Rasmussen: Post-Kennedy Endorsement, Obama Only Down By Six In Massachusetts
A new Rasmussen poll in Massachusetts shows that Hillary Clinton is now barely ahead of Barack Obama, in the wake of the Ted Kennedy endorsement. Hillary leads with 43%, followed by Obama at 37% and the now-departed John Edwards with 11%.
Rasmussen did not have a previous poll of the Massachusetts primary. However, a SurveyUSA poll from last week, before Obama's political adoption by the Kennedy family, had Hillary ahead by a whopping 37 points. It looks like Massachusetts is officially a race now.
Comments (115)
Jaz wrote on January 30, 2008 9:47 PM:Most of the samples were taken on or just after the T.K. endorsement.
This is highly misleading - The true poll results will be those coming on sat/sun.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 9:50 PM:Things are too volatile at the moment for meaningful polls. With Edwards out, Obama's win in SC, Clinton's in Florida, and now the rush of endorsements to both remaining candidates, this poll is already outdated.
jbryan wrote on January 30, 2008 9:51 PM:Now that's what I call a bump.
grover_rover wrote on January 30, 2008 9:53 PM:Still, pretty awesome movement no matter how you look at it. If Edwards backs Obama she is in big trouble. It is all the boost he needs, pre 2/5.
Brandon wrote on January 30, 2008 9:55 PM:There are 2 things I want to address...
1) Why is McCain polling ahead of both Obama and Hillary now by about 6% when the same polling company was showing him less than a week ago polling behind both by 3-5%?
2) Was it me, or did McCain look smug, arrogant, condescending and immature in tonight's debate? I actually tended to like McCain in comparison to his rivals, but I was seriously disappointed by his cranky old man routine in the debate. I guess he won't be as hard to beat as I thought he would be.
Ryan Scott wrote on January 30, 2008 9:55 PM:Obama still needs a couple of more good days to close the gap. His website doesn't have any events listed for tomorrow or Friday, but it does list something for Saturday. He's keeping his calendar clear. Is that because he knows he's got Richardson's endorsement and wants it to be a surprise, or is he keeping the date clear in case of a sudden need to fly to NM?
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 9:57 PM:
Wow. Any way you slice it, Obama seems to be moving on Hillary nationwide. It's going to be close on 2/5.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 9:59 PM:Brandon, I agree, McCain looked old and cranky. Huckabee looked most calm, like he could talk you into anything and sound very reasonable about it. I like Paul taking both McCain and Romney to task following their squabble. McCain really came across bad tonight.
Joyce wrote on January 30, 2008 9:59 PM:The more you see Hillary, the more you want to back Obama.
Does anyone know why Hillary is appearing on FOX News trying to play the "coy" female?
jose wrote on January 30, 2008 10:02 PM:It was going to be close on 2/5 before the Kennedy endorsement. The Clintons are trying to run out the clock as fast as they can before tuesday.
The most telling part of the poll is not how much Obama gained but how much Hillary lost. Her support was and remains very SOFT.
Many of Edwards' superdelagates are jumping on the Obama bandwagon quickly, perhaps to send a message to John...
If you assume that the SurveyUSA poll (Clinton +37) was a good indicator of where the race stood at that time and that the Rasmussen results (if they'd taken a poll during the same period) would have been similar, then Obama has made up A LOT of ground in a short timeframe.
A lot has occurred since then, but Obama is SURGING big time. He's erased a 20 to 30 point deficit in a matter of DAYS.
evie wrote on January 30, 2008 10:03 PM:How can you compare two completely different polls and use the comparison to make a point about trends -- and do it all with a straight face?
I like Arianna's approach to polling: put them on the same page as horoscopes and weather forecasts.
Miki wrote on January 30, 2008 10:03 PM:I don't see it as misleading. Perhaps that 37 point spread was just way out there.
Jenna L wrote on January 30, 2008 10:06 PM:WHOAH.
Ok, he was behing by THIRTY SEVEN POINTS!! For MONTHS! That is a pretty incredible bump, and as someone in Mass who's been feeling pretty glum about those polls, that is amaaaazing news...He is going to be holding a rally here on Feb 4th, and honestly, I think people are still mulling over the Teddy endorsement, so that he may get even more support from it. So yes, I would say he has a really good chance to lose by only a few points OR even squeak out a WIN! Mass is supposed to be Hillary country so that would be devastating. Anyway, I am absolutely thrilled.
Isn't the race also getting tighter in New York, Hillary's other must-win state?
Meanwhile...in Illinois, Obama is ahead by 30 points.
Mike wrote on January 30, 2008 10:08 PM:Yeah, what was with Hillary playing up "the snub"? on Fox. And Clinton supporters have the gall to whine about how the media is against her, when she plays into this completely media-driven crap. No integrity at all.
Oh, oh I put my hand out for Barack and he turned his back on meee!! Never mind that you were putting your hand out for TK. Good news with this poll.
blackstar wrote on January 30, 2008 10:08 PM:not entirely sure i buy the results of this poll, but the greater point it indicates is important to note: nearly every poll in every state, as well as nationwide, shows significant upward momentum for Obama.
hopefully it'll keep climbing with the help of a few big endorsements over the weekend and he takes as many, or even slightly more, delegates on the 5th. that'd be just fine with me, i'm with him all the way and aren't even close to that donation limit.
at this point Obama's campaign is like the friendliest bookie ever, in that they receive a chunk of my monthly paycheck promptly. i, and the vast majority of the other 500,000 Obama donors, can keep giving. can Clinton's people? it doesn't seem like it.
marcus wrote on January 30, 2008 10:12 PM:Yeah, Hillary disgusts me with that playing the media "snub" game, seriously, how petty and low. Not to mention it is all a flat out lie. You never put out your hand for him, you were going to Ted Kennedy, not Obama, shut up, this is why people hate you.
Phil wrote on January 30, 2008 10:15 PM:Good news for Clinton though, is that her support is stronger:
"Clinton’s support is more solid at this time than Obama’s. Among those who say they’d vote for the former First Lady, 74% are “certain” they won’t change their mind. Just 62% of Obama supporters are that certain."
You have to wonder how much of this is just hype that typically comes with endorsements. How much will fall off?
Tithonia wrote on January 30, 2008 10:15 PM:Did I hear correctly that Edwards said he would not be endorsing anyone before Tuesday?
Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 10:16 PM:Obama is definitely moving and has been moving for the past month. The question is whether he's moving fast enough for Feb 5th.
Voter exposure has been generally been good for Obama, who has been fighting Clinton's name recognition and familiarity to voters from the getgo. In every primary (except FL, where he didn't campaign), he's been able to close the gap rapidly in the weeks preceding the vote.
Super tuesday, however, is a much bigger challenge because the number of voters is several times the number of voters in all the previous primaries combined. That's a lot of people to reach in a very short amount of time.
Let's hope that he does well in the debate tomorrow b/c there will be many more watchers choosing who to vote for than in previous debates.
What everyone else said:
-This was a one-night survey, and they aren't accurate. That's why most polls take place over several days.
--This was right after a big event (Ted's endorsement). That skews the poll results. The true measure of public opinion is a few days later.
--This is a different company from the previous poll using different methodology and sample size.
Of course, one would expect tightening from a 37 point in Mass. after a Kennedy endorsement. The movement in his direction has to be encouraging for Obama. But it has to be encouraging to Hillary that, even post endorsement and SC, she still has a comfortable lead.
Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 10:21 PM:jose writes
The Clintons are trying to run out the clock as fast as they can before tuesday.
jose, I think that this is an excellent metaphor. Obama's popularity growth has been such that with enough time, he would easily surpass her. But there's not much time left. At least he's got the ball and is moving down the field.
sue wrote on January 30, 2008 10:26 PM:I don't think the Clintons are going to get too much mileage out of "the snub".
The real issues are:
(1)How will voters process the FL results?
(2)Will JE endorse Obama and when? (I can't believe for a moment that he'd endorse Hillary).
(3)Richardson is going to endorse someone by the end of the week. Who will he choose?
"I can't believe for a moment that he'd endorse Hillary"
Of course he would. He knows that, even if he endorses Obama this week, she's very likely going to be the overall winner next Tuesday. The numbers are just there for her in too many states--especially the big ones. Unless she just falls on her face on Thursday, she's going to come out of that debate with enough momentum to hold back Obama and win the day. From there, it's only a matter of time. Edwards is smart enough to see this fact, and he's ambitious enough to want to ride the winning horse.
So, do you endorse Obama and watch him lose narrowly next week--and lose your own political clout in the process? Or do you endorse Hillary and when she wins, claim some of the credit--increasing your own capital and clout? The answer is to endorse Hillary. I predict he waits until after Thursday (to make sure she does OK in the debate) and then pulls the trigger on Friday with an endorsement.
Tuesday is a lifetime away. A trillion things could happen between now and then. If Clinton's plan is to run out the clock, she's making a big mistake. You have to seize it.
nycvoter wrote on January 30, 2008 10:28 PM:Joyce, you are a disgrace to women. If HRC is on Fox why do you assume it is to be coy. Just vote for Obama and go away
Joshua the Teacher wrote on January 30, 2008 10:29 PM:Not to be a hater, but...
Ralph Nader, what the hell do you think you are doing?! Haven't the last 8 years been a sobering testimony to the dangers of giving in to your egoism? Did it feel good knowing the harm you caused our country in 2000? And don't anyone try to lay it all on the Supreme 9 because it would not have been up to them if Ralphie had just stayed out of it.
Start a PAC, take out ads, get the message out there and try to frame the debate, but get over yourself. In 2000 we got a president who was hell-bent on invading Iraq because of you, and in 2008 we could get a president hell-bent on invading Iran because of you. Enough!!
OK, it's out of my system... for now.
nycvoter wrote on January 30, 2008 10:30 PM:HRC is not trying to play the snub incident the media is, what's wrong with you people. You can be for Obama without embarrasing yourselves.
susan wrote on January 30, 2008 10:31 PM:Obama is by far the best candidate. Based on his background, leadership abilities, and policy positions he has my vote. He is also the cleanest candidate in my opinion. I just found this website that shows Hillary has way too many skeletons that will come up again if she is the nominee. Obama is relatively clean and honest when he makes a mistake.
www.realchange.org
This is not a site that supports Obama. I, however, do!
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:33 PM:If Obama had another month he'd roll Hillary up and smoke her. Or snort her.
Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 10:33 PM:Man all these "she will crush him on 2/5" people are all of a sudden saying that you cant trust the polls. Still, I admit I won't get my hopes up yet, there's still ground to make. But it's looking closer, and I have a feeling that Obama still has an "ace up his sleeve." (Gore? Edwards? Richardson?)
blackstar wrote on January 30, 2008 10:34 PM:Of course he would. He knows that, even if he endorses Obama this week, she's very likely going to be the overall winner next Tuesday.
-------------
i think the commenter is assuming Edwards has even a sizable percentage of the substance and conviction to his causes he's based his campaign around for 11 months.
if he does, the natural pick is Obama, and soon. if he doesn't, and just wants to be on the winning team to finagle a shot at an office, the natural pick is Clinton.
I think the psot-Edwards departure polls will show a deadheat, pretty much everywhere but the SouthWest.
Hillary is following the same trajectory as her GOP colleague from New York whi just departed the campaign today. Basically she was riding the wave of national name recognition, and popularity among a core group of voters, that once the people began to focus on the campaign, was set aside as the voters looked to see who they really wanted as their party's standard bearer in November. The velocity of Rudy's collapse was greater, but the end points will be the same. Hillary has steadily been losing support among almost every demographic group except older white women, and Hispanics. I think she will be able to hold those groups well enough (short of a Richardson endorsement of Obama) through 2/5, but everyone has known since Iowa that this election is about CHANGE, and any change voters currently supporting Edwards are not going to end up supporting Hillary - if they thought Hillary was the change candidate, they would have been supporting her already.
Look for Obama to win ID, the Midwest, and South on 2/5, and Hillary to win NY, and the Southwest. CO, CT and MA I see as pretty much deadheats. With the size of NY and CA Hillary will likely lead in delegates on 2/6, but for the next two weeks the map favors Barack so I see him having the momentum going into closing stages of the campaign. And with most of Hillary's donors maxed out, she is not going to be able to make it past March 4th when OH and TX vote - both of which I see going to Obama.
If the snub is the best thing Hillary has going for her the night before the biggest debate of her 35 years of service, then they are in more trouble than I thought. Or they think this is going to be the Crying Game part 2.
In all seriousness, I am working as a volunteer for Obama in upstate NY (read: Hillary Country). I have noticed a definite trend toward Obama in the past week in my calls. Granted, this is upstate NY so it is foolish to think Obama will beat her here, but he has a great chance to chip away at her in the delegate count up here.
Unless he shits himself on the stage tomorrow, February 5th is going to be a very long night. By that, I mean a ton of races are going to be very close.
JR wrote on January 30, 2008 10:36 PM:Keith, I know politics is a rough game but I'd still like to think Edwards has a modicum of integrity. With that in mind, why would he endorse a woman who the previous decided to kick him while he was down? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html
Just last Saturday, when Joe Trippi called out Clinton's rep on the robocalls, she smugly said: "Politics is tough." Despicable...
Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 10:37 PM:Also, we need more numbers on other 2/5 states. I'm very interested to see how its going here in MN
Genghis wrote on January 30, 2008 10:39 PM:Keith writes
The answer is to endorse Hillary. I predict he waits until after Thursday (to make sure she does OK in the debate) and then pulls the trigger on Friday with an endorsement.
Keith, you're probably right, but I submit three caveats. First, the longer he waits, the less negotiating clout he has. If Clinton has it wrapped after 2/5, she won't give him sh-t. Second, I think that he really doesn't like Clinton, and his animosity could lead him to take a bigger risk. Third, Obama might offer him more than Clinton does (VP?), which could balance the risk.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:41 PM:What the use of the snub reveals is Hillary's character--or lack thereof. She ALWAYS goes for the cheap shot. Cocaine, Madrassa, drug dealer, where's the hope?, jessie jackson, the snub, false union intimidation accusations, the teacher's union lawsuit...
She plays hardball, but it just feels so tawdry.
blackstar wrote on January 30, 2008 10:41 PM:Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic breaks down the numbers thusly:
Based on polling and analysis and interviews with campaign officials.....
Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
Obama has an edge in Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.
The following states lean to Clinton right now: California, Connecticut
The following entities lean Obama right now: Colorado, Democrats Abroad
True tossups: Arizona, Delaware, New Mexico, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts
rr18 wrote on January 30, 2008 10:42 PM:I really doubt Edwards would endorse Clinton. Maybe he would cut a deal with her to sit it out. But if he endorses someone, I bet it would be Obama.
Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 10:44 PM:If Edwards does endorse Hillary, people will look at it as a huge sell-out... he has obviously taken Obamas side more than hers. Politicaly, they may be a bit more alligned than he and Obama, but on everything else... I just can't see him doing it, especially after watching his speech today.
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 10:46 PM:nycvoter,
You're wrong. Here's what Hillary had to say about "The Snub". What a phony.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/01/29/hillary-on-the-snub.aspx
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:47 PM:A very interesting development:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=393
American Samoa is a tossup? Obama should just play up the Hawaii & Indonesia thing. Maybe go surfing or something.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 10:50 PM:Does anyone know why Hillary is appearing on FOX News trying to play the "coy" female?
That's her base: old, uninformed Fox viewers.
shoelessjoemccarthy wrote on January 30, 2008 10:50 PM:Wow--I'm starting to feel a tad less pessimistic about next Tuesday!
RS wrote on January 30, 2008 10:50 PM:Ryan Scott wrote on January 30, 2008 9:55 PM: Obama still needs a couple of more good days to close the gap. His website doesn't have any events listed for tomorrow or Friday, but it does list something for Saturday. He's keeping his calendar clear. Is that because he knows he's got Richardson's endorsement and wants it to be a surprise, or is he keeping the date clear in case of a sudden need to fly to NM?
Actually Obama just announced two events in New Mexico for Friday, one early afternoon economic summit, one evening rally.
I'm not saying that means he has Richardson's endorsement, but IF it's happening (huge if that I still consider unlikely), it'll probably happen on Friday.
sue wrote on January 30, 2008 10:52 PM:Keith - Given the way that Edwards has been going after Hillary for at least 9 months, and the fact that at the NH debate he told the audience that he and Obama are the "change agents" and Hillary "the status quo", if Edwards endorsed her now, he'd be the biggest hypocrit on earth. It would be ridiculous.
ChrisO wrote on January 30, 2008 11:00 PM:I think Obama supporters are overlooking a couple of things. Obama is coming off the best week of his life, so naturally the polls are going to be skewed. The win in SC by such big numbders made him suddenly look like a frontrunner, a theme the media gladly played up. And some of the real demographic issues that led to that win are not possible to discuss, because the Obama camp has successfully labeled as racist any discussion of the vote that centers on race.
He also got the Kennedy endorsement, which was a big boost for him. And the media played along once again, covering it like Princess Di's wedding. But the glow of endorsements fades, and the frontrunner image will be a little hard to maintain if Hillary beats him by a decent margin on Super Tuesday.
I don't pretend to know what will happen, but I do know that many Obama supporters seem hopelssly naive when it comes to electoral politics. When Obama wins, they're almost orgasmic in their tiumphalism, certain that he's on his way to victory. When he loses, all they can tak about is the other side cheating.
If Obama wins the nomination, I will support him wholeheartedly. But that's a long way off, and I think Obama supporters are kidding themsleves if they think this surge in the polls means game over. When Hillary racks up some big wins on Tuesday the press is just as likely to start peddling a "comeback kid" theme.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 11:02 PM:Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.
Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That’s right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here.
You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that’s been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. That’s according to The State newspaper. Here in South Carolina, Edwards says he’s one of us, but up on Wall Street he was just another one of them.
Can you trust John Edwards?
Ouch!
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 11:03 PM:I admit, I am reposting from another thread in the TPM universe, but figured it was germane, so:
I will say it again (for the first time here). Last Monday Obama set the trap by calling out Bill on Good Morning America in advance of the debate. To me, the message was, "If you can't control Bill, then I will." They took the bait, the debate became all about BOTH Bill & Hillary and the week was spent discussing "Billary." Obama and his team drove the narrative all week and they got the idea of a co-presidency into the public's bloodstream.
Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has learned a few lessons on how to play the game. The entire Clinton campaign was on the defensive before South Carolina and Monday's stunt in Florida was a weak attempt to get the news cycle.
Edwards dropping out dominated the news cycle today with the Obama Denver speech also breaking through because he drew sharp distinctions with his only opponent left in the race.
That said, the Clintons are very very smart so they will have a few tricks up their sleeve, but they have got some serious catching up to do tomorrow night in LA. 8PM, CNN. Be there.
Just noticed that Obama (pretty discretely) announced that he would be in BOTH Albuquerque and Santa Fe this Friday after the debate. Now, he's not too competitive there and he's been spending each day this week in only one city in each Feb 5 state before moving on. So, this has got to say something. Is Richardson endorsing Obama on Friday??
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 11:06 PM:THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY. !!!HILLMENTUM!!!
Drew M. wrote on January 30, 2008 11:20 PM:She could do without these types of articles:
An Ex-President, a Mining Deal and a Big Donor
NamelessFaceless wrote on January 30, 2008 11:22 PM:Hillmentum? Please. Obama's got the Hulkster:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/hulk_hogans_view.php
Ain't no stopping that train.
Grant wrote on January 30, 2008 11:22 PM:Perhaps the good Massachusetts voters are a little short on information regarding the true nature of Obama/Rezko ‘08? I’m however sure that could be remedied.
Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:23 PM:More good news for Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/30/BAVUUO9E4.DTL
(scroll down)
I admit this isnt the most official poll ever, but here's what it came up with:
Over three nights, last Wed, Thur, and Sun, its
Hillary 36
Obama 31
On just Sunday however, the numbers are this:
Hillary 32
Obama 35
w/ Monday looking basically
Like the MA poll, it doesn't prove anything, but things are definetly looking better for Obama then a week ago.
Gus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:27 PM:My comment above should have said "w/ Monday looking basically the same."
and, I guess "better for Obama THAN a week ago."
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 11:27 PM:http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_ClintonRezko_080125_ms.jpg
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 11:28 PM:but I do know that many Obama supporters seem hopelssly naive when it comes to electoral politics.
We're also hopelessly blurry when you take your glasses off.
The Snub wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 PM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXWsMZLRsT8
Obama's toast
JHW wrote on January 30, 2008 11:30 PM:I think an Edwards' endorsement of Obama is quite possible given the cards before us. If Edwards just dropped out and endorsed Obama, Obama would get just one news cycle before Super Tuesday. But looked what happened. Edwards drops out on Wednesday and kills news of Hillary "win" in Florida. Obama praises Edwards in a speech in Denver big time and leaves a tribute on Edwards up all day. (Clinton's web tribute went down fairly quickly). Edwards' team builds the idea he is undecided between the two and there is a real battle for his endorsement. Then even though he is out of the race he is coming to LA to walk the picket line with writers on Thursday. What is up with that? He talks to all the media outlets pre-debate since he is in LA anyway. Then immediately after the debate (which will be the most watched of all the debates), there is breaking news that Edwards will endorse Obama Friday morning. If Obamaa did so-so in the debate, this will drown out the comments. If Obama did great, it will build his mo even more.
Remember Teddy told Obama on Thursday he would endorse. It was staged for Monday.
And Mudcat Saunders (a top JRE advisor) is all against a Clinton endorsement.
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 11:31 PM:Hey Grant, you are an inbred smear-merchant..
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 PM:Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 11:31 PM:
Hey Grant, you are an inbred smear-merchant.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_ClintonRezko_080125_ms.jpg
marquezV wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 PM:In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:
Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_ClintonRezko_080125_ms.jpg
shoelessjoemccarthy wrote on January 30, 2008 11:37 PM:Duane, I take it that was the text of the HRC robocall against Edwards?
Disgusting. Now I really hope he endorses Obama.
Kumbya Kool-Aid wrote on January 30, 2008 11:40 PM:I just saw Bill Clinton at a fund raiser. He's smarter than every single Obama supporter on this site combined. Obama could never survive what that man went through as president. He made such a compelling case for Hillary that couldn't imagine voting for Obama as much as couldn't imagine voting for Bush. Hillary is head and shoulders above him in experience, intellect, and compassion. Obama's campaign is a celebration of Obama, but not what he can do for you and me. If that's the criteria, I'll vote for Justin Timberlake.
swarty wrote on January 30, 2008 11:43 PM:Hey Snub,
If this is what Hillary is peddling the night before the most important debate in her 35 years of service, then she's got internal polls that are far worse than anything we are seeing.
Just as I don't think the still photo of the Clintons and Rezko proves anything, neither do a couple of still shots from the floor of the House.
You might want to try breathing through a paper bag. It will help calm you down.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 11:46 PM:Yes, ShoelessJoeMcCarthy, that was the text of her Edwards robocall.
There are a lot of ways to contrast John Edwards new-found progressive populism with his very different record but how do the Clintons manage to make it so vile and Republican-like? Or maybe a better question is, why?
The Snub wrote on January 30, 2008 11:48 PM:"then she's got internal polls that are far worse than anything we are seeing."
I love it when Hussein voters think they know the Hillary campaign's internal numbers. I'll give give two numbers, 51% to 33% in Florida. Oh, Florida doesn't count. Really? How come Edwards dropped out after Florida? Because he did so great there? You know Hussein is toast, just try like yourself in the morning.
Re:Kumbya Kool-Aid
"Obama's campaign is a celebration of Obama, but not what he can do for you and me. "
Have you actually listened to the three of them talk?
Here's a quick summary:
Obama - mostly uses the collective we or you
Hillary - uses I very frequently
Bill - uses I (as in HIS accomplishments, not Hillary's) often
"I love it when Hussein"
*Douchebag alert!*
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 11:53 PM:"Obama could never survive what that man went through as president."
If Obama had the same penchant for extra-marital affairs, I might see your point.
Duane wrote on January 30, 2008 11:54 PM:Actually Swarty, RE: Snub peddling, it is a pretty effective dog-whistle to a certain demographic. It was the first thing our company HR manager brought up this morning when we met in the cafeteria.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 11:55 PM:The Snub is Taylor Marsh and she is a shameless Hillary shill.
zonk wrote on January 30, 2008 11:56 PM:Big trouble in Camp Clinton --
I bet we see this up on TPM within the hour.
The New York Times has a front page story on Bill Clinton titled "An Ex-President, a mining deal, and Big Donor".
4 e-pages... looks like it's gonna be front page on the NYT tomorrow
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&hp
Bill Clinton, 10s of millions of dollars, a uranium mining shell company, influence peddling...
This looks big!
I think we have our last HRC news cycle before Super Tuesday!
I can't believe -- I think Obama is going to get it done!!!!!!!
The Snub's Bully wrote on January 30, 2008 11:57 PM:http://youtube.com/watch?v=f949ISIs0ac
Hillary is toast.
Frank wrote on January 31, 2008 12:02 AM:Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/...
Really?
Swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:03 AM:Hey snub,
If you want to know why I am so terrified of what could happen in a Hillary Clinton administration, then read this article in Thursday's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?hp
There's a little more beef there than Inside Edition.
In a nutshell, Bill will have taken no oath. He freelances all over the world, doing "favors" for his buddies in return for staggering donations to his foundation (the guy in this article alone gave $31 million on his way to $100 million). Most of these donors are not known to the public. But remember, his wife is now the President. We are staring at the most insane conflict of interest situation in the history of the country. Even if Hillary is as pure as the driven snow, it is the sort of thing that could bring down her presidency in a matter of days.
He is not exactly planning to take up knitting when she is elected. You are being naive if you think that Bill will be releasing the names of the donors to his Library out of the goodness of his heart.
How come Edwards dropped out after Florida?
This is kinda weird since he battled to a 0-0-0 tie there.
So did he wait to drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Obama campaign to blunt any coverage or momentum Hillary might get from the results the night before?
Or did he drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Clinton to make her Florida results look so impressive that it pushed him out of the race, and also give her time to coalesce the white vote before February 5th?
Either way, we're going to find out!
J.Irons wrote on January 31, 2008 12:10 AM:Hillary played politics with the war. She was afraid it would be the cake-walk Cheney was describing, afraid she'd be caught on the wrong side of a successful military operation and be forever labeled as the pussy the neocons were saying she was. Now she's stuck without my vote.
The Snub wrote on January 31, 2008 12:11 AM:"I can't believe -- I think Obama is going to get it done!!!!!!!"
Smoke another bowl. Not a chance in hell.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 12:12 AM:Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream
Poor judgment on Obama's part in retrospect, but Clinton can't do anything with this. She voted in favor of Rumsfeld's confirmation.
zonk wrote on January 31, 2008 12:15 AM:We finally have irrefutable proof that Bush's Niger-Saddam-yellowcake story was complete bunk, likely manufactured.
It appears obvious that everyone gets their uranium from Crazy Bill's Discount Uranium!
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:16 AM:"Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream"
Note the 2001 part, note the pre-9/11 part. There it is..
farush wrote on January 31, 2008 12:18 AM:twWfafa2 cool site!!! [url=http://farush1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://farush2.com faferh61
Swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:18 AM:I repeat, Obama turned the entire last week's news cycle into a referendum on The Clintons.
Not sure if the Times story will get much traction as most of the guys have hard to pronounce names and there is no sex or snubbing involved, but this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that will undermine a Hillary Clinton Presidency. The press will have a wonderful time explaining things to us.
Perhaps Obama will use this story as an opening to explain why the Clintons need to release the names of the donors to the Clinton Foundation. This story is a perfect example of why the transparency is necessary.
Duane wrote on January 31, 2008 12:20 AM:It appears obvious that everyone gets their uranium from Crazy Bill's Discount Uranium!
LOL!
Ya know, just for the record in 2001 Rumsfeld did seem sane. In fact, he appeared to be the only sane one in the bunch. Real Fucking Crazy is sneaky like that.
Last thought on the Times story:
Obama could open up the controversy in the debate by saying, "The NY Times, the paper that endorsed you, has a story today that speaks to the conflicts of interest we have in store if you are elected."
A boy can dream.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 12:22 AM:To the snub's bully,
That video was debunked:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/95999
Don't spread slander. You make Obama look bad.
New Rasmussen numbers from California.
Clinton 43- Obama 40.
I am feeling chills.
Genghis wrote on January 31, 2008 12:28 AM:Duate writes
How come Edwards dropped out after Florida?
This is kinda weird since he battled to a 0-0-0 tie there.
So did he wait to drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Obama campaign to blunt any coverage or momentum Hillary might get from the results the night before?
Or did he drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Clinton to make her Florida results look so impressive that it pushed him out of the race, and also give her time to coalesce the white vote before February 5th?
It's all speculation, so I kinda doubt both, but especially the latter. You want to space out your big media events, not jumble them all up.
In favor of the former, the speculation on another thread also notes that Edwards did not drop out after SC, which would have distracted from Obama's big win.
Here's the test: If Edwards does not endorse anyone until after super tuesday, then he's acting on his own behalf and waiting to see who's gonna win. If he endorses Obama before super tuesday, then I suspect that they've been colluding for a while.
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:21 AM:
Last thought on the Times story:
Swarty:
You are correct! Bill will become too much of a focus in the news cycle; this will bring back S.C., land deals, etc. If his foundation is transparent, no problem; if is not it will likely blow up on the Sunday news shows, and have some impact on the election. It is not the reality, it is the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons, love or hate them, do have excess baggage!!!! ON such matters folks are rather unforgiving these days!
Swarty you dream has lots of legs!
zonk wrote on January 31, 2008 12:34 AM:Oh yeah...
"too complicated".
geez, why didn't WE think of that when it was Rezko, Rezko, Rezko?
Why didn't the GOP think of that with Abramoff?
Yeah... $131 million from a foreign uranium mining magnate... cozying up to one of those lovely foreign dictators -- who wins elections with 91% of the vote :-) -- all while your wife is sitting on the committee condemning the nation in question for human rights violations?
Oh yeah... I'm sure it will pass without notice!
Time to break the glass on the Clinton Emergency Damage Control Kit.
QUick--- call Jesse Jackson to pray with the family... oops... wait.
swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:37 AM:As for Edwards motives, I have no clue.
But if he is smart, he will be listening to his wife. Her political judgement is underrated. She counseled him to vote no on the Iraq resolution, but he went with his political advisors, always a bad mark for me in his book.
That said, his endorsement, if it comes, will be greeted by the endorsee as the best news since sliced bread, and it will be if done in advance of Tuesday. Any endorsement after Tuesday comes at a discount. It will mean less and reduce any clout he would achieve by endorsing pre Tuesday and possibly tilting the outcome. My guess is he will be watching the debate tomorrow and the tracking polls, then if he knows what is good for him, will ask his wife for her advice.
Duane wrote on January 31, 2008 12:39 AM:Time to break the glass on the Clinton Emergency Damage Control Kit.
QUick--- call Jesse Jackson to pray with the family... oops... wait.
They haven't spoken since Jackson didn't endorse Bill in the South Carolina primary and caused him to come in a very distant fourth place and drop out.
You Dumb Ass People Think That BS That Worked In SC Is Going To Work Out West,Up North,And In The Midwest,You See They've Been Living With LIARS Like Your Arrianna Huffington,And Mr Obama,He Won't Curry One Single Vote With Your And His BS.You People Thought That Were Going To Work In New Hampshire,But Just For Laughs And I Mean It's Real Funny That People Could Be So Stupid,How Does Mr Obama Make Up As You Say A 37% Come From Behind In A Couple Of Day's That He Could Not Overcome In A Year,I Know He's Honest,He Moves The Crowd,He Inspires Me,I Bet People In SC Feel Like Fools Now That Mr Obama Announced That He Would Be Supporting Illegal License For Illegal Immigrants,I Bet They Feel Just Like The Fools They Are Like You,Who Think That S--T Is Going To Sell,It Didn't In New Hampshire,And By The Time She Finishes With Mr Obama,That Little Bit Of Ass That He has,Will Be Left In Ga.He Will Be Drugged.BTW What Has He Done,Or Offered In The Last Few Day's To Get Come From Behind That He Couldn't Do For An Entire Year.Make Sure That Ignorrant Arrianna Huffington Reads This She Is One Of The Most Illiterate,Misinformed Non-Talking Piece Of S--T I've Ever Seen In My Life.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:12 AM:Captain-Sky wrote on January 31, 2008 12:50 AM:
Captain we need to know your orbit to send you some CARE packages! Reply ASAP!
GMFORD wrote on January 31, 2008 1:16 AM:swarty -- right on regarding Elizabeth Edwards.
zonk -- you are crazy funny as usual
Captain-Sky -- you are crazy scary, seek professional help immediately.
David wrote on January 31, 2008 2:06 AM:For those of you who can't access the Times, here's the story of the day. This is big. This is "Hillary will not be president" big.
1. On Sept. 6, 2005, the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Kazakhstan.
2. Accompanying Mr. Giustra was Bill Clinton.
3. Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”
4. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
5. Nursultan A. Nazarbayev's 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
6. Within two days, Mr. Giustra's company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra.
7. Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra.
8. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.
For those of you who can't access the Times, here's the story of the day. This is big. This is "Hillary will not be president" big.
1. On Sept. 6, 2005, the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Kazakhstan.
2. Accompanying Mr. Giustra was Bill Clinton.
3. Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”
4. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
5. Nursultan A. Nazarbayev's 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.
6. Within two days, Mr. Giustra's company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra.
7. Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra.
8. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.
Well remember, whenever the media attacks the Clintons the first you got to ask is: 1) is the GOP or the Righties anywhere in this, and 2) is it true.
I'm a hardcore Obama supporter, I'd do no more than check the box for Clinton if she won the nomination but smearing the Clintons was the national elites' pass time for 7 years so let's be cautious on this one.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 2:22 AM:It is not the reality, it is the appearance of impropriety.
EDBL wrote on January 31, 2008 3:08 AM:marquezV wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 PM:
In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:
Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican
My goodness. That is absolutely hilarious. Had to wipe the tears on that one.
David wrote on January 31, 2008 3:16 AM:MNPundit, you are right, it makes sense to be cautios (it always does), but it seems the facts are easy to verify:
1. Giusta and Clinton fly to meet Kazahstan dictator
2. Clinton expresses support for dictator
3. Dictator offers uranium contract to Giusta
4. Giusta offers 31 millions to Clinton
geoff - olywa wrote on January 31, 2008 3:42 AM:Not just 31 million, but 131.3 million.
Hillary you stuck by your man too long.
Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 31, 2008 7:16 AM:This blog has become, like, totally whack.
Tho' that "Inside Edition" "the snub" piece was pretty hilarious. Ahhh, I love American culture.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 8:38 AM:I love it when Hussein voters think they know the Hillary campaign's internal numbers.
Use of "Hussein" to refer to Barack Obama == instant loss of credibility.
Elizabeth E wrote on January 31, 2008 9:12 AM:He is going to be holding a rally here on Feb 4th
Where is the Feb. 4 rally being held? I can't find anything about it on the Obama Campaign web-site... Thanks!
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 9:47 AM:This mess makes the whole Rezco thing look like the non-story it is.
Just out of curiousity, what platforom is Hillary planning on running against McCain? Experience? Check. Integrity? Check. Ready from Day One? Check. Trying to help? Check.
That's going to go over real well.
franklyn wrote on January 31, 2008 9:47 AM:marquezV wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 PM:
In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:
Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican
OMG, LMAO!!!!
sue wrote on January 31, 2008 11:20 AM:Obama raised $32 Million in JANUARY 2008 and added 170,000 new donors.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/31/obama_to_report_32_million_rai.html
The question is does Obama have time to catch up in all of these states-especially since he does better when he is in front of people.
And what about the early voting - when Clinton's poll numbers were still very high. I saw last night that early voting made a big difference in Florida.
Is Ted Kennedy too little too late...again?
All things to ponder as the poll numbers do seem very volatile leading up to Super Tuesday. Obama appears to be closing the gap…but…does he have time?
I am a 65 year old white male and have lived in NDakota all my life.Here is a chance for Obama supporters to gain a vote in tuesday's caucus.If nothing else this should tell you what has piqued my interest.I have 3 questions i need answers to before voting for Obama.
1.Clinton said in the last debate "Obama was against the war from the beginning but the question is what has he done since then".My question is why did he not lead the fight to bring the troops home,where was his leadership,what did he do or say during this time to demonstrate his leadership,which would then give him the credibility to be critical of others .
2. I travel frequently to Chicago I have been suprised by how frequently Jesse Jackson appears on local Chicago TV.His opinions seem to be sought after and there is nothing racist about him or his opinions.My question is why does the Obama campaign seem to be embarassed by him? If the Obama people feel BILl's reference to Jackson was a racial slur who was it directed against, who was supposed to be offended?I have to say also that the response to HC's remarks about Martin Luther King really troubled me.Fargo ND just named a new highschool after Ronald Davies. I wonder how many voters in the SC primary could tell us why they named the school after him.We all, black and white, need all the help we can get to combat racism,and we do what we can when called upon.
3.Can any one give me an example of a Bill Clinton action or statement in tenor or tone equal to Ted Kennedy's bitter moking of HC by saying Obama will be "ready from day one"
