April 20, 2008
Latest Gallup Tracking Poll: Obama, Clinton Now in Dead Heat (Lanny Davis)
(Mr. Davis is a longtime friend, supporter and fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's, D-N.Y., presidential campaign.)
In the three-day Gallup Poll of 1,252 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters from Thursday-Saturday, April 17-19, with a narrow +/- margin of error of 3 percent, Hillary Clinton has now pulled statistically even with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). As of Friday night, April 18, the three-day tracking poll showed Sen. Clinton also in a statistical dead heat (with Sen. Clinton +1 percent, 46-45 percent, over three days of calling,between April 17-19).
Overall, this represents a dramatic drop by Sen. Obama among Democrats and independent leaners of about 9 percent in less than a week — a drop that Gallup says began just before the recent ABC debate and continued and has leveled off as of Saturday.
This, after Gallup has headlined for weeks that Sen. Obama had gained a steady lead over Sen. Clinton nationally among Democrats and independent-leaners — indeed, Gallup says this is the firs time since mid-March that Obama has not been in the lead.
("Tracking" polls are generally regarded as the most reliable of polling techniques to describe trends between two candidates, since the technique is to call about the same random sample of voters every night, adding the last three nights and dropping the prior fourth night. In the highly respected Gallup tracking poll, Gallup is calling 1,000 voters each night, out of whom about 400 identify themselves as Democrats or independent-leaning Democratic voters, giving a relatively high three-day total of 1,200 Democratic voters [and thus the small +/- variance of 3 percent.])
When Obama took a lead of +11 percent in this same tracking poll as recently as a little over a week ago and maintained it, most print journalists in the mainstream media covering the campaign and certainly every cable TV evening news and pundit show made a big deal and headlined this lead as establishing that Sen. Obama had just about wrapped up the nomination. This was not coincidentally accompanied by the Obama campaign spreading that message all over, and stirring its surrogates to call upon Sen. Clinton to give it up, even before the Pennsylvania primary.
So now my question and challenge is to the national media covering the campaign, and especially to the cable TV shows — from the “Situation Room” on CNN to the persistently and unashamedly pro-Obama MSNBC nightly cable TV hosts to The New York Times and other national political reporters: Will you headline the current apparent decline of Barack Obama's national Democratic Party strength and the Hillary Clinton surge within the last week alone — or not?
Sure, I am a partisan of Sen. Clinton and I can be accused of using the word "decline" and "surge" motivated to help her make the case to superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate against John McCain. But forget about my admitted bias (I call it conviction) that Sen. Clinton is the far stronger Democratic candidate against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). And I ask the pro-Obama cable TV talk show hosts — the most admittedly biased of all being Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" — will you at least have objective and neutral analysts to analyze what has happened to Barack Obama's standing among Democrats in the last two weeks — and what has happened to Sen. Clinton's? A 9-point drop in such a short period of time by Sen. Obama — or, from Sen. Clinton's perspective, an 11-point gain — in a tracking poll is, by any standard of the polling profession, extremely and unusually large.
It could be an aberration. Sen. Obama's slight improvement from Friday night's three-day results to Saturday night's (from -1 percent to Sen. Clinton to +2 percent) shows that Friday night's calls resulted in his winning that night's calling by a good margin. We will have to wait a few more days to see if Sen. Obama resumes his prior substantial lead or whether things have just leveled off between the two. (Other news organizations, for example, such as Newsweek, still have Sen. Obama in a substantial double-digit lead among Democrats). But the Gallup tracking poll seems to be the most current, with the largest total calls and the smallest margin of error.
But it is just possible, just possible, that this is not an aberration. We shall see. It is just possible that those of us who have continually, over these many months, expressed concerns about Sen. Obama's political weakness in the general election, as shown by his inability to win any major industrial state and especially his weakness in the key swing states Democrats must carry to win back the White House, may be right. And if the latter is the case, this is exactly the reason why Sen. Clinton should not allow herself to be pushed out of the race prematurely — and why superdelegates should not feel pushed into an artificial deadline to "decide" their vote.
And rather than pushing Sen. Clinton out of the race too soon, the grass roots of the party need to be allowed to express its wishes as to who it wants to be the nominee — and superdelegates, whether committed or not, need to keep their eyes on the big prize — winning back the White House. And to do so, they need to watch the results of the remaining primaries, the popular vote totals, the delegate vote totals and — especially —- on the national and state-by-state poll results before making a final decision.
Clinton Consistently Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain in Battleground States
Take a look at the state-by-state results comparing how Sen. Clinton is doing against Sen. McCain vs. Sen. Obama and the results are even scarier. In the national polls, with all the fearsome talk by the Obama campaign about Sen. Clinton's "high negatives" and being a "polarizer" the latest Gallup tracking poll, again as of Saturday night, April 19, shows Sen. Clinton to be running dead even with Sen. McCain — actually, +1 percent, or 46 percent-45 percent — as is Sen. Obama (who is dead even at 45 percent-45 percent). Gallup points out that the trend has been slightly going against Obama, who had led McCain a week ago by a statistically insignificant +3 percent.
But at the same time he held that lead, state polls in Florida were showing him losing to Sen. McCain by a considerable margin while Sen. Clinton was slightly ahead; losing in Ohio by a small margin with Sen. Clinton ahead by a small margin; and — this the most shocking and scary of all for Democrats who want to win back the White House — in a virtual dead heat with Sen. McCain in the state of Massachusetts! (Sen. Clinton, who defeated Sen. Obama in the Massachusetts primary by about 15 percent, despite the endorsements of Sen.s Kerry and Kennedy and Governor Patrick, as well as Caroline Kennedy, is ahead of Sen. McCain in Massachusetts as well).
So what is my theory as to why Sen. Obama has dropped so significantly in the last week or two and Sen. Clinton has risen?
To repeat my caveat: polls are snapshots of a moving picture, and these latest Gallup tracking results could be aberrational. And I could be wrong about my assessment of the reasons for Sen. Obama's apparent collapse in the last two weeks if it is a collapse at all. But here is my current operating theory:
I am not sure, but I believe the same uneasiness that I have increasingly felt over these last several weeks about Sen. Obama as our party's candidate against Sen. McCain has been the case among other Democrats across the nation. The issues for me are a mix of things, some specific, some intangible: for example, the continuing uneasy over murky answers by Sen. Obama as to why he remained silent for so long in the face of Rev. Wright's hateful sermons; the fact it took Sen. Obama so long to understand — if he does even today — why he offended so many rural and cultural conservative voters when he said they were "bitter" over the economy, and thus, they "clung" to guns and religion and anti-immigration sentiments as a result, rather than holding these views independent of frustration over the economy; and most recently, the Obama campaign's over-reaction and criticism of the ABC moderators' tough questions of Sen. Obama in the recent debate, and Sen. Obama's (to me at least) apparently flippant and, yes I must use the word, arrogant reaction in referring to it in the days after (at one point he actually accusing Sen. Clinton of "twisting the knife") — these and other negative impressions have caused me greater concern about Sen. Obama's electability in a contest against Sen. McCain. And, it is just possible, I am not alone, and there are so many other Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents out there feeling the same way as I for many of the same reasons that it might explain Sen. Obama's dramatic drop of over 10 percent in a tracking poll in a little more than a week.
Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton remains dignified, virtually unflappable, focused on economic issues and health care, and showing continuing signs of strength in the Democratic Party's core base ever since FDR— blue collar voters, workers, senior citizens, middle-class working women. She has come across as human, vulnerable, likable, and as always, commanding and mature on the issues. Of course, as I readily admit, I am biased: I think she is the best candidate and I think she would make a great president. So feel free to discount those positive impressions.
The Pennsylvania Primary
I don't know whether Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton will win Pennsylvania and by what margin. I really don't.
I only know that Sen. Obama has been outspending Sen. Clinton by as much as 2:1 or by some accounts 3:1 or more on TV ads and radio ads that, I am told, are running round the clock. I don't buy the Obama-campaign created bar, bought by most of the media and pro-Obama punditry, that Sen. Clinton has to win Pennsylvania by double-digits. Such a bar doesn't reflect the overpowering reality of being outspent on TV and radio (and much more, presumably, in direct mail and GOTV) by this margin — especially by round-the-clock unanswered negative attack TV and radio ads that the Obama campaign is running, many of them personal attacks on Sen. Clinton's character.
In short: I hope Sen. Clinton wins, period, by any margin, and will be happy if she does and disappointed if she doesn't.
But the big news in Pennsylvania, even if Sen. Clinton wins by a single-digit margin, will be in the exit polls demographic data. That is what everyone — especially superdelegates who care about winning back the White House — should focus on. If Sen. Obama loses Pennsylvania by whatever margin and, most important, if his demographic base is still the same as before — virtually all African-Americans, upper income liberal activist professionals, and college students — then the issue of electability should be even more of concern for Democrats.
No artificial deadline for superdelegates to decide is valid other than when they are convinced they have identified the strongest candidate to run against Sen. McCain. (Note to Howard Dean: When I wanted you to be public and forceful in mandating that Sen. Obama agree to an "re-vote" by mail and by firehouse in Michigan and Florida — which Sen. Clinton ultimately said she would favor — you were disappointingly unwilling. Now for some reason you are insisting that all superdelegates make up their minds immediately after the last primary. I would suggest, respectfully, that you revert to your previous silence and let each superdelegate, in conscience, decide for themselves who can best defeat Sen. McCain — and look to the national and state polls as one of the many ingredients of that important and complex decision).
So no we shall see: Will CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the ABC, NBC, and CBS network political correspondents headline the dramatic new Gallup tracking poll showing Sen. Obama's dramatic drop? At least to the same extent as they headlined the +9 percent Obama advantage a little more than a week ago? And, more importantly, will they ask themselves, and their guests, why Sen. Obama has apparently gone through such a dramatic political decline (that is, assuming it is not aberrational)? And go out to the grassroots and do some hard reporting to figure this question out, rather than interviewing each other?
And if Sen. Obama loses Pennsylvania, will they focus on getting an answer to the question: How can Sen. Obama win in the more conservative general electorate if he hasn't been able to win in the more liberal electorate of any major large industrial state in the nation — from Massachusetts to New Jersey to Ohio to California (and, perhaps after Tuesday night, to Pennsylvania)? Why has he lost? Outspending Sen. Clinton to such a degree on TV, why has he lost these states Democrats must win to win the presidency?
I may not have the answer right. But now it's time for all the national political media in print and on broadcast and cable TV to start to press for answers — and not be intimidated by about criticism from the pro-Obama blogosphere because they are asking tough questions.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 31 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Obama had a double digit lead in the polls before the New Hampshire primary. Did you believe that poll too?
The current Newsweek poll shows Obama has a 19 point lead nationally. Quite a disparity between major pollsters.
Polls have been shown to be less than accurate. The only poll that counts is the one taken on election day.
Comment by E Jack Hewlitt — April 20, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Lanny-I've read your excruciatingly long babbling post, I see this a bit differently.
PA is OH on steroids, if she does not win by double digits, that would be another nail in her coffin…should she lose, its over.
Gallup polls, I have a different interpretation, after Wright, Bittergate, Ayers (you forgot him), Lapel pins and the debate, HE STILL LEADS.
Allow me to point out the following:
She must win PA but 10pts or more
She needs to win ALL remaining ten contests (Impossible!) and do so by 65% or more. NC, ID and MT are all Obama country and she will lose IND
She is done and this is nothing but good practice for him in prep for Nov.
She may not have the money to battle on, most donors are now hedging their bets.
Comment by Theard — April 20, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Wonderful news Lanny, but will the press report it or continue the big disservice they are doing the electorate by remaining silent.
You know I have always been a Democrat, but I must say if Obama is the our Party's Candidate, I'm out of here, I'm voting for Senator McCain.
Why, character quite simply character, I want a President that salutes the flag, understands traditions of church and even hunting of middle class Americans, and does not go to a Church for twenty years, that has a Minister that hates White people.
I am a liberal, but these are important values, regular values, that I expect our President to have.
Comment by diane b — April 20, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
Can you imagine that loud grating voice of Hillary Clinton as your president for the next 4 years? We will have massive mental illness in this nation. As wimpy as Lanny Davis is so to is Hillary equally grating, like chalk on a blackboard.
Comment by Gary Anderson — April 20, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
What a truly Orwellian deconstructing of the English Language. Senator You-Know-Her a month ago led Senator Obama in Pennsylvania by somewhere around 20 percentage points in any number of polls and rolling poll averages. So now Lanny Davis says that she has "pulled even" with Senator Obama by dropping 20 points over the past month of "campaigning"? Oh, for crying out loud! Talk about doubleplusgood doublethink duckspeaking!
Polls all over the place had Sentor You-Know-Her consistently ahead of eight other Democrats running for President — for over a year — until the people of Iowa voted. Then You-Know-Her suddenly wound up in third place behind Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards.
So, as a matter of fact, the former "inevitable," "experienced" front runner has had to hang on desperately for the past four months just trying to get from third to second place just before the final bell rings.
Yet still, in spite of You-Know-Her's inept, occasionally bankrupt "campaign," polls regularly place her far out in front of Senator Obama until he starts campaigning — then the poll numbers converge and the national pattern re-exerts itself. That pattern goes like this:
Senator Obama has a strategy of holding You-Know-Her's "wins" to narrow margins so that he picks up almost as many delegates proportionally as You-Know-Her when he "loses." Where he wins, he does so by bigger margins and thus extends his lead in pledged delegates. The national pattern seems only too evident again in Pennsylvania. You-Know-Her always had the built-in demographic and state-party-apparatus advantages, but cannot seem to "win" by enough of a margin to keep Senator Obama from picking up almost as many delegates as she will get if she wins by less than double digits.
Senator Obama, of couse, will win other of the remaining primaries and caucasus and will do so by significant margins. Again, the national pattern will play out and You-Know-Her will continue to languish in second place where she will remain and finally end up no matter how long she keeps "campaigning."
Lanny Davis can do his Orwellian spin as much as he wants, but the national pattern of the Democratic Party primary has become clear and it validates Senator Obama's strategy and not You-Know-Her's. She has clawed and bitten him on the ankles a few times, and scratched them a little; but in the process she has broken off her own finger nails and snapped off a few front teeth. She just keeps looking uglier and he can always afford a few bandages for his scratched ankles.
Lanny Davis can spin that truth if he likes. It won't do You-Know-Her any good. Like the old lady in the television commercial, she has fallen and she can't get up. Somebody needs to take pity and sell her a platinum-plated wheel chair. You-Know-Her and husband Bubba Bill can easily afford one with all the millions in loot he keeps raking in lobbying for Columbia, Dubai, and Kazakhstan.
Comment by Michael Murry — April 21, 2008 @ 3:52 am
Senator Obama was asked fair questions about character. The questions the commentators asked, I am sure, are on the minds of many Americans. Most people in my community still have questions for Senator Obama. He is not known to the American people and many issues he still talks in circles about.
Is his father a Muslim? If he is, do Muslims in Indonesia observe him as one of them. Do radical Muslims want him to be president? Does any one know where his father's relatives are at this time?
Reverend Wright's comments are an issue. It's not just Reverend Wright's comments; it's his support of Louis Farrakhan, the Million Man March in 1995. Why would Obama attend a March for an anti Semitic, Louis Farrakhan. Why would Obama take his kids to this church? He has known this man for over 20 years and never heard a word about his Pastor Wright’s views of Americans?
William Ayers is a very big deal. For Osama to say that he was eight when Ayers bombed the Pentagon as an answer was a weak response. My community doesn't understand why he would go near a man like this? Judgment?
Obama's even not wearing a flag pin is still upsetting for the woman at the debate. Why couldn't Obama have said that he would wear it just to satisfy her and Americans? What was the big deal to wear it or not?
Elitist attitude is the worst trait that Obama demonstrates. His words were very demeaning and need not be ignored. He still stood by his remarks at the debate.
Senator Obama is not running for University President. This is an interview for the United States of America.
If Senator Clinton attended a church that was racist, supported the KKK, then put down the American people, I would certainly want to have Senator Clinton explain her views also.
Not discussing these matters would be outrageous.
Thank you ABC for having fair coverage. My community is discusted with the negative coverage of Senator Clinton.
Comment by Alecki — April 21, 2008 @ 9:21 am
When two drunks get thrown out of a bar nobody cares.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — April 21, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Man, do I love this Democratic infighting! If the Dems can't get their own party in order, how do they expect to run the country? Probably the same way the Democratic Congress has … pretty lousy!
Comment by John Simmons — April 21, 2008 @ 10:01 am
I think Hillary has made some promises to some people should she become president and it's backfiring on her. There is no way she can catch up and if The super delegates take the nomination from obama there will be no democratic party. I think they want to jump ship from her anyway, but they are hoping she will just quit. Either way, the super delegates are not going to risk losing nearly 2 million new registered voters to their party (because of Obama, by the way) because of her babbling of him being unelectable. 35,000 thousand Pennsylvanians don't think he's unelectable.
Comment by Yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Now Theard, you know people don't want to hear the facts, and there you go posting them.
Comment by Yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Alecki, She still hasn't explained the Bosnia comment. Or the lady who supposedly was not treated in the emergency room because she had no insurance. Oops, I forgot. The lady did have health insurance. Just another one of her 'misstatements.
Comment by Yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Those sound like words of desperation Lanny. Bah bye.
Comment by Lester — April 21, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Thanks Robert R. You made my day with comment. I am still laughing
Comment by Yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
You know something Lanny? A tough question would be why after all these years in washington did Hillary have only 200 super delegates? She acts as if they are all going to vote for her. People want change, not her. I think when Dean told them to make up their minds and quick, they knew just what he was talking about. Or should I say who. Obama's voters are not going to vote for Hillary. They will create another party first.
Comment by Yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Mr. Davis,
I agree, ABC is the only media that has any respect at all! I'm so sick of the media! I turn them off, all of them are off here! THEY STINK!
Senator Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote in almost every state and she will win this one, and everyone knows it. We all know how the Republicans and the media are LIARS, I'm so sick of them.
I bet most of Pennsylvania are sick and tired of Mr. Big Spenders commercials by now, spending all of G.E.'s money on his adds.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 21, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Most of the liberal media hosts and pundits have a crush on Obama. You can tell them anything you want, but they will promote him because he excites them. Somehow his speech pattern and and his promises backed up by no record of achievement appeal to them.
This election is about the logical people vs. the "excitables". The excitables don't see the evil this man represents, just like Germany did not see the evil that Hitler represented. I'm not saying he is anything like Hitler, but this unquestioning acceptance of a guy with a dangerous tack record of associating with various anti-American characters and who promises nothing but extreme taxation and the destruction of the military as if he is the second coming, is of the same nature.
Comment by Igor R. — April 21, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
"We All Believe"
An open letter to all of us following this historical and spirited race for the Democratic nomination, with a type of excitement and passion that has not been seen in recent years:
First off, each one of us here believes in our heart of hearts that our candidate provides the best way forward for this Country's future.
We are all aware of the critical challenges this country faces and understand how much THIS election matters.
I certainly admit that I have let my heart and my passion for the candidate I support cloud my judgment and cause me to say stupid things about the other great Americans running for president - who, along with supporters all over - are working countless hours for what they believe is in the best intersts of this Country.
I support Barack Obama for President of the United States because I think he is the best President for these times.
I have serious questions about Hillary Clinton's ability to get things done in the White House. Let me be clear - I like and respect Hillary Clinton and believe progress would be stifled not because of a lack of effort or ability on her part, but rather because of short-sighted obstacles placed in her way by Rove's henchmen and the Americans are still caught up in the partisan battles that reached a boiling point in the nineties (and which have gridlocked Washington ever since).
I also think Hillary is polarizing. Clinton supporters ardently disagree and about 50% of the country agrees - that sounds pretty divisive to me. You can blame it on the right-wing attack machine, or the media, or now even the Obama supporters. But it is REAL. Whether her high negatives are fairly-earned or unfairly-fabricated can be debated - but that debate does not change the fact that they exist.
There are also serious questions about Clinton's electability in THESE times and in THIS race. I base this on the points discussed above and what we have seen in this campaign. Obama has handled himself with grace and determination, won support all over the country and is building a new generation that actually cares about politics.
The Democratic base is already energized. I discount the notion that the fights between Clinton and Obama supporters will cause people to stay home. Those supporters are just becoming more and more invested in this process and they will unite to stand against the GOP. Clinton's ardent supporters will not simply walk away - they will bring the fight to the Republicans.
A few other points:
-Obama will attract anti-war Independents and Republicans, whose numbers are significant.
-Obama will be able to draw a sharp contrast with John McCain so that the Republican attack machine cannot blur the lines.
-Obama is the strongest to debate McCain on Iraq. Most observers agree that this has been Obama's greatest strength in the debates with Clinton.
Clinton supporters: Do you really want to go over to the other side and start paroting back the conventional wisdom that the youth vote can't make a difference? The youth does not make a difference when it is disaffected - it needs to be INSPIRED. (And from what I've seen . . . it is not only young Americans that Obama is inspiring).
Obama IS calling a whole NEW generation to arms. This will not only impact this election - it will CHANGE the future. Both in terms of new voters and public service. I believe that the energy shown by the Clinton and Obama supporters alike (as well as those for all the candidates) - can be parlayed effectively after the general election into a "surge" of civic duty. Not everyone of course - but even a percentage of that energy could do the world a lot of good.
How can Obama make a REAL CHANGE to the way politics is conducted in Washington - you ask?
Because the new American Majority that votes for him in this election - including Democrats, Independents and Republicans and first-time voters - will all make sure that politicians who get in the way of OUR mandate will be cast aside - no matter who they are.
And that mandate is quite simple:
-END the Bush Doctrine and EVOLVE American foreign policy
-Make HEALTH CARE more affordable and accessible
IMMEDIATELY and get us on the road towards UNIVERSAL health care
-Stop the trickle down ECONMICS and open the
floodgates through EDUCATION and TAXES
-Pass a comprehensive IMMIGRATION bill and ensure that our boarders are SAFE
-LEAD the world on fighting terrorism, speading human rights and protecting our environment
President Obama will implement that mandate with familiar names such as the Clintons, Biden, Richardson and Edwards - along with the growing cadre of new leaders like Webb, Casey and McCaskill. I am also confident that Obama will enlist the support of the best and the brightest leaders from the GOP.
Vote Obama and the join the New American Majority. And don't worry, the Clintons will join us and BOTH will play key roles in guiding this Country's FUTURE.
Comment by warren — April 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
There is NO WAY Obama can win, you can not have a Pastor who Damns America, you can not have mixed feelings about some races and win! His popularity is a flash of a shooting star, and it's over. I know for many of us, there is NO WAY we would ever vote for him, NO WAY, and so there is NO WAY he can win many of us over.
McCain isn't that bad any way, he is a Democrat in all reality….
I would rather be Polarized, which she is NOT, than be a Marxist or Totalitarian, or whatever he is today!
Comment by WE KNOW — April 21, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
We Know, you need to learn about some other pastors. Billy Graham said the problem with America is the Jews. John Hagee and Pat Robertson said that 911 was God's punishment on america for homosexuality.
Comment by yvonne — April 21, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Yes we can.
Comment by warren — April 21, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
warren sounds like he just came back from the cult meeting. “We All Believe”. What a sad commentary on the youth vote, if warren is indeed one of them. Other than Obama is likely to open the floodgates on taxes, it was all "we are loud, proud, and unafraid". And your "boarders" will indeed be safe with Obama.
Public education for all to see.
Comment by Igor R. — April 21, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Igor R.
Given some of your posts, I would be curious to hear about where your cult meets.
And while some of your (frequent) critiques may sound intelligent, you seem to believe that criticism - is itself - an end rather than a means.
Comment by warren — April 21, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
NO Obama!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IcnYWGSSE&eurl=http://election.newsmax.com/ncf_obama/
Comment by WE KNOW — April 21, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
I am not sure what pools you all have been watching or smoking to as you watched, but hillary clinton even if she wins wil lose so badly in the GE. She will not carry most of the south except arkansas. her numbers suck in all the states obama has won and she cannot win the election on the few states she has won and the white men will not vote for her enmass, nor will a moderate portion of the african american community and the moderates and regan democrats will run to mccain even though he is essentially unelectable by all standards. He has made some backroom deals to get to where he is right now and most of the republicans worth a damm know it. Between hillary and mccain, you have years of the same old same old and now they suddenly decide they want to change their washingtonian ways for the american people, give me a break and for people like lanny who think most of us are stupid and don't research a lot of this crap nowadays, dream on…
Comment by Jim — April 22, 2008 @ 8:20 am
'she has fallen and she can’t get up. Somebody needs to take pity'
No, not pity for it was pity, pardons and prostate cancer that propelled her into the senate.
Comment by james d granata — April 22, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Jim, I could not have said it better myself.
Comment by Yvonne — April 22, 2008 @ 10:49 am
warren, I am not a member of a cult and neither are you, you just sound like one with your starry-eyed adoration of Obama.
My criticisms have a point: I don't want either of the two Democrats elected. I'm not really a fan of John McCain, but he is just so much better than the two radicals.
Comment by Igor R. — April 22, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
Warren, don't let Igor fool you , as he is a cult member. He is a member of the neocon cult, that group of crazies that supported the most failed president in American history, twice. And Igor still buys Dumbya's pack of BS.
That being said, Igor has ZERO credibility when it comes to political prognostication. Hell, Igor has Fred Thompson winning the general election this November, in a land slide. Need we say more?
Comment by Lester — April 22, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
I don't believe it is a radical idea to support a candidate who urges politicians to move away from partisan bickering in order to focus on doing the people's business.
You can take issue with Obama's policies (which I also support) - but he is spot on when it comes to process.
Comment by warren — April 22, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
warren, don't you understand that speaking about moving away from partisan bickering or condemning special interests or promising hope and change are just words, to quote from a speech or two. If I wanted to get elected by an extremely liberal electorate, I would come up with such a speech that the audience would be crying from my compassion. I would come up with a touching story of a talented child from a minority background who had no choice but to join a gang because of the lack of educational opportunities and was killed by stray bullet intended for his brother. I would talk about the horrors of an illegal immigrant family separated by a raid. I could just go on and on and on because I know every little thing that gets a liberal excited.
Obama's record is very sparse for a Presidential candidate, unbelievably so compared to a typical candidate. To someone who isn't mesmerized by his voice, the appeal that he has to seemingly impressionable people looks scary. His associations assume special importance when there is so little besides his words to judge him by.
Comment by Igor R. — April 22, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Lester, I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong and have done so already. Fred had the best ideas by far, and I looked past his old face and lack of campaign management. I'm also not afraid to criticize those I currently support, like McCain who I strong disagree with on illegal immigration and many other things.
If every single one of my predictions came true I'd be somewhere else. I was correct that you traitors will lose your push to enforce a defeat in Iraq and you will see in the not-to-distant future that Global Warming is a terrible hoax. You on the other hand can't even imagine being wrong because you're a true believer.
Comment by Igor R. — April 22, 2008 @ 8:40 pm