Rasmussen: Hillary Ahead By Three In California
Another Rasmussen poll shows Barack Obama making up serious ground in a major Super Tuesday state. In California, Hillary Clinton has a bare lead of 43%, followed Obama at 40% and John Edwards with 9%.
If Obama were to pull off a win in the largest state in the country, it would completely change the dynamics of the campaign. And if Hillary were to come out on top, it could give her a large number of delegates to fend off Obama's advantages elsewhere.
Comments (145)
rr18 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:33 AM:Does this poll include early voters?
Kevin wrote on January 31, 2008 12:35 AM:But since we're talking proportional representation, they'll probably split the delegates regardless.
Still, very happy to see Obama in striking distance. Let's take it home!
Josh wrote on January 31, 2008 12:35 AM:Hillary is in the four corners, trying to run this thing out.
Obama still has time and another debate.
Damn, this is going to be fun.
Indy wrote on January 31, 2008 12:36 AM:"Does this poll include early voters?"
Even if it doesn't, if Obama surges here among the people who are still voting on Super Tuesday it might not make a difference.
Keep in mind that the early voters won't be uniformly for Clinton. Some will be for Obama as well- and for Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, hell, even Gravel.
This has actually been a very short race so far, despite how long it's seemed- Iowa was less than a month ago! From a certain perspective, candidates have been dropping like flies.
Clinton can't count on the early voters- nor can Obama, for that matter. It's a bad kind of thing to fall back on.
Nick Kaufman wrote on January 31, 2008 12:37 AM:Eric change the second paragraph pronto.
Neither Hillary nor Obama would get a significant delegate advantage if they win the state. It's proportional representation.
Nick Kaufman wrote on January 31, 2008 12:38 AM:All polls include early voters. And early voters aren't as many as thought. In Florida they were 25%.
frankly0 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:39 AM:New Rasmussen numbers from California.
Yes, and complete closet Obama whore that he is, Josh Marshall must breathlessly report that on the front page.
What a total phony this man is, when it comes to practicing anything resembling "objectivity". Every story he can twist Obama's way he does, and reports it on the front page; every story he can distort into something negative for Hillary he does, and reports it on the front page.
But what about the stories that don't put Obama in a great light? What about the cases where the Obama campaign was caught out fostering racial division before the primary in SC? Do we hear anything about that from that phony Josh Marshall? Of course not. Nor do we hear the obvious point made that only the Obama campaign was itself caught using such techniques. Making that point would require both objectivity and courage -- sadly lacking in the man.
The man's just a piece of work. He can't even look at his own behavior and see how it exposes his biases. Or he doesn't have the basic integrity to care.
Obama-rama wrote on January 31, 2008 12:41 AM:My brother, mother, and I are all early CA voters, so, add 3 more to any Obama totals :)
along wrote on January 31, 2008 12:42 AM:Do you guys have a Rasmussen subscription It'd be great to see the crosstabs of the early vote numbers.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 12:43 AM:This is great news. My only concern is the early voters - the mail-in ballots in CA. I understand that Hillary is ahead by about 20 pts with those voters, so Obama needs to do more than just beat her with the walk-in voters.
It depends on how big a proportion the mail-in votes are of the final tally, and Obama needs to beat her by quite a bit with the walk-in voters to take the state.
Things are looking good though. :-)
I would feel better if we could get polls from other polling groups. These have all come from one company so far.
What's Rasmussen's track record in polling this race? How reliable are they?
dan wrote on January 31, 2008 12:45 AM:frankly0:
Marshall is pro-Clinton, he says it regularly..
as for "the cases where the Obama campaign was caught out fostering racial division before the primary in SC." Huh? You don't even make sense at time..
Edwards to endorse Obama?
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=394
"If Obama were to pull off a win in the largest state in the country, it would completely change the dynamics of the campaign. And if Hillary were to come out on top, it could give her a large number of delegates to fend off Obama's advantages elsewhere."
The dynamics have changed; HRC is powerless to reverse the trend. The true story in N.H. and Nevada is that HRC barely won as Obama closed the gap to 2% to 3%. If this does not slow due to the debate on 01/31/08 HRC battle will be uphill! Love or Hate HRC & Co. have run a lousy campaign.
frankly0 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:52 AM:Oh and by the way Josh Marshall, how about all your concern about "voter suppression" when it came to Nevada?
What happened when Hillary won, and then the Obama campaign asserted that it basically didn't matter what the popular vote was, only the delegate count? Did that seem a fine way to capture the notion of the sanctity of the vote of the people?
And how about the people in Florida, who went to the polls to try to express their voice through the vote, but, through absolutely no doing of their own, were denied any delegates? Did I hear you say anything about how those millions of voters were being denied the right to voice their opinion? Did you manage to shed a single tear over that? Or did you do what you always do, go right along with the favored opinion of the Obama campaign that these voters, who insisted on going to the polls even though their vote would not officially count, should just be disappeared?
Kinda funny how you always manage to adjust your outrages to suit the Obama campaign spin just fine.
As I said before, you're a real piece of work.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 12:52 AM:frankly0 - What is with the ranting? Are you OK? Someone needs a nap.
Keith wrote on January 31, 2008 12:55 AM:I think the SurveyUSA poll from the other day indicated that less than 25% of those polled had voted early (Clinton dominated with 52%).
Interesting story on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. Not sure how it's going to play out (or if the story has legs), but it's not going to be a winning news cycle going into the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&hp
apostasy wrote on January 31, 2008 12:55 AM:How about the fact that Josh Marshall didn't post this item?
Kevin wrote on January 31, 2008 12:57 AM:Frankly0, you're right, Nevada and Florida were similar.
In Nevada, the rules were set long ago. All campaigns agreed to them. When she found it convenient, Hillary Clinton tried to get them changed to her advantage.
In Florida, the rules were set long ago. All campaigns agreed to them. When she found it convenient, Hillary Clinton tried to get them changed to her advantage.
Good eye, there.
Now is the TIme wrote on January 31, 2008 12:58 AM:If this is true, get ready for some dirty underhanded stuff to come from Hillary's camp. (She will say she had nothing to do with it though-unauthorized is the word that comes to mind) After what they did after losing Iowa, imagine what she will do to keep California.
Senator Clinton, why did you not have enough time to stay an extra 3 hours in South Carolina to thank your supporters and delegates, but more than enough time to go to Florida for a celebration that you previously agreed would mean nothing? Did your staff not get your flight suit to you in time. All that was missing was the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind you. Your disloyalty will come back to haunt you. If not now, in November. Thanks for running a great campaign. :(
frankly0 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:58 AM:"the cases where the Obama campaign was caught out fostering racial division before the primary in SC." Huh?
Obama's campaign caught out:
1. Jesse Jackson Jr's infamous interview immediately after the NH primary.
2. the infamous memo from Obama's SC campaign.
Imagine if you will what would have happened to the Clinton campaign had they been caught in flagrante with such material. Instead, all it required to trump up accusations against the Clintons was any kind of phrase out of tens of thousands from Clinton supporters that could be twisted into racial innuendo (as if finding racial innuendo is a hard thing to do if you have any mind to do it).
Chris wrote on January 31, 2008 1:00 AM:An interesting dynamic to observe is that when Obama wins its by a fairly large margin, when Hillary wins its a very narrow victory and she ends up tieing or even loosing in delegates. In the big states where she is ahead he doesn't even need to take the state from her, just keep her delegate advantage minimal. He can then count on red/purple states where she doesn't fair as well to walk away with large margins.
That being said, Woot! Go Barack!
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:01 AM:frankly0 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:58 AM:
Frankly, give it a rest! A choir of one are you?
barfly wrote on January 31, 2008 1:02 AM:frankly0--Come over from the dark side. Obama loves you Frankie. You know you want to.
GMFORD wrote on January 31, 2008 1:04 AM:That's good news for Obama supporters. CA is the big Kahuna for delegate count. Even a 50-50 split would be better than I expected him to get.
frankly0 -- sorry, you have failed to convince me to switch my support to Clinton. I suggest you work on your people skills and try again later.
Common Sense wrote on January 31, 2008 1:05 AM:I suspect the Clintonoids will be out in mass force in the morning trying to spin away the front page of the New York Times.
frankly0 wrote on January 31, 2008 1:08 AM:Sorry Kevin,
The fact remains that there were real live voters in Florida that went to the polls, so determined to try to have their views known that they were not deterred by the fact that they would not receive delegates. They played no role whatever in that fact. It was purely a dispute between Democratic organizations.
Now, if you have a real concern about the sanctity of the vote, you do in the end come down hardest of all on the notion that the voice of the people should be heard. In that context, if one has any principles or integrity, one simply fights to get those voters listened to above all else -- that is the overriding concern, not agreements imposed by other players.
Yes, Josh was all in an outrage over Nevada, and how "voter suppression" was supposedly being practiced.
Yet in the case of Florida, where is his outrage over the fact that those voters aren't being counted -- by over a million? Where?
Well I'll tell you where that concern is: disappeared, because it's suddenly very inconvenient for the Obama campaign to recognize them. And that means it's very inconvenient for Josh Marshall to break any kind of sweat over them. No outrage there!
Duane wrote on January 31, 2008 1:09 AM:frankly0, you are losing your fucking mind but still holding onto your condescending attitude. That takes real inner fortitude.
Well, both my wife and I are "early CA voters" and both of us voted for Obama. Not statistically significant, but let me put it another way -- most everyone I know in Silicon Valley wants Obama and dreads Hillary. I can't overstate how much Hillary's campaign was hurt by Bill Clinton's viscious attack-dog tactics of the NV/SC primaries. We're all quite disgusted with him and with Hillary by association. None of us believe that he is doing anything unsanctioned by her campaign.
As to Frankly0, dude, don't you realize that you drive more people away from Hillary with your tone and that your points (valid or not) are totally diminished by your delivery? If you want to support a candidate, you should figure out a way to do so that has a civil tone. Then people might even listen. But as it is, you come across as a whiner and no one will change their mind based on your posts.
Anyway, back to Barak: I continue to be impressed. He's our man. And he can beat McCain. I have serious doubts that Hillary will be able to beat McCain, and worry that we'd lose the Senate & House with her leading the ticket against McCain. OMG, we simply can't afford 4 more years of Republican stupidity!!!
aaaaaieeeeeeeeee!
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 1:11 AM:Frankly0,
Call the coast for some reinforcements. It looks to be a long night.
Don't worry, Hillary could have a great night tomorrow and then you can own the board newscycle for a day.
But keep plugging away. I like your sense of tenacity.
One word: Obamentum!!!!!
roo_P wrote on January 31, 2008 1:12 AM:Keith,
The NYT story looks bad and will probably play bad for the Clintons. Substantially they do not have much proof from my reading, though. Essentially it could be completely innocent or very, very bad.
Of course the bit about endorsing the Kazak president-for-life for vote monitoring is just ludicrous so Clinton should rightfully get heaps of scorn for that one.
barfly wrote on January 31, 2008 1:12 AM:The thing I keep coming back to is the fact that Hillary has no sense of humor.
Duane wrote on January 31, 2008 1:13 AM:The fact remains that there were real live voters in Florida that went to the polls, so determined to try to have their views known that they were not deterred by the fact that they would not receive delegates. They played no role whatever in that fact. It was purely a dispute between Democratic organizations.
If Mrs. Clinton felt so strongly about Florida, why did she agree to disenfranchise them in the first place? I think this goes to the heart of the judgment thing that keeps coming up. She showed poor judgment when it mattered, then did way too little too late.
Poor judgment or typical self-serving politics..? I really can't decide but you seem to be making the case for poor judgment.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 1:13 AM:Uh, Greg, that link is dead.
Mike wrote on January 31, 2008 1:15 AM:I don't know if I'm buying these polls. I don't think it's that close. It doesn't factor in the Edwards withdrawal from the race. I think that will give Hillary a bigger advantage.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:17 AM:One last thing, frankly0: I can give you one great reason to come over to the Obama side: the shilling is easier, a lot more fun and doesn't leave you feeling like a hamster died in your ass after the string broke.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 1:18 AM:The link is back. The whole site seemed to be down for a moment. Mobbed by Obama supporters or killed by Clinton-loving hackers? frankly0, what have you been up to?
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 1:19 AM:Obama is the the most whiney candidate in the presidetial race. He can't take critcism without playing race-victim. He behaves like a 5-year old. Clintons are telling on me, because I am BLACK!!
This fraud is supposed to become a president and deal with Islamic terrorists. God Help USA!
I guess all you Obamamaniacs here must have been into drugs during their youth.
If this fraud becomes Dem nominee, all sane dems should vote for Big Mac. Republicans are rooting for him to be dem nominee anyway!!. He doesn't stand a chance against Big Mac!
roo_p:
I agree with your reading of the Giustra story. All the pieces are there, I guess -- the intimate connection (a shared flight on Giustra's plane to the Ukraine), the quid (Clinton lands the deal for Giustra) and the pro quo. (Giustra donates many many millions to the Clinton library.) But Van Natta doesn't slam it home, and the story -- while definitely suggesting some kind of murky connection -- doesn't have quite enough evidence to make it damning. I'd be surprised if it has much in the way of legs tomorrow.
That being said, I find myself suddenly glad the NYT endorsed Clinton, tho'. It makes it hard to argue the Times is "piling on."
barfly wrote on January 31, 2008 1:22 AM:vh--Racism is so easy. Try something difficult--like looking at Hillary naked.
DRH wrote on January 31, 2008 1:23 AM:hmmm... vh, seems like you got some racist issues dude. Also sounds like you're a McDonalds regular or McCain supporter - can't tell which ;-)
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 1:24 AM:DRH...
keep the joint down.
Mike,
As for the Polls, the one thing I have learned this election is that a day or two is proving to be a lifetime in this election. If Edwards endorses, one or the other has a spectacular debate (remember there are only 2 of them now, so there will be a clear winner and loser), Richardson endorses (minor bump at best but still worth a trip to NM), or Bill has a damaging story on the front page of the Times, there are a million things that can change this race by Tuesday. Hillary will have the early voting advantage but if Obama is making up ground as quickly as these polls suggest, then I'll be dipped in shit if I know what is going to happen on Tuesday.
As an Obama supporter, I am always nervous, but I can bet the Hillary folks are too. Common ground at last!!
The last thing I will say is that the spin on the snubgate is that Clinton is trying to recreate the crying moment but it seems to me that there are too many moving parts for this to stick.
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 1:25 AM:Aha:
Whining about racism again. Typical Obama supporter. You got ED, its racism!!
AS NOTED ON A ANOTHER THREAD ON THE NYT STORY:
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:32 AM:
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:21 AM:
Last thought on the Times story:
Swarty:
You are correct! Bill will become too much of a focus in the news cycle; this will bring back S.C., land deals, etc. If his foundation is transparent, no problem; if is not it will likely blow up on the Sunday news shows, and have some impact on the election. It is not the reality, it is the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons, love or hate them, do have excess baggage!!!! ON such matters folks are rather unforgiving these days!
Swarty you dream has lots of legs!
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 1:28 AM:barfly:
I guess you were definitely into crack during your youthful days. I guess you can connect with Obama well.
The thing I keep coming back to is the fact that Hillary has no sense of humor.
I've heard that she's funny in person. But they say that about all the super serious candidate. Gore is supposed to be funny in person too. I have trouble picturing it, though it got a little easier after he shaved the beard.
Anyway, Hillary's not doing SNL or Top 10 on Letterman, that's for sure.
Not that SNL is funny anymore.
And if Hillary were to come out on top, it could give her a large number of delegates to fend off Obama's advantages elsewhere.
Um, what? I'm pretty sure all 22 states split delegates, so a close win in either column would yield the same number of delegates, depending on geography. Hillary could win the popular and lose the delegates, just like NV.
barfly wrote on January 31, 2008 1:33 AM:Actually I did do my fair share of crack. Once, cranked to the gills, I had a vision of the future. I dreamed I'd be in a comment thread on the internet. I saw that a racist moron named vh would be lobbing lame, watered down attacks at me. I realized I didn't care. I picked up the pipe and drifted away...
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 1:34 AM:OK, it seems that frankly0 has called VH in from the bullpen.
But VH, you need to throw a few warm up tosses before bringing in the high heat of the race reverse race card.
I have made my objections to Hillary's candidacy well known here. And it has been on the issues and the issues alone, primarily her vote on Iraq in 2002 and the worries I have of Bill Clinton with no constitutional checks on his activities.
I can't speak for any other Obama supporter, but please try and go after Obama on something better than that. The Present votes are worth a shot.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 1:35 AM:It seems that mail-in ballots in CA were about 25% of votes in past elections. However, if the high turnout that we saw in the early states holds in CA, maybe there’ll be such a surge in walk-in voters that the mail-in ballots will actually end up being a smaller part of the total pie.
Given that Obama is trailing in the mail-in ballots, his success in CA will depend on his GOTV efforts. They need to drive up participation.
I work in a call center with a lot of young working mothers and they have gone from being excited as hell about Hillary Clinton three months ago to being completely dispirited by the negative and very uninspiring campaign Hillary chose to wage.
In the Clinton campaign's zeal to drag down Obama into the mud and push up his negatives they forgot that they'd also stop looking like inspirational and transformational figures to their core constituency.
last exit wrote on January 31, 2008 1:38 AM:vh: you're out of your league
Indy wrote on January 31, 2008 1:39 AM:I think the SurveyUSA poll from the other day indicated that less than 25% of those polled had voted early (Clinton dominated with 52%).
Interesting story on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. Not sure how it's going to play out (or if the story has legs), but it's not going to be a winning news cycle going into the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Whoa.
In other news, BILL CLINTON ENDORSED A DICTATOR
Steve wrote on January 31, 2008 1:42 AM:Since all Super Tuesday states are proportional (right?) it seems to me that the most representative prediction of the outcome would be a poll showing the aggregation of opinions in all 22 states, wouldn't it? Kind of a subset of the national tracking.
Is anything like that being taken?
Duane wrote on January 31, 2008 1:43 AM:BILL CLINTON ENDORSED A DICTATOR
That is below the belt. There is no indication Hillary will rule like a dictator.
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 1:43 AM:Indy, I've been pimping that story here for about 2 hours now!!
Huff Post has a link to the Times piece. My worry is it is too damn complicated and no blowjobs anywhere.
With all the election news, it will probably get lost in the shuffle. But you never know...
last exit wrote on January 31, 2008 1:45 AM:There's a blowjob in there somewhere. I gurantee it.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:47 AM:My worry is it is too damn complicated and no blowjobs anywhere.
That wouldn't exactly be news would it? I mean I thought we all understood that came as part of the Clinton package. A couple of chubby interns and a regular supply of cuban cigars is the only way to control the Big Dawg.
swarty,
I agree with you partly about Hillary. I think she is a phony, but Obama is even bigger phony. He talks as if he is going to fix everything, but provides not a single specific example of what he is going to change. I think a while ago he climed that he is going to fix Soc. Sec. Get real!
Both Dems candidates are frauds. (Actually Edwards was a good guy, but he is gone)
Unfortunately, we need to vote Republican!!
That is exactly waht is going to happen becasue you morons from both camps are shotting each other in the foot.
ON MAIL IN BALLOTS IN CALIFORNIA:
Live in Northern California:
1. Bill screwed up big time in the final days prior to Nevada.
2. Mail In is for convenience as anything; folks long decided were likely to be unchanged.
3.Obama got $15M plus, a bit less than HRC in Ca. Obama T.V. spots stated 2 or so days before HRC.
4. True early mail-ins may be a problem, in particular with Edwards voters; don't think this will effect those under 40 years. A true generational divide; I have asked many in recent weeks.
5. Went to HRC rally last fall: was for local endorsements & a festival for local pols; aged boomers, suburban types and teenie boppers showed up for fill; FEW 20 to 40 year olds. In short it was a canned show; little local notice or press! But a whole bunch for Bill's performance on Nevada race!
6. No reason to be overly concerned!
Swarty, the whole storyline, with all its details and nuances, is too complicated.
"Clinton Endorses Dictator for Money" is not. The more it's simplified, the more damning it becomes.
CaseyL wrote on January 31, 2008 2:05 AM:I'd be amazed if the story doesn't have legs. There's a lot of ugliness: Bill Clinton makes nice to a dictator on behalf of a crook who wants uranium mining rights, who then gets the mining rights, and who then gives Bill Clinton $131 million dollars for the favor.
There's no way out of that one.
Hillary can't claim she knew nothing about it - not after 3 weeks of the old "2 for 1" spiel. Even if she didn't know anything about it, we can't have someone like Bill Clinton back in the WH making god knows what deals with god knows what dirtbag.
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 2:05 AM:Hey Live in Northern California:
Very few 20 yr olds vote. Check any stats.
They are too lazy to keep down the Beer, move away from the TV and go to vote.
If you idiots are counting on them, you are going get a rude shock.
I am from NorCal, haven't seen any 20 yr olds waiting in voting lines in the last 12 yrs.
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 2:05 AM:
"Very few 20 yr olds vote."
"FEW 20 to 40 year olds."
DUMB TRY!
GO AWAY!
vh wrote on January 31, 2008 2:11 AM:Hey idiot 40 yr olds are not youths anyway! Nobody counts them as one grp. Go back to elementary school.
You will soon Go AWAY and SHUT Up.
It is fun and easy to aggravate Obama supporters and bring their stupidity out.
Basically they have no substance like their candidate: Empty Suit with hot air.
Keep winning friends and influencing people, vh.
Politics is surely your calling.
Publicus wrote on January 31, 2008 2:21 AM:This story has legs folks. Whether anything is conclusively proved is one thing. But giving Bill's very high profile and the Clintons appeal to a return of the 90s, you best believe that this will be all over the news tomorrow.
'All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton," [Guistra] said. "He's a brand, worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.'"
Yes, I like James Carville.
hello_world wrote on January 31, 2008 2:27 AM:I forget, who is it that needs to be vet again?
The hypocrisy is truly astounding.
Thompson Lives! wrote on January 31, 2008 2:29 AM:Josh really needs to start making people register in order to post.
There are things posted here few of you would have the balls to say to someone's face, which makes many of you cowards.
Truly, these comment boards reek of fail.
God bless and praise Jebus!
hello_world wrote on January 31, 2008 2:31 AM:Vet = vetted.
I'm going to bed...
Killjoy wrote on January 31, 2008 2:41 AM:frankly0:
Yes, and complete closet Obama whore that he is, Josh Marshall must breathlessly report that on the front page.
If Marshall is the Fox News of the liberal blogosphere, why do you keep coming here?
roo_P wrote on January 31, 2008 3:02 AM:Publicus,
While I agree that the story "has legs," I do not think it is something that should be encouraged. The article does not fully make its case for the most part (the dictator endorsement is certainly an appropriate target since it is an undeniable matter of public record.)
Rachel wrote on January 31, 2008 3:14 AM:DRH: I live in LA, and all my friends here (and in San Francisco, too) are voting for Obama.
And all my relatives in Minnesota.
And in Texas, too.
I cannot wait! It is so, so lovely to be excited rather than afraid. I am also looking forward to traveling and not pretending I'm Canadian...
Bette wrote on January 31, 2008 3:33 AM:Wow ... I think people have been juiced on a bit too much caffeine or something on this blog ... but here are my thoughts.
1. I agree, the NY Times "Bill Clinton Sells Endorsement of Kazakh Dictator for $131 Million" is going to be hard for HRC's campaign to swallow, no pun intended. Bill will dominate the Super Tuesday news cycle just like he did in SC and as we saw, that's not a good thing for Hill.
2. Unless HRC can pull another crying jag out of her hat on Monday, the polls are breaking perfectly for Obama to make a solid showing Tuesday. He doesn't need to win 100%, but closing to 3% in CA is just what we need. I live in the LA basin and have been surprised that her polling continued to be so strong -- everybody I know, save 1, is an Obama fan and I'm phonebanking and volunteering for him like mad.
3. I think Edwards got out of the race when he did so his irrelevant 10-15% support could shift to the "real" candidates and make a difference -- and I will be shocked if the majority don't swing to Obama. Edwards got into this race when Hillary was being crowned as the heir apparent... he's not going to attract party regulars starry-eyed about another Clinton term. When you add those numbers to Obama's already surging support, I believe Obama will be on top.
4. HRC is going to rue the day she touted herself as the only candidate who had been truly "vetted" (see 1, above). This is getting interesting.
Oh, and sorry,
5. Don't forget there is an ongoing financial scandal with Bill refusing to cough up the donor list to his library, which apparently has shown a significant overlap between HIS library donors and HRC's campaign donors.
Yep, two for the price of one allright. Folks, I have supported and defended the Clintons for 16 years but been there, done that, got the tee shirt, don't need another. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow ... GO OBAMA!
Hill and her supporters playing up "The Snub" was her campaign's jump-the-shark moment. I try to stay away from personalized attacks, but really... how pathetic. Check out Taylor Marsh for some amusement. Obama is gaining and there is nothing they can do about it, except hope to God he doesn't have enough time to catch them.
jose wrote on January 31, 2008 4:00 AM:vh- you are moronic if you think "Big Mac" can beat anyone. Do you pay any attention? Go check out the politico.com debate blog and see how much his own party likes him. Or watch the GOP debate. Big Mac (what a stupid nickname, btw..he's known as "Juan" McCain over there...pretty funny actually) is too old. he looks tired and beaten on stage. he will look like a raisin with big cheeks by the fall. he's half-way senile and demented.
great stuff here:
www.therealjohnmccain.com
And Rachel - I feel your pain! I live in Costa Rica. I have a maple leaf sticker in my backpack, just in case...it's going to take a generation or more to repair the damage bush has done to the US reputation in 8 years. for all the bad things people here are saying about Bill Clinton (many of them warranted, mind you), he raised the US standing in the world. other countries actually liked Americans before Bush screwed it all up.
the nytimes shows that it is yet another M$M news source that gets all its jollies off attacking women. a bunch of single white fake progressive men who can't deal with a strong woman president and want a hip black friend
and you think people will stand for that kind of slander? broder and company might love obama, but voters love hillary. i'll take the voters anyday
jeanette wrote on January 31, 2008 4:08 AM:the nytimes shows that it is yet another M$M news source that gets all its jollies off attacking women. a bunch of single white fake progressive men who can't deal with a strong woman president and want a hip black friend
and you think people will stand for that kind of slander? broder and company might love obama, but voters love hillary. i'll take the voters anyday
Luis wrote on January 31, 2008 4:18 AM:Have Hillary's supporters always been this clueless? It seems like it's getting worse. Maybe desperation is setting in, I'm not sure. Playing the victim card is starting to wear thin.
FrankDelfino wrote on January 31, 2008 5:04 AM:Someone over at Politico linked this little tidbit. Interesting read.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080124/EDITORIAL/774081954
Kefa wrote on January 31, 2008 5:13 AM:Josh is just trying to stir up the masses
11 point avg lead for the Madem Prez. in Cal. ;)
The New York Times has an article today on Bill Clinton's international influence peddling for the commerical profiit of his mega-millionaire cronies, under the guise of his "philanthropic foundation."
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
It reveals Clinton's secret dealings with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose for decades has ruled his nation with an iron fist, crushing political dissent. It explains Mr. Clinton bizarre support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. The result, a mega-million dollar uranium mining contract for Clinton cronie Frank Giustra in Kazakhstan, and Mr. Giustra's immediate mega-million contribution to the shady, secretive Clinton Foundation.
To have a former president selling his influence in this way is simply shocking. And the resulting mega-million contributions to the shady Clinton Foundation and his wife's presidential campaign reveals the enormous scale of Clinton corruption.
These shady financial dealings, connections to the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary for President campaign need to be fully investigated and exposed. Does Bill Cliinton sell information he gains from national secrity briefings? Does Hillary contribute to the family business with classified information received as a member of the Senate Arm Services Committee? What connection is there between donors to the Clinton Campaign and donors to the Clinton Foundation?
Can our nation really trust the greedy, dishonest Clintons with our national security?
Steve wrote on January 31, 2008 5:54 AM:Frankly0,
Whats so wrong with Josh Marshall being more favorable to Obama than Clinton any way. If you dont like it, just stop visiting the site.
puzzled wrote on January 31, 2008 6:00 AM:Wow that NYT story is huge.
Hillary and her campaign are going to have a hard time saying that's Bill not Hillary, when she is running of the merits of their close professional partnership. This will raise again the spectre of all the charges of financial corruption throughout their careers.
Is the Billary partnership really fully vetted, as Hillary claims? Is this the tip of the iceberg?
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 6:29 AM:This site claims to be not to have a dog in this fight right?
Kefa wrote on January 31, 2008 6:35 AM:we here seem to just love those Repub.polls that lean to Obama don't we....we'll get some more polls later on today.
Homefries wrote on January 31, 2008 7:04 AM:I think the Clinton supporters have hit the nail on the head.
It's a vast, left wing conspiracy.
Puzzled wrote on January 31, 2008 7:09 AM:The NYT story is disturbing for what it reveals about a former presidents selling of influence. If find it distrubing that TPM is ignoring it rather than leading efforts to vet and extend it.
It raises huge questions that must be considered BEFORE Democrats elect a nominee. It puts a huge new question mark for me on Hillary's electablity.
What percentage of that $131 million donation to the Clinton Foundation acutally reasches AIDS victims? What percentage goes for "operating" expenses of the Clinton Foundation? What percentage of the operating expesnes for the Clinton Foundation go to Bill's staff, campaigning, and travel expenses to secure more profit-making business deals. Are there other donors who have benefited commercially through involvement with Bill and Hillary Clinton and their "foundation."
This story suggests that the Clinton Foundation is being used to promote profit making ventures in return for major donations that benefit it founder and his WIFE's campaign.
At least, it should call into question the tax-exempt status of the Clinton Foundation. It should also lead to legal investigations of influence peddling, money laundering, campaign finance violoations, viloation of national security and classified intelligence, not to mention outrage over ETHICAL violations. "Ethics" of course is not in the Clinton vocabulary.
It looks like many profiteering opportunists do know about the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiatives (CGI) as a way to hide questionable buisness dealings, gain access to shady international finanical deals and BUY Bill and Hillary Clinton's security information and influence.
Steve said "Whats so wrong with Josh Marshall being more favorable to Obama than Clinton any way"
I can't stop laughing. TPM?EC is so tied to Hillary's campaign it is astounding. Their selection of posts, biased headlines, and strategy of delaying damaging posts until Hillary's campaign organizes damage control and gives them talking points to promote.
I guess part of Democracy for me is working against corruption and injustice, not leaving when you encounter it.
I have never had any doubt that the Super Tuesday delegates would largely be split down the middle. Whether Obama or Hillary win the majority of the popular vote that day, it would be surprising if one of them dropped out. It seems unlikely that either of them is going to have overwhelming victories like Obama's in SC (with the possible exception of IL).
wwjb wrote on January 31, 2008 7:35 AM:Uh-oh, looking bad for Hillary. This of course means we can expect Bill to start running around these states yelling and lying.
Great.
dear heretic wrote on January 31, 2008 7:39 AM:heretic is such a racist! he's claiming there was something special about voter demographics in SC.
we all know that is code for black voters going for the the black candidate! and that's racist!
everyone knows how careful we must be with our words.
I say ban heretic from the site!
everybody who is not blind deaf dumb knows that TPM is such a rethugican tool.
josh sits around in his jockeys making up these inane pro obama posts to cheer on the mccain crowd.
haven't you noticed how often neocon war mongers like redstate cite TPM's pro obama rantings?
is there anything that makes tuesday look like anything but a draw? looks like OK and IL might be the only blowouts.
steve wrote on January 31, 2008 7:58 AM:It is no racist to note that Obama won SC laregly on the black vote. Yes, he did well in some other demos in SC, but any honest observer knows that he won that state because of blacks voters. Not unlike Jesse Jackson (also a fact).
nogop wrote on January 31, 2008 8:10 AM:Interestingly Rasmussen has Hillary ahead of Obama by 5 points only 2 weeks ago. You go figure.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida’s Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.
Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California. "
nogop wrote on January 31, 2008 8:12 AM:So Obama is up 2 percentage points instead of double digits. Duh.
Keith wrote on January 31, 2008 8:19 AM:This poll had Hillary up by 5 two weeks ago. This week it's 3. That's within the margin of error.
That means the race hasn't changed--at least as far as this poll can tell us.
tyo wrote on January 31, 2008 8:35 AM:Read the NY Times
The Clinton Foundation, Library and campaign is their usual cesspool of political corruption.
America's most corrupt couple.
We can do better
Yes we can
Talk all you want about early votes etc. but what this poll really means is that Obama's going to get plenty of delegates out of California--and probably the other big states too. The fantasy that Hillary was going to "win" a state like California--as if it were a winner take all election--was just that, a fantasy.
brad wrote on January 31, 2008 8:49 AM:frankly0,
your posts have a strong aroma of desperation this morning.
I like it.
tyo wrote on January 31, 2008 8:51 AM:The real Billary
Corporate lawyer for WalMart
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 8:54 AM:Yep, you are right keith. I saw the poll last week and kept posting it. TPM ignored it. It really isn't a change in the poll numbers and rasmussen is more unreliable than other polls, which are very unreliable. 5 days to go to get the reliable poll.
Mark wrote on January 31, 2008 8:58 AM:"But what about the stories that don't put Obama in a great light?"
Someone is mad because they have a lame candidate.
brad wrote on January 31, 2008 9:01 AM:An article written by Robert Dallek, who knows a few things about Presidential history, out this morning:
Ever since Edward Kennedy threw his support behind Sen. Barack Obama, there has been no shortage of comparisons between the junior senator from Illinois and the young President who inspired a generation.
As one who has spent many years studying JFK, let me make this much clear: When it comes to experience, Obama is no John Kennedy. (Indeed, when distilled into the crudest terms, Obama is no Dan Quayle - who was famously branded "no Jack Kennedy"; as of 1988, Quayle had spent more than a decade on the national stage.)
But here's the much bigger question: What does it matter? An examination of Kennedy's own record - and of the broader sweep of history - leads us to this critical conclusion: Obama's lack of experience shouldn't be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time.
First, some context. When Kennedy ran for President, he had already served in the U.S. House and the Senate for 13 years (into the start of a second Senate term) and had traveled extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In the Second World War, he had commanded a P.T. boat - and emerged a hero. He had written a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on political courage.
Put that alongside Obama's record of public service: seven years in the Illinois State Senate, half a term in the U.S. Senate and assorted other positions of debatable relevance to the presidency.
But all of Kennedy's knowledge and experience, especially in matters of war and peace, did not insulate him from the blunder at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, which initially undermined his standing as a foreign policy leader. There, Kennedy simply exercised bad judgment; it strains credibility to believe that he would have made the right decision if only he had spent one more term in the Senate.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy relied more on his own judgment - overriding many gray-haired military men - and the most dangerous moment in Cold War history was resolved with far better results for the nation.
A look at other Presidents underlines the lesson. In the four years before the Civil War, James Buchanan led the nation. He had held so many high offices over the years that he was known as "Mr. Government." It didn't help him or the country a jot. Buchanan failed to head off the bloodshed that would soon engulf the country, and he is now remembered as one of, if not the worst, President in our history.
Inexperienced Abraham Lincoln was, happily, another story.
Woodrow Wilson had an impressive record before entering the Oval Office; history has not been kind to his legacy - or to his decision to enter the "war to end all wars."
Herbert Hoover, one of the most experienced public figures ever to get to the White House, demonstrated dreadful judgment in believing that the Depression would resolve itself with minimal government intervention.
By contrast, Franklin Roosevelt judged traditional strategies for ending the economic downturn inadequate, and instead gave the country a New Deal - a slew of federally sponsored programs including the SEC, the FDIC, Social Security and a minimum wage - that continue to make the country more humane and more just.
In foreign affairs as well, FDR sensed when to depart from conventional wisdom. In 1941, after Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, Roosevelt's military chiefs, fearful that the Nazis would roll over the Soviets the way they had conquered Western Europe, advised against providing lend-lease aid to Russia. Roosevelt wisely concluded that the Soviets would hold out and provided needed supplies.
No, experience is not irrelevant - but it's no guarantee of anything either. And when judgment and experience clash, judgment is the decisive presidential virtue.
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 9:03 AM:This is very, very troubling. Where is the link and story on TPM?
No third term for the clintons.
Michael A wrote on January 31, 2008 9:07 AM:Oops, its on the front page now. Still its troubling.
johnk wrote on January 31, 2008 9:08 AM:Come on people, I thought TMP was fairly objective. These past few posts really don't put the site in a positive light. The last CA Rasmussen poll a few weeks ago had Hillary by 5%, this last poll is still within the last one, you don't make it seem that way (go to Pollster). You need to be more credible to be considered a reliable source. This is very disappointing.
FranklyA wrote on January 31, 2008 9:36 AM:It's clear that toad Marshall is in the bag for Gravel. Always pushing his pro-has-been agenda. I find it sickening.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 9:38 AM:The gap is narrowing everywhere in the most recent polls. That does not necessarily mean that the tide will not turn between now and next Tues (especially if we see a repeat of the media-pile-on-induced sympathy vote) but it becomes increasingly hard to call each of these new polls an outlier. One datum is an outlier; maybe two. Five data points, however, are a trend, no two ways about it. Good (albeit only qualifiedly so) news for us Obama supporters.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 9:48 AM:Actually it takes 6 data points to establish a trend, not to say though that things are clearly looking good for Obama.
TheraP wrote on January 31, 2008 9:49 AM:Bette has condensed it perfectly (above, look for the post with her points numbered).
I would add that the problem re bill's dealings is not just the past. It is all the potential for more of the same should hill sit in the White House.
bill is already called "President." We don't need two people in the White House called "President." And we certainly don't need one of them floating around with his moneyed friends "doing deals" while hill presides.
bill can't stop himself... so we have to do that for him.
Winston Smith wrote on January 31, 2008 9:51 AM:Didn't Rassmussen have Romney significantly ahead in FL?
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 9:57 AM:Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 5:52 AM:Can our nation really trust the greedy, dishonest Clintons with our national security?
How do some of you even function in society
You must live and post from your moms basement. He was the Pres for 8 years you numbnuts.
Winston Smith ...yes they did....lousy pollster but whatever floats your boat. I like taking an average.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 10:05 AM:Actually it takes 6 data points to establish a trend...
Uh huh, o.k. I guess I will have to wait until this afternoon to officially certify the trend.
:-p
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 31, 2008 10:08 AM:a bunch of single white fake progressive men who can't deal with a strong woman president and want a hip black friend
To be very fair, I am not sure that all of this can be put down to white men afraid of a strong woman. Evidently I am lead to understand that many Obama supporters have been duped by the "mainstream media" (no doubt a result made easier by the psychotropic Kool-Aid that I am given to understand that we all consume daily by the gallon). Others, so I am told, are angry black folks cunningly plotting to elect the man so that he will help us in our quest to get more fried chicken, watermelon and white women. I am sure, however, from the comments that I read here that a not insubstantial portion of the white men supporting Obama are voting for him because we are scared of talented and powerful women, so your observation is probably not too far off the mark.
Pete wrote on January 31, 2008 10:10 AM:frankly0, you are possibly the most bitter, hateful person I have had the displeasure of reading on here.
To the extent that we may be on the "same side" politically, I hope you are able to think a little more positively in the future.
To the extent that we are both human beings, I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for in life.
Regards,
Kripke wrote on January 31, 2008 10:20 AM:Hey Vh,
you say Obama is an empty suit and suggest that his rhetoric is not supported by detailed plans. Go to barackobama.com and check out all of the different policy proposals. There are short summaries and detailed plans for pretty much every issue. Check out the 60+ page blueprint for America, its a real stunner. I hope you take the time to actually be informed as opposed to buying into talking points.
Have some sympathy for the Hill-bot on this board. He is working long hours for an untalented candidate, who bombs with the audience.
That kind of work can't be easy.
CalD wrote on January 31, 2008 10:49 AM:The last Rasmussen poll in CA had Barack Obama within 5% of Clinton while all other polls were showing her with double-digit leads. Of course Rasmussen may be right while everyone else is wrong. You also would expect to see some tightening in the last week anyway. So who knows.
This was the first poll taken since Edwards dropped out. But it was also another one of Rasmussen's 1-day polls, so it may be prone to a little hyper-sensitivity to something in the news that day than a more conventional poll taken over a 2- to 4-day period.
Bill wrote on January 31, 2008 10:53 AM:How come it's "Hillary vs Obama"?
Why not "Clinton vs Barak"?
Having a hard time taking Clinton seriously?
Take a look at the videos. Senator Clinton's campaign hands out placards to the crowd that say "Hillary", and the Obama campaign hands out ones that say "Obama".
If you have a problem with Senator Clinton being referred to as "Hillary" then you have a problem with how she has chosen to use her first name. By the way, remember when she wanted to be known as Rodham-Clinton. I guess she does not want to be called that now either!
pheephee wrote on January 31, 2008 11:16 AM:We should all take poll numbers with a couple bags of salt.
I saw people lined up in California to vote early and the majority were not voting for Hillary.
As for the Latino vote, please don't insult these people by listening to the generally held notion that they would not vote for a black man. They will vote for the person they believe will do the best job for their interests.
The MSM would love to fuel the strained relationships which exist in SE Los Angeles because it makes for good stories.
Let us move onto this century without the baggage of the past.
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 11:20 AM:Obama raised $32 Million in JANUARY 2008 and added 170,000 new donors.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/31/obama_to_report_32_million_rai.html
Safe to say that Obama will win the delegates in the Republican Congressional districts, especially in Southern California. The Valley (like, omigod!) will really test Hillary's support.
Lest we forget that on January 1, Hillary had a 25 point lead here. Trends matter.
moondancer wrote on January 31, 2008 11:49 AM:It puts into perspective why Clinton is trying to cheat on Florida and Michigan. Penn is an asshole but can see the writing on the wall... and it's not a message the Entity wants to read.
Desider wrote on January 31, 2008 12:09 PM:"Hillary" simply differentiates her from Bill Clinton, and "Obama" rolls off the tongue easier than "Barack".
No conspiracy, folks.
John McCutchen wrote on January 31, 2008 12:19 PM:Obama Fighting 3523 Pct Capt Here
1. FORGET THE POLLS ERIC. SC polls were busts 15+ points.
2. This is not a statewide race, this is a race for Congressional district proportions
3. No poll has yet captured the O-Mentum here on the ground in CA. One of my fellow captains printed 70 signs at home then gave them out on the NJudah street car line - People were chasing him down the street after he ran out "You'd think I was giving away $100 bills".
If you've done field work for any length of years at all, you've likel seen this before. The field sees things before the head shed and its pollsters
Only the most resolute Hillary partisan (or perhaps Obama foe) can deny that the consensus of multiple polls show a momentum towards Obama in the last two weeks.
The question is whether the more conservative center will hold and beat back the challenge. I am remaining optimistic that we will but I would bet no more than even money on it (I might even ask for odds!).
Break a leg in the debate tonight, Hill!
ChrisO wrote on January 31, 2008 12:37 PM:There's no queston that Obama has momentum, but the Rasmussen polls have regularly been shown to be inaccurate. What I find amusing is how Obama supporters are quick to embrace every favorable poll, yet actual voters going to the polls in Florida and declaring their preference somehow means nothing. Because no delegates were involved, apparently those voters don't exist. It was a level playing field, no one had campaigned there (except for Obama's TV ads and meeting with the press) yet Hillary won by a huge margin. How is this a less reliable indicator than opinon polls from states where neither candidate has done much, if any campaigning?
CT Voter wrote on January 31, 2008 12:49 PM:Question for the poll watchers: last night, on Hardball, Craig Crawford said that the same day voters in Florida broke evenly between Clinton and Obama, or, that Obama might even have had a slight edge. There was a sizeable chunk of early votes that he claimed went mostly to Clinton. Does anyone know where exit poll results from Florida might be?
lombard wrote on January 31, 2008 12:58 PM:CT Voter:
Check with either ABC or CBS news (maybe even MSNBC). I took a look at one the other night from one of those sources and it was much more detailed than the one available on CNN.
lombard wrote on January 31, 2008 1:01 PM:ChrisO wrote:
How is this a less reliable indicator than opinon polls from states where neither candidate has done much, if any campaigning?
Normally, Florida would be a great state. The problem this time is that a substantial (perhaps 25% to 35%) of the voting was early and missed a trend towards Obama. However, that trend may dissapate by next Tuesday.
Thanks lombard.
The results from CNN were not helpful, and the results from a Florida source weren't helpful, either. I'm just curious were Crawford is getting that information and why the issue of early voting hasn't received more attention...
CT Voter wrote on January 31, 2008 1:12 PM:lombard: found it, as MSNBC.
For people who decided within the last 3 days, Clinton and Obama are close. For those who decided before that, not close at all, with Clinton with a big lead:
Same day vs early voter results from Florida
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:14 PM:this his excellent news for Hillary!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!! FEEL IT!!
The MSNBC exit polls are available here. They asked two slightly different questions - "When did you finally decide for whom to vote in the presidential primary?" and "When did you finally decide for whom to vote in today's primary?" With regard to the first question, Clinton beat Obama on "just today" 34% to 30%, while Obama beat Clinton on "in the last three days" 46 to 38, on "sometime last week" 39 to 31, and on "in the last month" 47 to 40. She beat him on "early/absentee voter" 50 to 31.
Meanwhile, with regard to the second (extremely similar question) he won "within the last three days" 36 to 35 and "within the last week" 37 to 34. She won "absentee/early voter" 50 to 31.
In other words, it appears to me that Crawford was wrong. "Same day" voters broke slightly to Clinton. That said, it does seem clear that she had a great advantage in early voters that largely evaporated as the election day itself grew nearer. Hopefully that fact will serve to motivate Tuesday's get-out-the-vote effort in CA.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:23 PM:I am a 65 year old white male and have lived in NDakota all my life.Here is a chance for Obama supporters to gain a vote in tuesday's caucus.If nothing else this should tell you what has piqued my interest.I have 3 questions i need answers to before voting for Obama.
1.Clinton said in the last debate "Obama was against the war from the beginning but the question is what has he done since then".My question is why did he not lead the fight to bring the troops home,where was his leadership,what did he do or say during this time to demonstrate his leadership,which would then give him the credibility to be critical of others .
2. I travel frequently to Chicago I have been suprised by how frequently Jesse Jackson appears on local Chicago TV.His opinions seem to be sought after and there is nothing racist about him or his opinions.My question is why does the Obama campaign seem to be embarassed by him? If the Obama people feel BILl's reference to Jackson was a racial slur who was it directed against, who was supposed to be offended?I have to say also that the response to HC's remarks about Martin Luther King really troubled me.Fargo ND just named a new highschool after Ronald Davies. I wonder how many voters in the SC primary could tell us why they named the school after him.We all, black and white, need all the help we can get to combat racism,and we do what we can when called upon.
3.Can any one give me an example of a Bill Clinton action or statement in tenor or tone equal to Ted Kennedy's bitter moking of HC by saying Obama will be "ready from day one"
