showed the opposite, and this poll is against long term trends and the outlier.
January 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
JkA@5:11.
Are you kidding or just nuts.Anybody who`s seen what has gone on for the last 7 years and votes for a Republican would have to be insane or asleep.
Now Bush denies the NIE on Iran.If you even consider voting for a rethug you`re an asshole and an asshole in that order.
I`m an Independent former Democrat,and the reason for my change is that idiots like you do nothing but criticize and judge poorly and your type screws up both partys.
January 14, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you needed another reason to stop watching corporate news, NBC has decided to limit the voters' exposure to the only candidate to vote against the Patriot Act, and funding the Iraq War: Kucinich. What will the remaining candidates debate? They agree on everything.
January 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow wrote on January 14, 2008 3:05 PM:
You don't know that Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Why, it's as commonplace knowlege as Bill's career as a rapist!
If you're going to come on here and rant discredited rightwing talking points (now that Falwell is in heaven and there's an opening), please get them straight.
Report at once to Karl Rove for "re-grooving."
It really has been difficult sorting out what is real from what is not, which makes it really convenient for your ilk to bundle it all under the category of rightwing talking points. I am very specific about it---of all the women problems, Juanita Broaddrick is the one that seems undeniably real. The execution of Ricky Rector is not something the right wing ever talks about, and it is well documented in several places. The sister soljah moment is so well characterized that it is a permanent part of the political lexicon, as is the phrase "wag the dog". Clinton's actual words in his 1998 speech to the nation regarding the bombing of Iraq are not contestable---we have transcripts of what he said.
But that is ok---anyone who says anything negative about the Clintons, even if it is an earnest effort to separate what Bill did from Hillary and what the implications are for the current campaign, are all part of the vast right wing smear campaign. Wash, rinse, repeat.
January 14, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I officially dropping my membership to the Clinton fan club.
They suck. For them, it is ALL about them.
Not about the party.
The only thing that can rejuvenate the demoralized Republican party is Hillary's candidacy.
If she wins, I think she loses to ANY of them. Because the Republicans come out in FORCE.
We don't need anymore years of divisiveness.
I support Barack, IN PART, because he stresses the need for this country to put aside the vicious partisnship.
And as Dr. King proved, you have to prove you have the moral high ground to affect that kind of change.
Hillary and Bill (used to love them) are damaged good and EVEN if they win, do you think ANY Republican or Independent will give them a fair listen?
Politics is about coalition building. Not triangulation. And as they have shown in this recent Race spat, they are still playing the Karl Rove-esque politics of playing one side against the other.
January 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Imelda Blahnik re: Clinton's VP pick
January 14, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Imelda Blahnik re: Clinton's VP pick
(sorry, hit the wrong key earlier)
Not Mark Warner -- he's running for John Warner's Senate seat, a probable pickup for the Dems, since the Republican nominee is almost certain to be Jim Gilmore, who I don't think is all that popular in Virginia these days except with the Republican true believers. No way would the Democrats want to pluck him out of that race and leave the field to the Republicans.
Besides, Warner is pretty light on experience himself (4 years as VA governor, and that's it), so I'm not sure he would bring all that much to the ticket.
January 14, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey kjoe,
As Hillary Clinton remarked to Russert when he pointed out disagreements between her expressed views and prior words of Bill:
She first gave him a "So what?" look and said, "He's not standing up here!"
Hillary is running for president, not Bill. Maybe you think she is just a surrogate. I don't.
January 14, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
JkA wrote on January 14, 2008 5:11 PM:
"---If Hillary gets the nomination, I have to vote Republican, so vote Obama so I won't puke. Be afraid, be very afraid---
Is Obama atracting the whining wing of the democratic party? No wonder dems can't win."
You are right my friend. And that is the biggest reason her candidacy has rebounded since Iowa. His followers remind voters of what they don't like about the Democratic party.
January 14, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be far less skeptical of Obama's candidacy if I could see any of that reflected by the people who support him. But I am seeing just the opposite. The most vicious partisans on this site are Obama supporters.
Somebody please explain to me what the real difference is.
January 14, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Obama's a Muslim" viral rumor has been surprisingly effective; over the weekend I heard it mentioned by a Democrat who I thought was fairly sophisticated and politically aware. Of course I told him it's not true.
What I don't understand is the attitude that if Hillary gets the nomination -- i.e., most Democrats (plus some others) vote for her in the primaries -- it will be a horrible mistake because she couldn't win the general election. Um, wha-? First, there are more D's than R's out there, particularly if they show up to vote and don't sit home sulking about ideological purity. Second, a LOT of Republicans would vote for her... really. I know these people; they're horrified by what Bush has done to the country and appalled by the current batch of Republican candidates. They view Hillary as a sensible moderate who knows how to make the system work.
So make a substantive argument in favor of whichever candidate you prefer, but don't say people who vote for Clinton are making a mistake because nobody would vote for Clinton. It reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
January 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
BEST LINES
slb wrote
Responding to:
Politics is about coalition building. Not triangulation.
"Somebody please explain to me what the real difference is."
Capital J wrote
So make a substantive argument in favor of whichever candidate you prefer, but don't say people who vote for Clinton are making a mistake because nobody would vote for Clinton. It reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
THANKS YOU TWO! YOU MADE ME SMILE.
January 14, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's truly disheartening to read the genuinely hostile quotes flying back and forth between Obama and Clinton supporters.
In truth, none of you seem to have very much all that cogent to say. The only thing that comes across very clearly is that you all have taken an unreasoning dislike for each other.
I intend to support the nominee of the Democratic party with my vote in November and checks before then. I live in MI, so unfortunately I don't a real vote in the pseudo-primary we are having this year.
Is anyone on this somewhat toxic thread intending to do otherwise?
nrglaw
January 14, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton knows what happened on 9/11, and is helping keep the secret. Elect her, and we will never know.
January 15, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe after all we've come through, I'm going to have to vote for a third party or independent for President. But, I will bust my @ss for my Democratic member of Congress. In the end, we need to have that Constitutional showdown between Congress and the White House. The long-run power is with the People's branch.
January 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to disbelieve this poll for awhile and see if it goes away.
January 15, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink