« Pro-Hillary Group Spending $700,000 On New Indiana Ad Targeting Obama On Economy | Home | North Carolina Governor To Endorse Hillary »
AP Poll: Hillary Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain -- Among Independents
This is a surprising nugget buried in the new Associated Press poll:
When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.
Internals aren't yet available, and those will help in evaluating this.
Obama's appeal to independents is central to the argument for his electability, something that's key to super-dels. Of course, this poll could simply be an outlier, since many other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
Advertisement















Come on.
No one has done more for Independents than Barack Obama.
April 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh. obama supporters can't support any positive polling unless it's positive for barack obama. get over yourselves already. agreed with gotalife - your selfishness is overpowering.
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
TWO WORDS ON REV WRIGNT FOR THOSE HERE WHO HAVE BEEN PARSING HIS WORDS FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS:
HA HA
Now we will leave you to your embarrassment.
Goobers With Common Sense
VOTE YOUR CONCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 28, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to jump up near the top so I could point out that here are actual poll details:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080428-1topline.pdf&id=3898
I calculate the number of self-identified independents taking part in the poll at 220 -- making any conclusions derived from such a sample laughably inexact.
in any case, the overall poll finds both Obama and Clinton beat McCain nationwide.
April 29, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind the delegate count!
April 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates will not help us win in November. Seriously, we have to smart about this. If Obama is the weaker candidate and is almost certain to lose, we should ask him to step down so that our party can gather around Hillary, who is clearly the stronger candidate.
April 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's clearly whiter, I'll give you that.
April 28, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to lose another election in order to prove that the United States is still a racist country, your self-righteousness is just as self-defeating as racism.
April 29, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Clinton is immoral and corrupt. Her threat of obliteration by nuke disqualifies her without further comment.
April 28, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She made no such threat, and your slander disqualifies you from further comment.
April 29, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is a self-confessed liar, though. And most voters don't lke candidates who lie to their faces repeatedly. The right wing is biting its tongue to keep from exploding about Hillary's lies, hoping she'll be nominated. She has no chance to win this election at all.
Lying is what she does. It's impossible to believe anything she says. The Wright thing is not only racist, but guilt by association. He's still being vilified. If he walked on water, the press would scream that he didn't wipe his shoes first.
April 29, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either candidate can win. If she wins the delegate count she gets the nomination, and rightly so. I she doesn't, Obama gets the nomination, and rightly so.
April 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will win the Independents and win the general easily.
April 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife: I hope the McCain campaign is paying you well. I'm curious though. Are they paying you hourly or by the post?
April 28, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife and commenter are clones.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support the Clintons.Period.
She will be the next President.Period.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you trolls weren't convinced by hillary's 30-point victory in pennsylvania, nothing will change your mind.
April 28, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo, I meant 10.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
you said 20 repeatedly, then expanded it to 30, then settled on 10 after it didn't happen. you're as honest as your candidate!
April 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she didn't even get 10.
April 28, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 9.2
April 28, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best avatar ever!!!
April 29, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotaLIE supports the clintons.
gotaLIE gotaLIE.
PERIOD
April 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is not about me.
I am not the "me" generation.
I support the Clintons and she will win.
April 28, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a republican troll. We won't forget how many times you've waxed romantic about McCain here.
You're just here to stir up sh*t.
April 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, when asked how it could support Clinton's obliteration by nuke as the new dem foreign policy responded "it worked."
This is fantasy. And quite dangerous, the deep tunnel vision.
April 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i, too, support the clintons. people can sh*t-talk all they want. it's not going to change. period.
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it's an outlier. Hillary winning Independents...what a joke.
April 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well good on you. Why don't you also say that Obama's policies will lead to Universal health care? Another great joke!
April 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate will achieve Universal Health Care. The money isn't there. That this is an actual argument in the Party is annoying. We've got other issues that have a chance at being solved, let's discuss those.
April 29, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ. Is this TPM or The Hillary Hub?
Of course, this could simply be an outlier, since other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
Do they? Funny, I don't remember seeing those polls flogged on the homepage in extralarge type.
April 28, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
CPM = Cherry Pick Memo
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
More or less.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait until Hillary slinks back to the Senate and TPM has to back Obama 24/7.
(At least I hope that's what this site does.)
April 28, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And after Obama slinks back to the Senate after losing to McCain, you will be the first to send him another $50 to lose the 2012 election.
Obama isn't running a political campaign - he controls a suicide cult that used to be the Democratic party.
April 29, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-fulfilling prophecies are pretty lame IMO.
April 29, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has one bad news day and immediately Obama supporters are up in arms. Obama and his supporters were pointing to the polls when they showed him winning. Now that the poll numbers show ominous signs for an Obama candidacy in the general, you're decrying the poll results.
April 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this could simply be an outlier, since other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
I believe it's called "burying the lede"
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot on there. It's actually often hilarious. In the same post, an Obama supporter will say that this far out from the election polls mean nothing, then go on to say that Hillary will never win the big states she's ahead of McCain in, then go on to say Obama will win all the states he's ahead of McCain in ad infinitum, in exactly the same way the 'believers' cherry pick their horoscopes.
At least, it would be hilarious if there wasn't a consequence to such sloppy thinking.
April 28, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of sloppy thinking, how much energy do you spend twisting rationales for Hillary to win a nomination she lost by the end of February? How much Camp Hillary spin do you uncritically swallow in order to keep the faith that your "fighter" is well on her way to the Presidency?
Not trying to be mean, but just to say, "C'mon, get real, Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It's an illusion that she has any hope at all at this point."
April 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's going to scar her supporters, more as the days go on. Still, there are states yet to vote, and vote they shall. Nay, there will be no easy letdown. I expect gotalife to reach around and turn itself off.
April 28, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it's gonna be a tough pill for 'em to swallow; that's what I'm afraid of. I haven't seen them buzzing about in such a fervor for a while now. Clinton and the media have definitely got their hopes up...they even started denying the existence of math. It can only go downhill from there.
April 29, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike1981...you said Obama supporters were pointing at the polls to support their candidate of choice but are now decrying those same polls.WRONG! not polls, but rather such important statistics such as delegate count, states won, popular vote, supers gain rate.We believe these are the numbers that really count.But I will not deny you the opportunity to wallow in false hope on behalf of the train-wreck campaign run by the doomed Clintons. R u listening Dembilic?
April 29, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we stop with the endless conjecture about what will or won't sway the super dels already? It is irrelevant becuase the super dels will never overturn Obama's 100+ pledged delegate lead. It would destroy the party, and they know that.
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That lead is fascinating, but Obama has not won. He did not 2024 delegates. So the supers aren't overturning anything. If both candidates get 269 electoral votes in the general, we won't say the House is overturning the will of the people when they pick the next president. You need a majority of delegates to be the nominee and neither candidate has that. So the party has to decide. The people had a chance to decide, and it didn't work out. Deal with it.
April 28, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean just made a point of saying that the duty of the superdelegates is not to reflect the results of the pledged delegate race but to consider "electability." I'm hearing words like this more and more from party leaders: it's NOT about the pledged delegate lead. The SF Chronicle's Washington reporter just wrote that the buzz in Congress is that if Hillary wins Indiana "all bets are off" where superdelegate votes are concerned.
I'm afraid that the belief that "Obama will inevitably win because of his 100+ lead in pledged delegates" could lead to a deadly complacency. He has to be able to show the superdelegates that he hasn't lost his momentum and that he can still win primaries.
April 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. However, if one candidate has the lead in pledged delegates, has the popular vote lead, and the superdelegates install the other candidate as the nominee? Something will be deadly, and it won't be complacency. It will be the health of the Democratic party.
And if Hillary Clinton wins by 1% point in Indiana, are all bets still off?
April 28, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's likely not going to happen because while Obama leads in delegates right now, Hillary has the lead in the popular vote. Also, seeing how the popular vote is a better metric to gauge the will of the people, I hope and pray that the supers will not overturn the will of the people.
April 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but the supers aren't buying your Wolfson talking points. They are well aware that Florida and Michigan don't count in the popular vote tally. From Drew's Politico article:
*****
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them – both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, “The rules are that it’s the delegates, period.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html
April 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's complete and utter nonsense. The sort of meaningless psychobabble that Obama has drilled into his cult followers.
The voters of Michigan and Florida legally cast ballots in legal primary elections, and your shameful attempt to completely strip them of their voting franchise is the most ugly and extreme measure I've ever seen in American politics. It's not enough that you've stripped them of any representation at the Democratic convention, but now you also refuse to count them as if they were scum and illegal felons, rather than honest, tax-paying American citizens and Democrats.
Well, you sir will not succeed in your shameful campaign to disenfranchise American voters - we will see to that.
April 29, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like the result? Complain to the Florida and Michigan state Dem parties. They are the ones who set the rules, with Clinton's approval.
We all learned in kindergarten: you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game. And the supers are astute (and adult) enough to realize that.
April 29, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is YOU sir who don't like the result. We already know the result of the primaries in Florida and Michigan and it is you, sir, who are treating the voters of those two states as if they didn't have the same rights and voting franchise that you have. And this is EXACTLY why working class voters don't trust Obama and correctly see him as an elitist who rakes in the dollars of limousine liberals while crapping on the votes of hard working Americans.
April 29, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny how those who are so empathetic to the Florida and Michigan citizens who went to the polls, who feel their pain so fervently, don't give a shit about the Florida and Michigan citizens who didn't go to the polls because they were told their votes wouldn't count. What about them, monkey guy? Why don't they count?
April 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously impossible to count the votes of people who didn't vote, but that doesn't mean that you should refuse to count the votes of people who did vote. There were other issues on the ballot in those states that they should have come out to vote for, and their failure to do their duty as citizens should not be taken out on voters who did their duty and voted.
April 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What this really comes down to is whether you, as a member of a political party, agree to follow the rules of the party at the state level. Clinton is on record as having agreed to those rules. Don't like the result? Complain to St. Hillary.
Part of being an adult is accepting responsibility for your actions. Neither Dean nor Obama had a gun to Clinton's head when she agreed to the rules. To blame either of them for her own actions is simply childish and not the mindset I want in my president.
When the Bay of Pigs went south on Kennedy, did he blame Castro? Kruschev? No. He blamed himself, and the public gave him the benefit of the doubt. A good example for politicians who follow in his path.
There is audio on the net of Clinton even telling a radio interviewer months before the event that their votes wouldn't matter. Did you castigate her too at the time?
April 29, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe, math is psychobabble now? This is funny to me.
April 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
A. She does not lead in the popular vote.
B. The popular vote is a terrible metric since there is no official "popular vote."
April 28, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A. She is leading in the popular vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
B. There is no official national popular vote in the general election either, but that doesn't mean that news organizations can't add up the official state tallies. Or maybe you want to stop them from doing it too.
April 29, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That link shows Obama leading the popular vote by over 200K, even if you include FL and don't include IA, NV, WA, and ME.
April 29, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another lie. The link shows:
Popular vote total including Michigan and Florida and with estimates of totals in Ia, NV, Me & WA:
Obama: 15,328,989 Clinton: 15,340,550
April 29, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But due to state party rules violations, Florida and so do you).
The top line in the link is clear:
Obama 14,418,784 (49.2%), Clinton 13,917,318 (47.5%).
April 30, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
[Pardon me, I "misspoke."]
But due to state party rules violations, Florida and Michigan don't count, as the supers no doubt already know (and so do you).
The top line in the link is clear:
Obama 14,418,784 (49.2%), Clinton 13,917,318 (47.5%).
April 30, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reporter does not cite her sources even if they wish to remain anonymous. Did she talk to the Congressional janitor?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/b/a/2008/04/28/nov05election-obama_needs_ind.DTL
I'll take Politico's perspective, which at least has quotes from "key Democrats on Capitol Hill."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, hello.... As has been reported ad nausuem, Hillary would have win every remaing contest 65-35 to pull even in pledged delegates. Won't happen in one state much less all of them. And after Obama wins NC that number will increase to 70+.
She would have to win 55-45 in all the remaining contests to pull even in popular vote. Also won't happen.
Bottom line is that after all the states have voted, Obama will have a 100+ pledged delegates lead and also a lead in the popular vote.
If you think that there would be no ramifications if the super dels overturned those results and gave the nomination to Hillary, then you are clearly delusional. The race is over. Deal with it.
April 28, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw the pledged delegates.
April 29, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah!! Stupid pledged delegates and their stupid vote representating asses can kiss my ass!
April 29, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty hypocritical to whine about delegates representing the will of the voters while screaming for the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and Michigan out of the other side of your mouth.
April 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the pledged delegate count, which is the measure of the will of the people, Obama will finish in the lead.
The fact that he won't have 2024 pledged delegates has nothing to do with the fact that he will have more than Hillary, hence he wins on the "will of the people". And so, yes, supers going with her would indeed be overturning the will of the people. It would be entirely within their rights, but it would, indeed, be overturning the will of the people.
Conflation is a bitch around here.
April 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that has infected the mind of Obama's supporters. Who cares how many votes are required to win the nomination - as long as he's in the lead in pledged delegates, that's good enough for them. If Hillary was thinking like Obama, she would have declared herself the winner while she was still in the lead in pledged delegates and defied anyone to overturn the will of the people. But her supporters aren't as crazy as obama's, and so it never would have flew.
April 29, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She never had such a lead to do that. I'm all for letting everyone vote, as I believe Obama is as well. Now if the Clintons and her supporters are all for excepting the outcome we'll have a grand convention and get the WH in the Fall. Why do I think Clinton isn't going to accept the outcome?
April 29, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm hmmm. That's why we Democrats took 2000 so well.
April 28, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this isn't going to result in a tie and if the House picked the candidate with less electoral votes, the legitimacy would be challenged in a not so nice manner. The 2000 protest of the election would look like paddy-cake. Obama will still have a commanding lead. Thus, he will win the SD race as well. There's a reason why Clinton is picking up SDs at a slower rate than Obama. Her silly arguments to make people believe she is actually winning may work on her supporters, but you need something tougher and more airtight than that to ask SDs to potentially throw the future of the party in the trash. I'm sorry she won't win, she had her chance and she blew it. If she pulls out a delegate lead by June 3, so be it. But it ain't happening.
April 29, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She could increase the number of independents. If she gets the nomination, I'm becoming an independent.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
mee too
April 28, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG already. Enough with the misleading and ever changing polls!
I have poll fatigue.
I have primary fatigue.
I have Clinton fatigue.
I have blog fatigue.
I have outrage fatigue.
It's time to get away from it all.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is NOT a poll of registered voters or likely voters. ITS A POLL OF ADULTS. Including those not even registered or having no intention to vote.
April 28, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - but if they ever happened to maybe, possibly stumble into a voting booth by accident - they'd probably, sorta pick... Hillary... maybe.
Isn't that good enough?
April 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. This poll is probably the least reliable of any out there, since it doesn't even use likely or registered voters. But that didn't stop Greg from finding a "nugget" (revealing choice of words, there).
April 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. These aren't reliable. Still, this is troubling...
April 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
a little under 200 Inds in that poll. that's about a 7-point MOE using the standard calculation.
definitely not headline worthy unless more polls start showing a similar difference.
April 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who agrees to participate in polls, anyway?
April 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go look at pollster.com and look poll by poll, state by state. Obama clearly has the edge to beat McCain on a state by state basis... the aggregate national number does not tell the story. Hillary's negatives are too high and she doesn't have the 50 State organization on the ground to beat McCain, like Obama does.
April 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any poll experts here? I'd like to be able to make sense of these discrepancies:
Gallup's daily says "There is also no change in national registered voter preferences for the fall, with Clinton beating John McCain by three percentage points, 47% to 44%, and Obama running even with McCain, each at 45%."
Gallup's error margin they put at+- 3
Rasmussen's is similar. Clinton beating McCain by 3 and Obama:McCain even.
My question: how does this square with the enormous unfavourability differences?
Obama and McCain today have identical polls on this:
both 51 favourable, 46 unfavourable.
Whereas Clinton's only 45 favourable and a huge 53 unfavourable. These high unfavourables of hers have held up for weeks.
I find it hard to believe that people will vote for someone they dislike if they have someone else there whom they don't dislike who's offering similar policies.
How to make sense of this. Anyone?
April 28, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - stop reading polls.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that I may say I have unfavorable opinions of Hillary Clinton, but when matched up with McCain I'd almost certainly answer that I'd vote for her too (although I wouldn't like it).
April 28, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans will vote for the devil they know before voting for the devil that they don't. Especially when his pastor is the devil.
April 29, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same poll showing Hillary beating McCain by 9?
Seems a bit odd.
April 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama can't control his pastor, how can he control Michelle?
If he can't stand up to Hillary in a debate, how can he stand up to Ahmadinejad?
Important unanswered questions.
April 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary cannot control Bill, how can she stand up to the Republicans?
Important unanswered questions, indeed.
April 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill took control of the campaign. Hence Hillary moving up in every poll while Obama is moving down. Coincidence? I think not!
April 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely, the little lady knows her place.
April 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct - you think not.
April 28, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying people are really voting for Bill because Hillary can't do a good enough job herself??? Nice vote of confidence in your candidate. I am an Obama supporter but even I find that offensive toward Hillary.
Let Hillary and Obama rise or fall on their own- leave the spouses out of it.
April 28, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "your candidate"
They are republican trolls who feign loyalty for Camp Clinton. They do slip character once in a while, like right hhere, when their more natural, Freeper-like, boastful disdain for women comes out.
April 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting perspective from someone who ostensibly wants us to support the feminist candidate -- a plea to control one's spouse. :-\
No inconsistency there.
April 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason behind the tightening of the polls? Because of Bill.
This is one heckuva Hillary supporter.
April 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
'stand up to"
"control"
Do you even hear your own fear-words any more?
April 28, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEVEN articles from TPM on polls today alone???? What the fuck is this shit?
Hey Greg, et al: don't ever complain about the MSM - you're outdoing them by a mile.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... I wonder if you would be complaining if BHO was doing better in the polls?
April 29, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can hmmm all you want. Look through my older posts and you'll find I've complained about TPM's obsession with polls when Obama was leading in them too - especially the meaningless daily Gallup polls. I've suggested daily isn't frequent enough - why not hourly polls?
My problem with this isn't who's ahead in a given poll, it's the way TPM is outdoing the mainstream media's poll-obsession. I wearily expect it from lazy CNN. But I find it pathetic on an otherwise good, progressive blog. And 7 posts in one day on polls is truly pathetic.
April 29, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't read the fine print: Independent white women over 65 with 10th grade educations who never left philandering husbands who hunt with bows and arrows and favor bowling with square balls.
April 28, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, fighting bill, way to stand up and fight for what you believe in - sexism. Awesome.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to stand and fight. If he can't fight he will lose. If he has lost his stomach for the fight, he should step aside. This is a nonstop death match until November. He needs to finish off HRC and get on with dismantling McCain.
If he cannot do this, he should think about throwing his support Hillary. Clinbamacans Unite!
April 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton winning amongst Indies? Huh uh. Sure. With approval ratings which rival the chimp's for the race down the shitter. Fighting Bill has it about right concerning those polled.
April 28, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like your Crimson avatar
April 28, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, 'tis a doosey!
April 28, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thirded...
April 28, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another meaningless poll. An outlier at that.
Obama won this race in February and now we are just running out the clock -- painfully so. If he wins North Carolina he win's the nomination. If he wins NC and Indiana, he might have enough superdelegates by the end of May.
The same two questions remain for Hillabee:
1) When, not if, will she concede the nomination to Obama?
2) How low will she go in the meantime?
Should he be more agressive right now? Yes. Does he need to in order to win? No.
April 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have complete confidence that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States.
She is getting stronger and Obama is winded (maybe he should smoke less).
Around the final turn and coming into the stretch Clinton is making her move. Clinton is a great closer.
April 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have complete confidence that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States."
..you are pretty much a dying breed my friend.
"She is getting stronger and Obama is winded (maybe he should smoke less)."
If you call getting beaten in states won, pledged delegates, and the popular vote as getting "stronger" - so be it. Maybe Hillary should start smokingr..
"Clinton is a great closer."
Take the "c" off of closer, and I completely agree with you..
April 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she really closed the deal on healthcare in '93. What a great closer.
April 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Clinton would simply close Iran with nukes.
See how the tunnel-vision born of turning a blind eye to a philandering monster for decades allows her to simply delete 70 million people with nuclear weapons. It's some sick shit, unworthy of humanity, let alone the dem party.
This is where you want dem foreign policy to go?
Pax,
M.
April 28, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has got to be the poorest reporting yet. A post with no Internals available.
All time low!
April 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone ever actually seen Greg Sargent and Gotalife in the same place at the same time?
Hmmm.....
April 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
good point.
Greg loves to get snark, under his own name even, in comment threads here. who knows what he might do anonymously.
April 28, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: it's not the Obama campaign that has a problem. It's the poll, Greg and TPM who have a problem.
Obama simply cannot have a problem. He wouldn't be Obama if he did. Like Jesus, he's beyond reproach.
So yes, I understand that the majority of people here don't like it when they have to pull the fingers out of their ears and hear something they don't like.
Now, please feel free to plug them back in.
April 28, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond reproach? No. Beyond being smeared in a game of guilt by association? Yes.
And I've been listening the whole time.
The Obama campaign doesnt have a problem. Rev. Wright will not work as a strategy, for Hillary, nor for McCain in the general election. People really do care about issues that matter, the economy, the war, etc., and they will only be turned off by this BS. Obama will regain his form and rise above this by strongly distancing himself from this butthead Wright, and moving forward with real issues that affect voters.
Bringing up Wright is just race-baiting sliminess. So what his pastor said some kooky things? Really, do we all agree with everything our ministers say? Do we hear every single word they say? Should we be judged on snippets of sermons our pastor gave in years past? Or by his recent remarks in defense of those comments? If you are answering yes to these questions, you need to get a new hobby.
April 28, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got it all wrong Dorn76, it's not JUST guilt by association, it's GUILT BY PARTICIPATION too.
You are judged by the company you keep. Responsible parents teach their kids this basic principle while growing up. You exercise GOOD JUDGEMENT by staying away from bad, negative influences in your life. BHO has called Wright a mentor and close friend. Last time I checked, the definition of mentor is as follows: an INFLUENTIAL senior sponsor or supporter. This is BHO's OWN characterization of the relationship, not mine. To claim that Wright has not influenced BHO would be to call BHO a liar.
April 29, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. Who doesn't have someone in their lives that they disagree with? Are we supposed to write off anyone who dares voice something we think is incorrect, or coming from a dated perspective?
April 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way in hell this is legit.
And at this point, doesn't matter, cuz Obama has already won:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html
Sorry, math hurts sometimes
April 28, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOUR MATH INSOLENCE WILL NOT STAND!
Think about this: Clinton wins if Obama drops out! Whhatya got to say about that!? You math-lovin' Obamabastard!
/snark
Yes, I think it's gotten that absurd.
April 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is outdoing himself with headline journalism. If the superdels push this to Hillary Clinton based on tracking polls of independent voters, I will be writing Obama's name in on the November ballot. Her supporters can whine and cry about Roe v. Wade until they wet their pants. Hillary Clinton is shitting her way to the top and I'm tired of compromising my principles on behalf of the Clintons.
April 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO ONE HAS DONE MORE FOR PEOPLE IN DEPENDS THAN OLD FARTESS HILLARY!!!
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are having fun now.
I tried to tell you, she is the obvious choice.
Lets unite with her and win the general easily this time.
April 28, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure it is fun. She is losing! And will lose. Do the math, sport. She is losing the popular vote and the delegate vote. She can't win enough delegate votes now. Her wrong vote on the war, her comments favoring McCain over Obama and her commment that "He's not a Muslim...as far as I know" have sealed her fate. She's lost, Obama's won. Yep, it is fun!
April 28, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sadistic fun watching Clinton supporters get their hopes up again just to see them dashed.
April 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Masochists unite!! For Hillary!!
April 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLMENTUM (R)
blech...
April 28, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Obama can't control his pastor..."
If you are actually trying to be serious as opposed to just trolling, that statement goes down as one of the most ludicrous ones in a long time. What a hateful comment. Since when does anyone "control his pastor"? And for goodness sakes, why should they? Hillary can't even control her own husband!
It is comments like yours that reflect the reasons why Hillary will never be nominated and certainly never be elected president. Too many lies, too much whining and blatant hypocrisy, too much divisiveness, too much support for McCain over Senator Obama, her vote in favor of the Iraq war, and the horrible "He's not a Muslim...as far as I know" comment. Hillary has become quite despicable. And I was a strong Hillary supporter going into this election. The good news now is that Obama is winning the delegate count and the popular vote. And she simply can not win the nomination (thank goodness!). Just do the math.
April 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear Obama's vetting is taking a toll. But Hillary is skirting by. She tries to convince us that Bill's vetting means she has no surprise baggage. This is ridiculous. The right wing dug into his life; they went after her only when it hurt him. If people think Obama looks bad for Ayres/Wright, just wait until the GOP unleashes on her. Hillary's numbers right now are artificially inflated because the GOP is doing it's best to tear down Obama and prop her up. If we ever reach a point where Clinton appears to be on the verge of getting the nomination, the right will turn on her with a ferocity and alacrity that will be breathtaking. And then both Democratic candidates will be wounded. The only hope for the party is for Obama to win Indiana, which would turn the media narrative on a dime, and lead to real calls for Hillary to get out. Otherwise, the whole party is screwed.
April 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama has baggage, the Clintons retain the entire Samsonite Luggage Factory. Apples and oranges. And because Sen Clinton already has such absurdly high negatives for a candidate, all it will take is 1 or 2 more points, and we're talking GOP landslide. There is nothing positive that is new about her. She can only spiral downward.
No amount of "uniting behind her" can undo the lies, the piss-poor judgement, and the obliteration of Iran by nukes.
If you could have seen the look on Geraldo's face last night after Wright's speech...he knows it's over.
Pax,
M.
April 28, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait until the far right unleashes on Hillary? Where have you been the last 20 years? Feeding at your mother's breast?
April 29, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
unfavorable ratings at an all time high....for Hillary.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/04/unfavorables_on_the_rise_1.html
That and the delegate math would argue against your proposition. But what good are facts, anyway?
April 28, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's the front-runner and as such is the focus of all of the Republican attacks, not Hillary. She's not being actively vetted at all...yet he's the one winning. Whoops.
April 28, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support the Clintons.Period.
She will be the next President.Period.
Posted by gotalife
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM
Gotalife, you ignorant sexist pig! As her husband recently reminded us, Hillary is Sixty years old and forgetful. That means she no longer has a "Period"
Shame on you Gotalife, you ignorant sexist pig; for playing the menstruation card!!!
April 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will give you time to vent and get over it.
Come back and unite with her and win this time.
They will remain undefeated.
Get it out of your system.
Wee will win.
April 28, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I will give you time to vent and get over it."
Get over what? You're the one supporting a candidate who won't get within a square mile of the nomination.. Thoughts?
April 28, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come back and unite with her and win this time.
I hear Darth Vader's voice when I read that.
April 28, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has older white women too.
This is short, sweet, and VERY refreshing after all the polls, shmolls, and trolls.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/obama-asks-supporter-will_n_99078.html
April 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed... thanks.
April 28, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now the latest poll to make everyones mind up as to who the best candidate is. sh'yeah right!
April 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here ya go. I hope you find the caps helpful.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.
The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.
HELPED BY INDEPENDENTS, YOUNG PEOPLE AND SENIORS, CLINTON GAINED GROUND THIS MONTH in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.
Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, raising questions anew about whether Obama can attract broad swaths of voters needed to triumph in such big states come the fall when the Democratic nominee will go up against McCain. At the same time, OBAMA WAS THROWN ON THE DEFENSIVE by his comment that residents of small-town America were BITTER. The Illinois senator also continued to deal with the controversial remarks of his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. JEREMIAH WRIGHT.
"I don't think there's any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved," said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. HE ATTRIBUTED CLINTON'S GAINS TO PEOPLE MOVING FROM THE 'INFATUATION STAGE" OF CHOOSING A CANDIDATE THEY LIKE THE MOST TO A "DECISION-MAKING STAGE" WHERE THEY DETERMINE WHO WOULD MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT.
Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now - that CLINTON MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE MORE FORMIDABLE FALL CANDIDATE for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that OBAMA CAN'T SEEM TO GET HIS FOOTING BACK."
The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination. Underscoring deep divisions within the Democratic Party - and a potentially negative longer-term impact - 30 percent of Clinton supporters and 21 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain in November if their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.
Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, BUT SHE HAS THE ADVANTAGE AMONG SUPERDELEGATES WITH ABOUT A THIRD YET TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.
He also urged undecided superdelegates - members of the Democratic National Committee as well as Democratic governors and members of Congress - to side with EITHER Clinton or Obama before the August convention so the party can come together to take on McCain. The Arizona senator clinched the GOP nomination last month and has been campaigning freely since.
ALSO ON MONDAY, THE HEAD OF THE REPUBLICANS' HOUSE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SAID THE PARTY WOULD RATHER FACE OBAMA IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE THE GOP BELIEVES CLINTON WOULD BE MORE OF A THREAT TO MCCAIN AMONG MODERATE VOTERS.
Said Tom Cole, a congressman from Oklahoma: Obama "is by any definition very liberal, TO THE LEFT OF HILLARY CLINTON, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us."
Nearly half the people in the AP-Ipsos poll said the protracted Democratic primary will hurt their party's chances in November; more Obama supporters than Clinton backers said they had that fear.
Overall, people said they trusted Clinton and Obama about the same to handle Iraq and the economy; McCain got similar ratings on Iraq but trailed both Democrats on the economy. And while roughly the same percentage of people said they trusted both Democrats to understand their problems, fewer trusted McCain.
WHEN PITTED AGAINST MCCAIN, CLINTON NOW WINS AMONG INDEPENDENTS, 50 PERCENT TO 34 PERCENT, WHEN JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO SHE RAN ABOUT EVEN WITH HIM WITH THIS CRUCIAL GROUP OF VOTERS. CLINTON ALSO NOW DOES BETTER AMONG INDEPENDENTS THAN OBAMA DOES IN A MATCHUP WITH MCCAIN.
CLINTON HAS A NEWFOUND EDGE AMONG SENIORS, TOO, 51 PERCENT TO 39 PERCENT; MCCAIN HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE. AND, CLINTON HAS IMPROVED HER MARGIN OVER MCCAIN AMONG PEOPLE UNDER AGE 30; TWO-THIRDS OF THEM NOW SIDE WITH HER. MCCAIN LEADS OBAMA AMONG SENIORS, WHILE OBAMA LEADS MCCAIN AMONG THOSE UNDER 30 BUT BY A SMALLER MARGIN THAN CLINTON DOES.
She also now leads among Catholics, always an important swing voting group in a general election, and improved her standing in the South as well as in cities and among families making under $25,000 a year. But she lost ground among families making between $50,000 and $100,000; they narrowly support McCain.
The poll, taken April 23-27, questioned 1,001 adults nationally, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 457 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.6 points, and 346 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 points.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080428/D90B5JRO1.html
---
April 28, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I mean, that's it: Why do we even bother with these primaries? Obviously, we should just ask the Repubs who they would like to run against and pick the other candidate as a nominee because THERE'S NO WAY they might be, you know LYING ABOUT THAT!!!!
April 28, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same AP whose owner called Obama Osama at their convention? This is the same AP that used to employ John Solomon (currently of the WashTimes), that still employs Nedra Pickler? It's not that I don't believe any good polls for Hillary, for instance I believed all the polls that said she'd win PA.
It's not the poll; it's the source. I didn't believe them when they were artificially propping up Bush's numbers through 2004, 2005, 2006. I just think the failure of the Clinton slime machine to crush the Obama campaign has the Republicans really worried. 24-Hour slime has a half-life in voters minds, and the fact that he will have loads of cash and, as a consequence of the extended primary, millions of newly registered Democratic voters (and a very old opponent) has to give the Rethuglicans heartburn of a most persistent variety.
What if the candidate linked to Obama in MS goes on to win the Special Election, what will that mean? It'll mean the GOP better get a new bag of tricks; that old shit is played out.
April 28, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if we're going to count "states won" as the indicator of who's strongest...how can the Democrats beat McCain?
Or will Obama's ppl forget about that talking point when he is behind in "states won."
Awful magnanimous of you folks to accet 50% of the delegate count in a state he wasn't even on the ballot in.
One of my suspiscions is confirmed here...Obama cannot win the ELECTION. But because too many of us listen to Russert, Matthews and Olberman, Hillary could lose the nomination.
McCain thanks you for his support, but I find it reprehensible.
April 28, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has been getting quite a pass by the MSM. Once this becomes a two-way race, he's toast.
Zero on the economy.
Laughably flip-flops on Iraq.
Foreign policy is a paranoid, counter-productive, isolationist mess.
These poll numbers vs. McCain mean nothing at this point.
April 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is such a blistering, bruising affair. How does one unite the Dem Party? Obama/Clinton do not share a ticket. I just don't see it, after all that has transpired. Not least of which is her odious strategy of moving towards and pandering to the Right. ClintonInc is counting on Dem voters to have short memories, forget how scurrilous she is, and come around in August. It's a big happy tent, y'all. Join us!
I'm not buying it. Just the thought of the two of them marching triumphantly out onto the stage, holding hands high and smiling and trying to sell that bullshit is too distasteful for words. Kum Ba Ya, my ass. Obama desparately needs a win in Indiana or we are screwed, brothers and sisters, we are screwed.
April 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye. Who will embrace gotalife?
April 28, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, we'll wipe the Fritos off his chest and give him a big hug when this is all over!~
April 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am beginning to think that one of the reasons this primary is such a bitch is that everyone knows it's really the general.
Whoever wins the democratic bid will be the next president. Than goodness.
April 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am very skeptical about this poll - it goes against all data to date. There is a reason why Obama won states with heavy indie constituencies like WI & MO and he has consistently polled ahead among that group even in states like OH & PA.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I am going with outlier for now.
April 28, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez.
I go away for the weekend and I come back to find that Taylor Marsh has purchased TPM.
Some of the topics headlined in the past 48 hours would make Terry McAuliffe blush.
April 28, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support Obama, but I want to win. If Hillary is more likely to do that, nominate her.
April 28, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dont worry she isnt more likely.
April 28, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone can explain to all of us how Hillary can win if the largest and most loyal voting bloc in the party, angry over having a legitimately won victory stolen from the candidate of their choice, stay home on election day, you might have a compelling argument.
The fact is, Democratic nominees don't get to the White House without the energized support of African Americans.
So explain to us how Hillary overcomes this dilemma, and you might be able to make a case that she would be the better choice as nominee. Because otherwise, you're advocating not only losing the election but also destroying the party for years to come. And we don't have years to waste on getting our act together. It's taken the Republicans only 8 years to truly destroy the country; given another 4, they may be able to completely kill it.
April 28, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's part of the point. Every Democrat should place winning ahead of every other consideration. I include African-Americans in that group.
Granted, it's premature at this point, but if it appears likely in a few weeks or a month that Hillary gives us the best chance to beat McCain, that's the direction we should go in because her policy positions are far closer to Obama's than McBush's.
Would it be so terrible in Obama is the VP? Not in my opinion.
April 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see how these numbers continue to change now that Wright is out there confirming the worst of what everyone has previously said about him. Worse, he's now spouting BS about Blacks needing different standards, possibly even separate schools. There goes 50 years of integration and progress--at the hands of a hate and racist-filled preacher.
It is priceless that even today Wright is again saying that Obama is lying as a politician to distance himself. It won't be enough, but Obama needs to be clear and explicit on what he agrees with and does not agree with and why he spent 20 years with this guy. Wright didn't just adopt these views in the past couple of months. Obama is simply not credible saying he didn't hear or didn't know. He needs to give an explicit apology and not blame everyone else. Wright calls him a liar, now what does Obama say? And, too, what about the Dear Leader's supporters? What do you agree and disagree with from Wright? Do you still defend him?!
Dana Milbank at the post offers good commentary on Wright and Obama at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-on-wright.html.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 28, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Weaver: Blah, blah, blah, Wright, blah, blah, Wright, Wright, blah, blah.
April 28, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You humor is speaks much. Guess we won't be hearing your answers to my questions? Fits and figures, I notice a decreased enthusiasm about the Dear Leader's followers that covering your ears or eyes and speaking gibberish is as logical and mature a response as any other. I'll give you credit for not devolving into derogatory insults.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 28, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gave your asinine "questions" the answers they deserved. Why should anybody take your "Dear Leader" crap seriously, troll?
April 30, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's see how these numbers continue to change now that Wright is out there confirming the worst of what everyone has previously said about him. Worse, he's now spouting BS about Blacks needing different standards, possibly even separate schools. There goes 50 years of integration and progress--at the hands of a hate and racist-filled preacher."
Well, lets just be glad that Rev. Wright isn't running for office, huh? Guilt-by-association is a lame game, especially for Hillary supporters to play - based on the unseemly characters littered throughout the Clintons' past.
April 28, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent sez:
Which polls are you referring to, Greg. Haven't you seen the tsunami that started after PA and is about to blow Obama over? All the polls have been pointing in the wrong direction for him, including this AP pool. And now, with the Rev. Dr. Wright coming out of hibernation to lend support, the stars are just perfectly lined up for the knock out punch.
Obama's shine, to the extent that there was ever one, is now gone.
The "emperor" is naked and it ain't pretty...
Live by the press, die by the press.
April 28, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why he's behind in polls.
Wait...
Oh yeah, he's still ahead! He's currently the target of at least two smear campaigns, and he still beats the woman who he even lets get away with talking about his lack of flag pin while not wearing one herself.
And I'd say reducing one's opponent's lead to less than half qualifies as a victory.
April 28, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd say a VICTORY is a VICTORY. What you are describing is simply a HUMILIATING LOSS. After trying to buy the PA primary with an obscene amount of money (historical amount actually), all he had to show for it was a double digit, HUMILIATING LOSS.
April 29, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I left this blog when it became unsafe for Clinton supporters but given today's events, I want to ask you to join us in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She can win in November and she will be a fine President. I don't always agree with her but she does her homework and she works harder and is simply tireless.
For months, many of us have been pleading with you telling you that Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen. That train wreck is now here. I won't dispute the math for the nomination is your favour but the odds for a win in November are not. Though I am a Democrat and last voted for Republican John Anderson in 1980, I'll vote for McCain over Obama. Better the devil I know than one I don't and who is too inexperience for words. You fell in love, he spoke eloquently, he won your hearts but there few specifics on your life together past that wedding and now the engagement is falling apart. Vote with your heads, not your hearts. I know today is hard but I didn't start a Clinton supporter. In fact in 2007 I was an ABC voter Anybody But Clinton and I came to support Edwards. When faced with a choice between Obama and Clinton, the more I learned about Obama the less I like him but the more I learned about Clinton the more I like her. Look past the AUMF vote and think about who can actually deal with the situation on the ground, who has the support of the former military professionals and the expertise to get the job done. Hillary Clinton can amaze you if you let her.
April 28, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's still doing better than Hillary in polls v. McCain, so you're obviously making a priori accusations.
April 28, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this "expertise" of which you speak?
April 28, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your pleas are falling on deaf ears.
Nothing amazing about Hillary to me. Just disappointing triangulation and deception, Republican-lite, corporate-friendly, pusillanimous pretend friend of the people crap.
No, thank you. I refuse to "look past" any of her politically cowardly votes or collaboration with Bill in his administration's misdeeds.
April 28, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politically cowardly votes? Waffles is the poster boy for that sort of thing. 130 'present' votes is the definition of political cowardice. Voting one way but then claiming he meant to vote another way SIX TIMES on controversial issues while in the Illinois senate is the definition of political cowardice.
April 29, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back.
They are many Clinton supporters now.
Yes, we must unite like the gop to win this time.
She will be a great President better than her husband.
April 28, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a republican.
Lost track of all the times you've talked up the GOP or McCain or repug talking points themselves.
We're not buying it. Thou dost protest too much.
April 28, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, gotalife appears to have the soul of a machine, a haunting in Java. I have not seen one honest dem value expressed by it. Like its candidate, and John McCain, gotalife barely inspires a trip to the john.
April 28, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he was being sarcastic.
It seriously sounds like some sort of nazi chant, and I don't say stuff like that lightly.
April 28, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was amazed, yes, by her suggesting Iranian foreign policy ends with erasure of Iran by nukes.
She is not qualified, no matter who else is running. This is what you do not understand.
Pax,
M.
April 28, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How nice to hear from you again after all this time. BTW - the RNC just called. They have a check for you and your dinner's ready. Time to scoot back home!
April 28, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found your post eloquent and honest. I do not believe Clinton is perfect. But she is the best choice and shows the leadership, knowledge and drive that is necessary for the position.
Clinton is on a roll. She will make a great nominee and, hopefully, a great president.
April 28, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
factanonverba,
You say "she does her homework."
Is this is true, then why couldn't she find the time to read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before her Iraq vote -- arguably the most important vote during her whole Senate career?
It was possible to do so. Senator Bob Graham and others found the time.
April 28, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you more comfortable at Taylor Marsh?
All Obama-hating, ALL the time?
She appreciates blind loyalty as a Clintonista and will brook no deviation to the party line.
Posts here that dissent from the prevailing sentiment of the particiapnts/regulars don't get censored or taken down like at her website.
But if you start posting like the other Hillbots, be prepared to meet your match.
April 29, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. She needs to get to it, if that's to happen, though. I don't buy the silly arguments made so far. Convince me, win the pledged delegate race.
April 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
others of us agree with you
April 29, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
meant to direct this to factonverba
April 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, guys, c'mon! "Look past" the vote for Hillary's War! "Look past" her service on the board of Wal-Mart! "Look past" her stumping for NAFTA! "Look past" every one of your progressive principles and get on board! Or else!
April 30, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Hillary Clinton is she is pandering her ass off.
First she talks about umbrella determent in the Middle East.
Then she talks says U.S. could totally obliterate Iran. Even though most experts say it is at least 10 years before Iran could make a nuclear weapon at its current pace.
Then she hops on this idea of a gas tax holiday. That would only save a person 25-30 bucks.
Don't even get me started on McCain. He puts out an economic policy where there isn't a tax he doesn’t want to cut, passing on huge debt to on kids and grandchildren.
He says he doesn’t know if we should build the ninth ward in New Orleans.
He doesn’t even know that 401 k plans and pensions don't pay capital gain taxes.
If this was an election about real issues, people would be discussing the lunacy of these statements by Clinton and McCain. Instead people are up in arms because he went on Fox news. People are up in arms for what a pastor said.
America this is your test and you are failing.
April 28, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama is the candidate of yesterday. He's been exposed. He's done.
April 28, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He's been exposed. He's done."
Don't you toothless rubes get tired of regurgitating that same tired line after every pseudo-scandal?
April 28, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO ONE HAS DONE MORE FOR DOOMSDAY NUCLEAR OBLITERATORS THAN DR. HILLARY STRANGELOVE CLINTON!!!
April 28, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"no one has done more for independents than obama??"
please, commenter, elaborate? i'm unaware that obama's done much of anything of note as a u.s. senator, much less anything specifically helpful or targeted to independents.
please, educate me here? inquiring minds want to know.
April 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a comparative list of their accomplishments (Huffington Post, probably), and, I must say, Clinton's seat was ceremonial compared to Obama)
April 28, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I see it is sinking in.
Yes, his former pastor is taking his fifteen and making it into a movement.
A movement to sell books and throwing Obama under the bus.
This is the biggest self inflicted train wreck I have ever witnessed.
It so ugly even mcwar backed off.
So get over it, come back when you get it out of your system and lets unite with a winner, Hillary Clinton to win this time.
April 28, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would rather see the Democrats lose every election in my lifetime than Hillary elected president.
April 28, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed. No more obliteratti.
April 28, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't Obama's pastor throwing him under the bus be a good thing for those worried about their relationship?
April 28, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike;
I agree -the next Presidency is more important that either candidate. But when this primary started going negative I was reminded viscerally of the Swift Boaters.
As much as I find it disgusting, but both candidates will provide very big targets for them in the fall. What will be our defense if they trot out weeks of endless loops about Monica L? Enough to remind the voters how sucky that period was. If they do this-and make people actually FEEL that horrible era again-then say something like, "Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House," what would be the defense against that?
I am afraid that there might be none.
Either way, we are going to have our work cut out for us in the general. I have mentioned many times, I think it will be up to us to defend either candidate because the Dem Party does not seem to be able to handle the Swift Boaters!
April 28, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough to remind the voters how sucky that period was.
Sucky peace or sucky prosperity? Or both?
"Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House," what would be the defense against that?
Fill me in on why a defense is needed. Thanks.
April 28, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So basically you are coming out and saying a third Bill Clinton term. Even though it is against our constitution.
April 28, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A third Bill Clinton term is better than a third George Bush term - which is what we'll get if Obama is the nominee.
April 29, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A third Bill Clinton term is better than a third George Bush term - which is what we'll get if Obama is the nominee."
What idiocy, no wonder you support Hillary Clinton - she's the one who wants to "obliterate" Iran sounds like Dubya to me..
April 29, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow the Obama haters are really out tonight on this story. Well I pretty sure McCain wins if Hillary is the nominee.
She will try to offer him the VP. I hope he has enough pride to turn her down. Then when AA decide to switch to McCain and the youth decide to stay home.
April 28, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
you hope he "has enough pride" to turn down the vice presidency? this 46-year old untested senator? yeah, I wonder if he'll lower himself to accept the second-most important job in the world.
you obamaphiles are really deluded. oh and btw: not everybody who disagrees with you is a Republican.
April 28, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an Obamaphiles or any other name you want to throw out. I am however an African American who has being paying close attenion to what has happen. I don't believe Hillary Clinton would have ont the nomination fairly.
If you can't win in a fair and decent manner, I don't feel Obama should validate her nomination.
April 28, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I can only speak for the polling results of this independent, but currently Hillary is polling well-short-off-piss-poor.
I doubt other independents are far from my own sentiments, at least in my neck of the woods.
April 28, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary polls better among independents against McCain than Obama does, according to the latest AP survey. DK
Ooops...
April 28, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree adamchaz...and I would laugh my ass off at her defeat except for the tragedies downticket that it will lead to.
It won't be the first time a Clinton squandered a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
But luckily, Barack Obama is going to be the next Democratic nominee for President and the next President of the United States.
April 28, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I having serious doubts. I believe the status quo is setting in now. Notice how Clinton is calling in facors to the political machines in Ohio and PA.
Notice how Clinton has taken complete control of the media. Notice how Clinton donors have muzzled Howard Dean.
Notice how the elections has become about the sport of politics. Instead of about the issues of the American people.
April 28, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be the first time a Clinton squandered a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
Is Bill Clinton also responsible for the crabgrass in your yard?
April 28, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No --but he was instrumental in losing control of Congress.
OR do you think Bush's idiocy has nothing to do with the current mood of the country or the repubs losing Congress in '06?
April 29, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bit by bit the evidence is coming in. Obama likely cannot win in November. People are desperate to vote for a democrat. But they will be reluctant to vote for Obama b/c he has no established political identity. He has tried (pretty well) to create one during this campaign. Change is scary to most Americans. Clinton offers a known quantity. Sad to day, so does the awful McCain. If you don't want McCain to be president, you better think about Hillary soon. If you think Hillary is worse than any alternative, then why aren't you voting for Nader? B/c it is basically the same stance--which got us Bush and, if you keep it up, McCain. I'm not saying Hillary is perfect. She is better than McCain and she can beat him.
April 28, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple fact is that white people have always been in denial about racism in America. Obama never had a chance. Maybe with more experience he will, but not now. That's just the way it is, and we can either accept that and do the best that we can with what we've got or lose another election. Losing another election to the Republicans will do infinitely more damage to the cause of civil rights than winning as Hillary's VP.
April 29, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with your argument that BHO could possibly be back in the POTUS race again with more experience. If he loses the nomination this year, he would be damaged to the point were he could never again make a serious run at the White House. There are plenty of qualified AA's that could, and should run in future elections, but BHO would not be one of them.
April 29, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he loses an election the Democrats had in the bag (which he will) there won't be another black candidate for president for another 50 years. But if he accepts the spot as Hillary's VP, he could be the president in eight years.
April 29, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I proudly support the new frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Now, with that out out of the way: I watched the entire Q&A with Rev. Wright at the Nat'l Press Club today on C-SPAN. With an open mind.
HE IS THE SMARMIEST, COCKIEST, MOST PREENING, MOST LOATHESOME NARCISSIST IMAGINABLE. His treatment of the moderator, borne from his intense anti-white and anti-woman feelings, says all you need to know about him. Like the Obama supporters on here he is a bully, a liar, and a charlatan. A deeply sick individual. He is 100%, exactly like his "WHITE DEVIL" counterparts, the Falwells and the Robertsons. Demagogue is too kind. Fraud is too kind. Sociopath is too kind. Delusional mental patient is too kind. I watched with an open mind, kind of half paying attention... and I was shocked. He sunk Barack's battleship this morning, but good.
Good riddance to them both. Oh, and you know what else? Take your lame, months-old and therefore superannuated "math" and shove it up your ass. Math doesn't win the day. Character does. Hillary has it, Barack and his scumbag preacher don't.
April 28, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I know one thing. Rev. Wright can speak better than you. I can't believe we have become a country where you can't disagree with someone without villlafying them.
He has done more positive for more Americans than any of his critics.
April 28, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, adamchaz.
I actually enjoyed listening to and watching Reverend Wright. I find him to be extremely intelligent, well versed in many subjects, not the least of which Theology, VERY entertaining and funny and EXTREMELY engaging. I found nothing he said to be offensive.
Au contraire. He speaks truth with passion and courage and maybe therein lies the problem. Many people can't handle the truth and instead feel threatened by it. They would rather hide behind their China made flag pins as they feign patriotism. Rev Wright, OTOH, is a true patriot when he says what he thinks is wrong with our policies, many of them inhumane, oppressive, and downright cruel, not to mention murderous --- all according to Scripture.
There is nothing unpatriotic about speaking truth to power.
I would go to see him anytime I could and I will be looking out for his book.
The world needs more Reverend Wrights.
April 28, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
Yeah, take that stupid math!
No one ever wins elections from votes...
or something.
April 28, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"HE (Obama's pastor) IS THE SMARMIEST, COCKIEST, MOST PREENING, MOST LOATHESOME NARCISSIST IMAGINABLE."
At least now we know where Obama got it. It takes a cocky narcissist to think he has enough experience to be president after two years in the Senate.
April 29, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"cocky narcissist"
I always thought this was the case among Clinton and her machine. They are getting beaten by a guy who came out of nowhere and is simply playing the game better then her, so naturally he's an asshole who likes to steal from the candidate who should have one in their minds. The frustration is apparent everyday.
April 29, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Wright was cocky and arrogant. He was also quick and funny. His "treatment of the moderator" didn't have anything to do with being anti-white or anti-woman -- point to what you think he said or did that demonstrated that. It had a LOT to do with being anti-media, anti-soundbite, anti-stupid question. Many of the questions were phrased in gotcha style--including the moderator's silly question about "are you saying Obama doesn't come to church regularly"? Uh, hello, he's a United States Senator and he's running for President; he hasn't been coming back to Chicago to attend services every Sunday morning. Wright had reason to act so dismissive.
April 29, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who doesn't think Senator Clinton can't STOMP McNastyMcSameMcCain in the general doesn't have their head screwed on straight. I'm sorry I had to used that word on this Obama site but anyway. The voting public is starting to see the truth. Obama is wishywashy, fickle and NOT for average America. BTW, there are more of us than there are you.
April 28, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF
BTW, there are more of us than are you.
Care to clarify that statement?
April 28, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he means there are more assholes than intelligent people posting crap on the internet.
That's the only way his statement makes any sense.
April 28, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL - That one grabbed me - made me laugh.
Thanks, SCMadden.
April 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think he means there are more assholes than intelligent people posting crap on the internet."
Ah... so that explains all of the obamabots running around here. Thanks for the explanation.
April 29, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed the level of discourse has sunk since the Hillary trolls came out of the woodwork, but apparently they're now down to the rubber-glue defense.
April 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Average America DUH!
April 28, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds pretty racist.
April 29, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's what happens when one candidate opens the gates of (Right Wing Hell) and the other doesn't.
I guess maybe she IS right--we will never leave political Rovism.
April 29, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the time the Republicans get through with Obama, even his white grandmother won't vote for him, let alone independents.
April 29, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the time Republicans get done with America I will be singing "God Daming America."
it is time Democrats stand up to Republican smear campaign. It is time we take our nation back. People on this blog are jumping up and down that a two good men are being smeared and villified.
Both Rev. Wright and Obama have done more for working class people than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Remeber Hillary Clinton's main thing as first lady was women and childrens issues. McCain has never had a job outside of the federal goverment. Who is the elite? Who has been on the payroll of the American tax payers for the past 20 years. It isn't Obama.
Wake up America before it is to late. Please wake up. We have enter the silly season. Where the sport of politics is more important than leading and govering.
April 29, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are past the silly season and into the bloody season with punches coming from two sides, and the media. I can't watch it anymore. McCain and Clinton are two peas in a pod, trying to destroy Obama because they are scared of him and his grassroots organization. It's like watching "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," when they smear James Stewart's character to make him look as dirty as they are. McCain and Clinton--won't vote for either one because they are both souless by the corruption in Washington.
April 29, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is now officially Hillaryis44 and Taylor Marsh combined. Thanks to Greg and Eric.
This is Excellent News for Josh, I guess.
April 29, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off, it seems that this poll is likely to be an outlier, with a relatively small sampling size.
Secondly, whatever independents felt for Hillary Clinton in the poll isn't going to be very lasting, especiall since it looks likely that the "anything that sticks", "kitchen-sink" negative campaigning that Hillary's campaign opened up will come back to bite her, bigtime.
Specifically, there is now both widespread gossip and serious media speculation, with numerous confirming accounts, that Hillary Clinton is either a closeted bisexual or lesbian... to the point that it seems inevitable that it will be seriously covered by the news, or perhaps introduced into the debates.
The problem here isn't that she's bisexual or lesbian. It's that she's closeted. If she actually had the courage to come out, I might be far more supportive of her... but otherwise, given the reported inappropriate nature of her repeated passes at women and of her lover being given a highly-paid role on her campaign, Hillary seems to be acting like Bill Clinton in a pantsuit.
Which makes you wonder... did she learn nothing from the White House years?!
Meanwhile, the entire American pubic will see "HILLARY GAY LOVE SCANDAL" at the checkout counter, while her campaign goes lalala and pretends it doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, the LGBT community will wonder how much longer she'll continue to quietly betray them by staying in the closet, aware that she's likely to turn on them in a knee-jerk, toe-tapping Larry Craig kinda way the first chance she gets.
April 29, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, since she clearly had an affair with Vince Foster before she popped him in the park, she must be bi.
PLEASE STOP!
April 29, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE STOP... 'cause I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter!
It's not her sexuality, DancingBear. It's her lack of candor and honesty. She should out herself before she's fully outed.
April 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
General Elections polls this far out, when both nominees have not been selected, are meaningless. HRC has, for the past several weeks, not received much negative publicity. Obama is going easy on her becasue he wants to unite the party, and wants HRC and her supporters to find it easier to back him, which will be the case if he's not been tearing her to shreds. McCain and the freak show are after Obama becasue they know he'll be the nominee. The MSM has been after Obama, and has been giving Clinton a free ride. If HRC were some how to emerge as the nominee, McCain, the freak show, and the MSM would immediately switch gears and take out all the negative stuff they have on HRC. Her poll numbers would tumble quickly. Finally, AP/IPOS, is an outlier in the dubious world of general election polls.
April 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously impossible to count the votes of people who didn't vote, but that doesn't mean that you should refuse to count the votes of people who did vote. There were also other issues on the ballot in those states that they should have come out to vote for, and their failure to do their duty as citizens should not be taken out on voters who did their duty and voted.
April 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's obviously impossible to count the votes of people who didn't vote, but that doesn't mean that you should refuse to count the votes of people who did vote."
Sure it does. This country was founded on the notion of One Person, One Vote. One person shouldn't be allowed a vote when another person is not. The Florida and Michigan voters who followed the DNC rules and didn't vote should not be penalized because the Florida and Michigan state parties, with Clinton's blessing, made a bad decision to move up their primary date.
"There were also other issues on the ballot in those states that they should have come out to vote for, and their failure to do their duty as citizens should not be taken out on voters who did their duty and voted."
Guess I'd be bummed too if I were a Florida or Michigan voter who turned out. But I'd complain to those who actually made the decision to bump up the primary date. Like I said above, adults take responsibility for their actions and don't run to teacher like a child on a playground.
April 30, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink