Poll: Hillary Only Up By 12 Over Obama In New York

Comments (66)

The Truth wrote on January 30, 2008 5:00 PM:

Bill Clinton
is zipped up for now

Vote McCain

But make no mistake
Bill Clinton is going to take his racist show
on the road to California

Why not Bill
you can triangulate your racism
whites, latinos, blacks,
and if it works you'll be back
to seducing interns in the white house
and wagging your finger in Americans faces

We don't need, nor do we care for your "clever" racist maneuvering
Keep Bill zipped up please

By the way, do you think John Edwards really wants to be in the Billary White House -
chasing after nasty Bill with a can of Lysol day in and day out?

I didn't think so.

Vote McCain
He voted for the war just like Hillary
so we need you Hillary supporters to switch over

Please vote McCain

wwjb wrote on January 30, 2008 5:00 PM:

Nice, he needs to turn some of that AA vote around, I guess the Clintons haven't resorted to race-baiting in NY. Regardless, nice showing in NY, it looks like election night could be pretty embarrassing for Hillary in NY. If Obama got close to her there that could be the main story of the next day.

Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 5:00 PM:

That's interesting, very interesting on the dem side. Now, on the republican side, comeon mitt the flip open that checkbook. Mccain would be bad for the party, he's not republican enough. Any other polls?

Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:02 PM:

Hell, even if this were the final result I would be happy, and Obama will most likely only gain ground in the next few days.

ObamaSupporter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:02 PM:

I have it on good authority that Barack Obama's shit doesn't stink. The man is practically an angel.

Go Obama!

It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 30, 2008 5:04 PM:

The most important thing about polls is the moderate length trends, not the actual numbers.

Obama's performance in this regard are unmatched.

For daily numbers, bow to the VOTEMASTER:

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

I am quite pleased that no one is considered an "inevitable" candidate any longer. If the Dems want to win, they need to think broad and wide. The GOP has been doing this since Nixon and Reagan.

Oops! I mentioned Reagan.

Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:04 PM:

Hell, even if this were the final result I would be happy, and Obama will most likely only gain ground in the next few days.

Indy wrote on January 30, 2008 5:05 PM:

Here's that SC bounce we were looking for! And maybe some Kennedy bounce, too.

Though whether Clinton can get a bounce from the un-primary remains to be seen.

KyleXY wrote on January 30, 2008 5:07 PM:

You guys talk like the man is ahead.

He's got six days and he's way behind everywhere...

Obama is toast, but the TPM Obama annex spin is funny.

Keep singing to the choir.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:08 PM:

It is interesting how the trendline shows him rocketing up even in NY. If Clinton does not emerge with a winning tally on Feb 6, then a story about how it was a close race in NY (and maybe even that Obama won NYC outright) would certainly set him up with a very favorable media narrative moving forward.

Patrick wrote on January 30, 2008 5:10 PM:

A close look at this poll shows that Obama might be in even better shape.

Only 25% of folks they polled were under 45 years old.

facemn wrote on January 30, 2008 5:10 PM:

Sweet! Keep it up New York!

http://www.barackobamacentral.com

Tim wrote on January 30, 2008 5:10 PM:

Too be honest I stuck it out with the Clintons for what seems a long time now.

But after the florida "victory fiasco" I'm just am really really tired of the spin.

I don't know who I will vote for,
but it will not be Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:11 PM:

OUCH!

Sue wrote on January 30, 2008 5:16 PM:

The Truth
you wrote

"By the way, do you think John Edwards really wants to be in the Billary White House -
chasing after nasty Bill with a can of Lysol day in and day out"?

A little snide but I have to admit there is some truth to that.

I don't think Edwards would want to compete with Bill in a Hillary administration.
You just know Bill won't let him have a voice.

Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 5:17 PM:

Very suspect numbers. I seriously doubt the gap is this narrow, especially now that Edwards dropped out. I think the numbers will be to volatile to be meaningful over the next few days. The only thing likely true at this point is that Obama will come in second and that Hillary will win the New York primary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:20 PM:

Very suspect numbers. I seriously doubt the gap is this narrow

A worthy point, that. Marist had it down to a mere 16 point gap a week ago, but that turned to be an outlier. The average gap has been coming in fairly consistantly in the mid-20 point range. On the other hand, this could represent the new, post-SC/Kennedy trend.

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:21 PM:

I'll admit that these number should be too close for comfort for the Clinton campaign. However, we may be seeing a Bradley effect in this poll.

The undecideds are rather high here and they are highest in the groups typically dominated by Clinton: females and older age brackets.

evie wrote on January 30, 2008 5:21 PM:

What about the under-40/over-40 demos?

Brad wrote on January 30, 2008 5:22 PM:

She appears to be crumbling. What happens when Edwards and Gore endorse Obama? How do the Clintons recover?

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:23 PM:

Weren't the Clintonites suspect of the South Carolina numbers when they showed Obama with a 9 point lead as well?

Bob T wrote on January 30, 2008 5:25 PM:

That would really be something if she lost New York. That said, I think she'll get it but Obama is likely to win a huge chunk of delegates there.

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:25 PM:

evie wrote on January 30, 2008 5:21 PM:
"What about the under-40/over-40 demos?"

The usual pattern, although the margins are tighter than usual in the lower and higher extremes of the age brackets. But, see my comment above about a possible Hillary vote in the undecided numbers.

Denis wrote on January 30, 2008 5:26 PM:

Wow. The press has fallen so head over heels in love with Obama...he can do or say no wrong...for now. Well, the right-wing media has chosen to remain silent and let Obama (and Kennedy...was this really such a coveted endorsement as far as the MAINSTREAM Democratic voter is concerned?) sink the Democratic party's best shot at the White House? Doesn't anyone find this Obama-mania a bit SUSPICIOUS? Where's the balance? the supposed objectivity of the media? I used to have pretty neutral feelings towards Hillary, but since the press has been so utterly and totally RUTHLESS with her, I am starting to feel sorry for her.

Tres wrote on January 30, 2008 5:26 PM:

It really seems like there is a lot of excitement here in California for Obama.

Just driving around I'd guess the Obama yard signs are 3 to 1 for Obama.

And I'm talking a large area in my conservative Orange county neighborhood.

I think Obama is getting a lot of republican crossover.

And just down the block at the large Mexican resturaunt (Las Olas) they are having a large Obama event tommorrow night during the debate and Saturday. (half price margaritas)

Their is definitely something moving his way out here in California.

Be Happy

roo_P wrote on January 30, 2008 5:27 PM:

lombard,

Based on the polling data in the previous primaries, it seems that there is little to none of Bradley to be found. Furthermore, this effect is typically lesser in the more metropolitan states.

I would be curious to see if I am missing something, though, if you are commenting on analysis you have done instead of just seat-of-pants (which is fine, by the way, just not very scientific.)

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

Kyle- While I think TPM Obama Annex Spin is a fitting name, toast is a bit presumptuous, Obama is very much in this race even if TPM overtly fawns over him keeping it's pages streaming with every bit of positive press they can find on Obama while scouring to find every negative remark on Hillary Clinton. So, first recognize this is not a news site, it is a blog and it is has an opinion. So Obama's chances may look rosier from a TPM only perspective that makes his candidacy no less formidable and him no less likely to win.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:30 PM:

Just driving around I'd guess the Obama yard signs are 3 to 1 for Obama.

So one out of four Obama yard signs indicate support for a candidate other than Obama? Passing strange, that...

;-p

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:31 PM:

Denis wrote on January 30, 2008 5:26 PM:

"I used to have pretty neutral feelings towards Hillary, but since the press has been so utterly and totally RUTHLESS with her, I am starting to feel sorry for her."

Yes, and I think this emerging sentiment is underreported. But, she's a tough old bird who I believe will have the last laugh on all of those who thought they would dance on her grave.

CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:32 PM:

Can you say "Outlier"?

I will say this about New York and Connecticut. I live in southwestern Connecticut, and the Obama and Clinton campaigns have been stuffing my mailbox with fliers since last Thursday.

And I even got a "call" from Ron Paul's campaign.

I'm loving all this attention.

laternighter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:34 PM:

I live in upstate New York. There is no way that Obama is going to win here. Clinton is extremely well-liked. This wasn't so when she first ran in 2000 but all her hard work for her constituents turned people around. Also work in New York City once a week. Haven't met anyone who doesn't support her. Lets see what happens on Feb. 5.

Jaz wrote on January 30, 2008 5:34 PM:

I wouldn't bet on it...

The Clinton campaign will know and with about 30+ endorsements from NYC they will hit the streets soon.

mm wrote on January 30, 2008 5:36 PM:

You know, to chalk up your candidate's weaknesses to media conspiracies while chalking up their successes to their/your own brilliance is really disingenious and egotistical.
Maybe a candidate is struggling for honest reasons and no one is out to get you.
It's like the Ron Paul supporters. Maybe your man actually has been heard and people ain't biting.

CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:37 PM:

Yes, and I think this emerging sentiment is underreported.

You betcha. Anecdotally, people in my workplace were not thrilled with Clinton prior to New Hampshire. And then came the endless playing of the supposed "tear" expisode, on the local nightly news, and all of a sudden, women I know started to get angry. Granted, it's been awhile since New Hampshire (well, to any normal person it hasn't been that long, but for people obsessed with politics, NH seems like the last Ice Age at this point), but if people sense that the media is piling on Clinton unfairly, well, who knows what effect that will have?

And in the interests of disclosure, full or otherwise, I'm leaning Obama, not Clinton.

john mccutchen wrote on January 30, 2008 5:38 PM:

Obamasexuals HEART Eric and we HEART NYC

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:39 PM:

roo_P,

I took a look at the poll and found undecideds higher in some groups normally strongly favorable to Clinton. I once read a pollster analysis of the Bradley effect noting that, when the Bradley effect occurs, the black candidate's numbers are not overestimated but the undecideds are higher and they seem to break heavily in favor of the white candidate.

I don't doubt the things you are saying about lower prevalence in metro areas. I'm just noting that women and the highest age groups have the highest levels of undecided in this poll. Who knows? The high levels of undecideds could be disproportionately composed of older black women who are torn between the two candidates.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:39 PM:

Denis wrote on January 30, 2008 5:26 PM:

"I used to have pretty neutral feelings towards Hillary, but since the press has been so utterly and totally RUTHLESS with her, I am starting to feel sorry for her."

I'm with you on being neutral about Hillary in the beginning, but after seeing her in action this month, I'm really starting to dislike her.

laternighter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:44 PM:

Not going to happen. Speak to many people on a daily basis both upstate and downstate New York and not one person has told me they are supporting Obama. Even my son's college friends like Clinton.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:45 PM:

For whatever little my opinion is worth, I agree with CT voter's endorsement of Lombard's point about reaction against a media pile-on. I would not be the least surprised if this turns out to have an effect on Tues.

CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:49 PM:

For whatever little my opinion is worth,

Say it ain't so, Greg DeL! I was one of the early band wagoners on the Greg DeL for President parade!

As for the "media pile-on", read Dowd, M., in just about any NY Times Op-Ed page.

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:50 PM:

mm wrote on January 30, 2008 5:36 PM:

"You know, to chalk up your candidate's weaknesses to media conspiracies while chalking up their successes to their/your own brilliance is really disingenious and egotistical."

You can hardly watch MSNBC without coming to the conclusion that they are pro-Obama. They include hardly anyone on their panels who doesn't cater to the pro-Obama, anti-Hillary spin. The closest one to an exception is Pat Buchanan and even his compliments to Clinton are backhanded to say the least. But, Buchanan is the only one who maitains skepticism about Obama.

Last night MSNBC wouldn't even show the Democratic primary results for quite awhile. I had to turn on CNN and Fox news who had both primary results posted continuously. MSNBC has put Fox news to shame for flagrant display of political preferences. Bill O'Reilly said a few weeks ago that NBC was too invested to remain objective and he was absolutely right.

lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 5:56 PM:

CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 5:49 PM:

"As for the "media pile-on", read Dowd, M., in just about any NY Times Op-Ed page."

Sure, although I did chuckle at Dowd's remark today that Hillary wore a bright red dress like a defiant Scarlett O'Hara after a public humiliation. I don't think she was far off in her comments.

Also, the NYT did give Clinton a very nice endorsement. MSNBC is the one that has irritated me.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 5:57 PM:

CNN = Clinton News Network

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:57 PM:

Dear Laternighter,

I know what you mean. It is interesting to observe the disconnect between polls and personal experience. For instance, as I drive around St Louis city and St Louis County (the most heavily democratic area in the state of MO) I see at least three Obama signs for every Clinton sign, at least three Obama bumperstickers for every Clinton sticker, and ~10 Obama lapel buttons for every Clinton button. I do not know personally a single Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, the polls tell me she is ahead in MO. How does this work? Either my experiences are atypical, or the polls are lying. I guess we will see which proves to be the case.

AlwaysTip wrote on January 30, 2008 5:58 PM:

"what my friend says" means nothing. Everyone I know is voting for Obama. Those that like Hillary ignore me!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 5:59 PM:

Last night MSNBC wouldn't even show the Democratic primary results for quite awhile.

Sure, but that does not indicate bias. It is simply a testament to the newsworthiness of the Dem primary vs the newsworthiness of the Rep primary. The GOP had a close fight with a lot on the line. The democratic primary had a lopsided blowout with nothing much at stake. Of course, under those circumstances, the GOP race got the more prominent coverage.

CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:02 PM:

lombard:

MSNBC is one of the worst, along with CNN as well. Fox, strangely enough, doesn't bother me, because it's such a whackjob network in the first place, I don't expect any different.

The problem with Maureen Dowd is that every once in awhile, she mails in a column that's not bad (the red dress mention is pretty good)...but those ok columns are counterbalanced by the body of her work which has the intellectual depth and reasoning ability of a 13 year old writing in her diary about the cool kid who snubbed her in junior high..Ms. Dowd doesn't like people who are probably demonstrably smarter and more self-confident than her. Therefore, Clinton and Obama are going to be targets for her crap.

And maybe it's just slipping my mind, but has Dowd ever taken on a male who is significantly older than her?

Enough with the psychoanalyzing. Dowd and Matthews keep up the treatment of Hillary, and that may just cement her lead.

Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 6:04 PM:

It's amusing when people talk about who their acquaintances prefer, on both sides. Hey laternighter, I live in NYC, and everyone I know prefers Obama. But that doesn't mean sh-t. Anecdotal evidence is completely unreliable. It says nothing except about who you hang out with.

Weighing in, unless Obama were to somehow break even in NY, which would be nearly impossible, I don't think it will affect perceptions. Home states only matter when the homestater loses. The state to watch is CA. Any new polls out from there?

AlwaysTip wrote on January 30, 2008 6:12 PM:

Th point is delegates in NY. If he only pulls 40% Obama will take out a pile of delegates from the senator's home state. Clinton has been a pedestrian senator and sometimes thuggish politician (She did everyting to keep her opponent in the senate primary from having a voice at the state convention. There is a reason why NYers re taking a look at Obama.

Joyce wrote on January 30, 2008 6:15 PM:

Keep on sneaking.

Tres wrote on January 30, 2008 6:16 PM:

Greg DeLassus

I stand corrected.

laternighter wrote on January 30, 2008 6:18 PM:

Always Tip. I don't think we're talking about the same Senator. She's been terrific and Bill was a really good president, although you will no doubt fault him on various issues. Watching and listening to Obama, who's a brilliant speaker. But it's not what you say but what you do that matters. However if it's between him and a republican I'll vote for him. At least he promises what's important to me. The repubs are totally out of touch.

Guy Fawkes wrote on January 30, 2008 6:18 PM:

Clinton will easily win NY. Home state, and all that. "Duh." But since it isn't winner-take-all, Obama gets a few also.

It's the reverse in IL, for the same reasons.

As far as CA, Obama may be steadily narrowing the gap--that is, if you believe polls, which I try not to:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Anecdotally, I think Obama will be very strong in some districts and will get a very good number of delegates. If he is really surging, it's even possible that he'll win equal or more, but I don't expect it.

Interloper wrote on January 30, 2008 6:19 PM:

New York is not winner take all - a good showing by BHO will be recognized and get him delegates if the contest is close after feb 5. EMK is heading there (I think) to make HRC protect her flank against an embarassment. Would make her spend time away from California. Her highness is still favored, but on the defnsive.

Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 6:19 PM:

Greg D, the number of Obama signs you see and the number of people you know who prefer Obama do not constitute a representative sample. Voting preferences may easily be clustered--by neighborhood, city & town, and especially by your circle of friends and repations. Furthermore, unless you actually count every sign you see, you can't discount your own bias in the signs that you remember seeing. A statistician could explain this much better than me.

The point is that polling is a science. It's often unreliable but far, far more reliable than anecdotal evidence. So by all means, take the polls with a grain of salt, but take your own personal experiences with a whole quarry full.

Kefa wrote on January 30, 2008 6:22 PM:

Only up 12.....Eric you spinner you.

Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 6:23 PM:

Thanks for the polls, Guy, but there's nothing recent enough there that would reflect the Kennedy endorsement or recent ads (or the FL vote for that matter). I'm sure that new ones will come in soon. I really hope that Obama does well;, he's got a lot of ground to cover in CA to come within striking distance of Clinton.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:29 PM:

Greg D, the number of Obama signs you see and the number of people you know who prefer Obama do not constitute a representative sample... So by all means, take the polls with a grain of salt, but take your own personal experiences with a whole quarry full.

Sure. I was mostly being flippant when I wrote as if it were an open question whether my experiences are unrepresentative or whether the polls are wrong. I am sure that I should trust the polls over my own impressions from observing yard signs and the like. I was simply responding to laternighter's post.

Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 6:33 PM:

Sorry Greg D. Being familiar with your thoughtful posts, I was a little surprised by that one. I wondered if you were being sarcastic, but it seemed so earnest. Maybe you should have put in a disclaimer for slow people like myself.

Mike wrote on January 30, 2008 6:34 PM:

Genghis

There is something to be said for
"I'm hooked on a feeling,
I'm high on beleiving"

cmon you can't plug everything into a computer, you know that as well as I do.

Statistics is an inexact science at best.

Thats what seperates a great politician
from a medeocre politician.

I've no doubt you are making an "educated" guess about who I support
right at this moment.

MonaL wrote on January 30, 2008 6:37 PM:

You ran this headline last week, is the story that different?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 6:54 PM:

You ran this headline last week, is the story that different?

Are you sure? I looked at the archives of last week's headlines and did not see any such entry from last week. Are you, perhaps, thinking of a different blog?

Anna Nemos wrote on January 30, 2008 7:59 PM:

Don't kid yourselves. Edwards' votes will go for Hilary. Yes, we were disillusioned by the war vote after Bush turned the country into the Weimar Republic (would have been nice to have seen what Mr. O would have done had he--wait for it--actually BEEN in the U.S. Senate). But I for one left the Obama vol corps after its corporate nature disgusted me. It's like the Daley administration--oh wait--that's where Michelle once worked. Look at what's waiting down the road if we don't force him to answer it and see how it shakes out--hopefully before Feb. 5th if he cares more about the party than his yuppie bank account:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/766215,CST-EDT-carol30.article
No, if Al gore doesn't enter the race, and Obama doesn't QUICKLY sit down with Carol Marin, we'll have to vote Hilary. I think John Edwards had a good effect on her too. Both she and Barack stole John's platform and found it made them popular. The media is so misogynist. Wait til it's Obama and McCain--then all the Rezko stuff will fly up yet again and we'll see the video of Obama diving head first into an SUV dodging a--wait for it--rolling video camera with tires squeeling.
Bush league stuff. Too bad he didn't become John's Veep and let the vetting occur over 8 years, gradually.

Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 10:52 PM:

And the turfers are out!

virginia cynic wrote on January 31, 2008 7:37 AM:

just wondering, why HC cannot break 0% in her home state.
that is trouble for her

Truth-is-Gold wrote on January 31, 2008 10:11 AM:

Hillary Clinton’s experience is mired in controversy, ranging from:

1) turning $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures while working for the Rose law firm. She received tips from James B. Blair who was outside counsel for Tyson Foods in Arkansas. In one day she made over $10,000 on day trading which would point to insider knowledge from within Tyson Foods.

Washington Post (please check my references if you like)

2) to Whitewater, a 1980s land deal that went bad and revealed that 1) Bill Clinton exerted pressure on an Arkansas businessman, David Hale, to make an illegal loan that would benefit him and the owners of Madison Guaranty; and 2) that an Arkansas bank had concealed transactions involving Clinton's gubernatorial campaign in 1990.

3) to Travelgate, the 1993 firing of seven longtime employees of the travel office, which handles travel arrangements for reporters and television crews covering the president. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is alleged to have pressured White House lawyers into dismissing the travel office staff and bringing in the FBI to investigate them, so that friends of the First Family could enjoy the office's patronage spoils.

Columbia Journalism Review/New York Observer

4) In the aftermath of the apparent suicide (yes, it gets ugly!) of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, Hillary Clinton ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man's office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary's lie with jail terms.

New York Times

5) In August 2000, during her first Senate run, Clinton met with the Hasidic community in New Square, where many members were working to obtain clemency for four members of their community who had been convicted of stealing tens of millions of dollars from the state and federal government.
She refused to talk about the controversial pardons of the four New York Hasidic Jews by her husband. New Square voted 1359-10 for the first lady – although other nearby Hasidic enclaves voted 3480-152 for Clinton's GOP opponent, former Rep. Rick Lazio.

New York Times

6) Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham , was paid approximately $200,000 from Almon Glenn Braswell, whom President Clinton pardoned for mail fraud and perjury, as was Carlos Vignali, whose sentence for cocaine trafficking was commuted. News of his involvement in the pardon controversy prompted an outrage in Washington, D.C.

"I knew nothing about my brother's involvement in these pardons," Sen. Clinton said at the time. "I knew nothing about his taking money for his involvement."

The Clintons asked Hugh Rodham to return the cash, which he did.

Time Magazine

7) Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham was paid $244,769 over 2½ years by a carnival company, United Shows of America, owned by Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory. The Gregorys had been convicted of bank fraud and were seeking pardons. Tony Rodham has said he mentioned their pardon application to his brother-in-law, who ultimately granted the Gregorys a pardon. But Rodham said he was not paid for anything having to do with the pardon.

Boston Globe

8) Peter Paul has business relationship with Clintons that goes bad. Clintons steal one of his clients and he retaliates turning Clinton in for violating campaign regulations during a fundraiser he held for her to the tune of $1 million. The FEC formally determined that Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman is legally responsible for the three false FEC reports that Hillary's finance director, David Rosen, was criminally charged and tried for in mid-2005. Mr. Grossman signed a "Conciliation Agreement" with the FEC on December 13, 2005, admitting his culpability, and agreeing to pay a civil fine and amend his false reports to reflect the $721,000 that he failed to report since October, 2000.

Wall Street Journal

9) Pastor Got $1.5 Million in Clinton Earmarks Before Endorsement

Widely reported

10) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gives large earmarks of $1 billion in government-backed financing for a development project called Destiny. Robert Congel, the owner of Destiny, then turned around and financed and campaigned for her.

Robert J. Congel, his family and associates affiliated with his development have donated $40,000 to Clinton's state and national campaigns since she first ran for office in 1999.

Congel co-hosted a Syracuse fundraiser for her, an event said to have raised an additional $50,000. Lobbying firms hired by Congel in connection with Destiny and other ventures also donated more than $200,000 to various Clinton campaign funds, records show.

LA Times

11) New School in New York City, which received $1.6 million in earmarks in this year's defense budget and $6 million previously, is particularly well-connected. Its president, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), campaigned for Clinton in Iowa. Three school trustees are among Clinton's most prominent backers, having each raised at least $100,000 for her campaign. A former trustee is Norman Hsu, who was indicted on fraud charges. After Hsu's criminal past was revealed last summer, Clinton returned $850,000 he raised for her.

LA Times

12) to falsely attacking Obama as a pro-life candidate for voting "present" in New Hampshire.

13) Her husband Bill Clinton says he consulted her on every major decision. Does that include Rwanda, and his decision to stand by and watch genocide kill hundreds of thousands of people? She is firmly entrenched with Bill and the establishment, at best a dirty politician who knows everything there is to know about our political system. A vote for her is a vote for the status quo. The Republicans are so sure she is the next Democratic nominee that there's even a movie set to release.

14) http://www.hillarythemovie.com/

15) btw Bill Clinton is an experienced sexual predator with at least half a dozen rapes or assaults on women reported.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)