MyDD :: Obama Nightly News (5/30/07): Still in high demand and continues his McCain smackdown

Obama Nightly News (5/30/07): Still in high demand and continues his McCain smackdown

by lovingj, Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:43:00 PM EST

The demand for Obama is constantly growing and is only going to get stronger in the coming months. Here are the nightly Obama news updates:

1. Obama is the politician that is most requested on Eventful.com. Eventful.com allows users to demand that politicians, speakers, pundits and other political figures come to their town. As of now, Obama has 21,791 people demanding he comes to their town. The next highest demanded politician is Ron Paul who falls 12,290 people short of Obama's demand.

2. Obama's appeal helped an auction by Neurofibromatosis, Inc., a national advocacy group for sufferers of the genetic disorder. A picture doodle drawn by him sold for $2,075 dollars on Ebay.

Mr. Obama nearly tripled the second-highest take, a piece by Gillian Anderson, which brought in about $700. Best known for her role as agent Dana Scully on "The X Files"

3. Obama smacks down McCain again. As reported by (ugh) the Politico:

John McCain, in an e-mail to supporters today, wrote that "even though I have been campaigning all over the country, I am mindful of my duties and responsibilities as a United States Senator. Just last week, I voted to continue the funding necessary to support our proud and dedicated service men and women on the frontlines. I was profoundly disappointed that my Senate colleagues, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, instead chose political expediency over leadership as two of the eleven Democrat Senators to vote against the funding appropriation. ."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton offers a sharp (if drug-free) response:

"As a senator who takes his duties seriously, and has also showed up to vote more than once this month, Barack Obama considers few responsibilities more important than his votes on the war in Iraq. Obama opposed the war from the beginning and, unlike Senator McCain, is committed to ending it as quickly and responsibly as possible."

Dude is this old man stupid or what? Obama is no softie so my advice to him would be to stick to trying to salvage his "campaign come true gone bad".

4. Obama has released the details of his healthcare plan on Monday. A summary video of his appearance in Iowa City can be found here.

For all Obama supporters or supporters of other candidates who want to see a thorough review of Obama's plan, I strongly urge you to visit (and hopefully rec) DemocraticLuntz's diary entitled, Barack Obama's Healthcare Plan.

5. Finally for people who do not know already, I have developed a citizen ad page to promote Obama's candidacy and to dispel a lot of MSM and netroots blogosphere related myths and attacks. Please check out Obama Citizen Ad Videos and feel free to drop me an email at my youtube account for suggestions or concerns.

Until my next diary, stay Obamanized.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment

High Demand (none / 0)

Awesome

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:11:46 PM EST

Re: High Demand (none / 0)

I have issues with his coal stance. However, he's looking better to me. His responses to these insults clearly puts him on top of his opponents. We need that in a candidate and it shows that Obama is definately out to win. He's directing his ire in the right direction, too.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 2)

Obama will indeed get stronger with time. I think, when Fred Thompson gets in and gains GOP support, Democrats are going to have to seriously think about Hillary's actual chances of winning.

Movie-star Fred vs. Hillary? Come on!

Just imagine the DNC convention. There's going to be a lot of sad Democratic faces at the DNC convention if we're stuck with Hillary while our most-inspirational, most-likeable star is sitting on the sidelines!

by fatcat on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:21:18 PM EST

fatcat, get out of my HEAD! (none / 0)

You are reading my mind. I'm thinking the same thing.

by Lorraine on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

If he is the "most inspirational, most-likeable star" he should have no problem blasting Clinton and Edwards away. In fact, he should already be at 60% to 70% right now, is seriously underperforming, given how amazing he is. So, how could your "sad faces" scenario at the DNC convention possibly happen? Come on. The "best ever?" He is unbeatable.

Yet, strangely, he does not lead a single state aside from his home state. Weird.

by georgep on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 2)

I agree with your overall ongoing sentiment that the voters will decide and everything else is baloney (obviously). However, you are clinging to these early polls so tightly, what do you do if this polling lead shrinks and evaporates? You seem to believe more in polls than your candidate. Is that all you've got, that she is ahead by 10-12 points nationally with four minutes left in the second quarter? Big wow. (I enjoy your remarks and keep them coming.)

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 1)

If the lead shrinks and evaporates, then the voters have spoken. Where is the disconnect? If my football team loses (TB Buccaneers, btw. :-) )I don't blame the refs or the weather, I look at the problem realistically and congratulate the better team. The best candidate will come out of this, I have no doubt about it. If it is one of the other candidates, I will be here defending him against GOP trolls who will be signing up for day-passes in large quantities next year. There is only ONE common enemy, the dark side represented by Bush, Cheney and Co. Too many of you are forgetting that.

Polls are just one aspect of this, although they are much more valuable than someone's opinion on an anonymous blog named "Obamamaniac" or "EdwardsIsTheGreatest" who claims that nobody in his state supports Clinton and that all polls that show the opposite are bought by Clinton and her pack of thieves.

She is on the right side of the tracks and preferrable to me on many issues. Most I have touched on already. First of all, to me she is best suited to beat the GOP candidate because "she has been there, done that" and she is tough as nails. That Bill Clinton beat the GOP twice (with Hillary Clinton by his side, and no doubt tirelessly campaigning for her this time) will weigh heavily in voters minds. The Clinton-method "How to beat the GOP" has had previous success, after all. I fear with both Edwards and Obama a vastly different outcome, as they have not been defined yet to the American people by Rovian smears, and I just don't see them weather such treatment well. Edwards was hurt in the polls by his own campaign flubbing on haircuts, which, if you think about it, is nothing compared to what the GOP would pin on Edwards in a GE. I think Obama would be in a similar situation.

Issues wise I appreciate where she is (compared to the other candidates) in most areas. As a father of 2 young children I value her work on the children front tremendously. I believe, as she does, that our children are the key element of our society, and that by vastly improving (via government help) child healthcare, daycare, child poverty, early education, child welfare, etc. we are building a brighter future. On that front I part ways with some of our young posters here and also side with her on the damaging effects gratuitous violence in games, song lyrics, etc. can have on very young children.

In my mind she leads on the issue of Immigration, and her recent strong condemnation of the Bush Immigration plan coupled with her plans for improving on the Family Unification aspects of the Immigration debate continue ongoing strong efforts in that field.

She leads when it comes to education, her track record in terms of trying to find ways to improving education is virtually unrivalled in the Senate, whether it is her strong statements and votes towards improved teacher pay, classroom size, testing, public school funding, or opposition to vouchers (which would primarily fund right-wing religious indoctrination facilities.)

Abortion would not (NEVER, EVER) become an issue with her, and it might just with Obama in perhaps some measure in the spirit of the bipartisanship he seems to be striving for. Of course, women issues would have major play in a Clinton presidency, be they equal pay, improved maternity leave, etc.

I believe she would be our best bet to pass a universal health care system that is both universal but does not include individual mandates. I like her idea of rescinding the tax cuts for the rich (not just sunsetting them in 2010) and imposing additional taxes on oil companies, whose profits have gone through the roof while gas prices have done the same.

I appreciate her populist comments, but have been around long enough to realize that she has made statements along those lines all along, from "It takes a village to raise a child" to "Bush's ownership society" you just KNOW that Clinton does not believe that government is the problem and should always give way to free market enterprise, but that SMART government can give greedy enterprise a run for its money, because it has the ability to actually save tons of cash and be more efficient than patchwork free enterprise because it can use its muscle to negotiate lower prices and does not need to operate with ever-growing profits, only at the break-even point.

I believe Clinton is our best bet to achieve a balanced budget, a very important issue to me. We CAN achieve a balanced budget while still adding many coveted programs. I am frankly disappointed that Edwards is not interested in
balancing the budget, a deal breaker for me.

She did well in the first debate, outdistancing Edwards and Obama. That showcased her experience advantage and she "looked" presidential, whereas Edwards and Obama fumbled a bit.

Hey, I even like her campy but fresh "Choose the song" campaign, which has brought humor to an otherwise dry campaign season.

All in all, while not the perfect candidate (and a Gore entry could shake things up a bit) I prefer her to the other candidates running. If the voters disagree with me in the end, I'll be fine about that. I believe she will win, but if she does not, it would not be the first - or the last - time that I was wrong about something.

The voter in the end really DOES have the last word, and what they prefer counts above else.

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 1)

A balanced budget is really a deal-breaker?

We are poor indeed if this Nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford we cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

-FDR

Is resolving our deficit really more important than resolving the many other problems we face with health care, global warming, etc.? Is fighting the deficit really more important than fighting poverty? I'll grant you that reducing the deficit would be helpful for the economy, but eliminating it is not necessary, and I would submit that we are compelled to have other priorities.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 1)

Roosevelt dealt with unemployment rates upwards of 17%, abject poverty, starvation, dead bodies in the streets from hunger. And, yet, aside from the emergency budget he managed to keep a budgeted household, strived to keep the budget as balanced as possible.

Look at the deficits Bush amassed, and the reaction from the liberal blog community:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/11/four th-largest-deficit/

How will WE look if our deficits are similar to Bush's? We HAVE to improve on Bush's extremely poor performance, if nothing else but for political reasons.

Besides, we can't run deficits the way we have been. It can't be sustained. At least not for our children, and I won't personally pass that buck onto them. If we continue to do so, people will sour on us quickly. We have a historic opportunity to turn the tables on Republicans and make them the spendhappy "drunken sailors" for a decade while we achieve something close to budget balance at the same time we expand many social programs. It CAN be done. If you believe that government CAN do a better job than the fragmented private sector can, why not? We are paying by far the largest amount per capita for our health care system. Why? Because we don't have the same universal government-run or even government-owned (Spain) health care system the rest of the industrialized world has. It stands to reason that by adopting a similar system we will manage to get our per-capita cost down as well. The organizational and monetary advantages of a largely centralized system can be enormous. The initial cost of getting such a system off the ground can be largely paid for by immediately rescinding the largely unpopular (because unfairly distributed) tax cuts for the rich, and tax breaks for organizations. We will save a lot by ending the war in Iraq, monies that can almost immediately be diverted to health care initiatives, environmental initiatives, etc.

The economy benefits tremendously from a balanced budget. The last time this was attempted it led to an economic boom which was sustained for a length of time and at an intensity unusual for typical economic cycles. The increased revenue another boom like the "Clinton Boom" from the 90s would bring in could be used for additional social programs.

Also, the three GOP candidates you can be sure of to campaign on a balanced budget proposal (and even amendment) are McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I have no appetite for yet another battle of talking-points where the "liberal free spenders and tax raisers" are pitted against the "beacons of fiscal responsibility." THEIR president messed up the budget worse than any president in history, I don't WANT them to gain the "fiscal responsibility" advantage back in ONE measly election cycle.

We have a historic opportunity to sandwich a GOP-led stagnant, stuttering economy and gigantic budget deficits (and the rep of freespenders) between ONE Clinton term with a boom economy and a balanced budget and ANOTHER Clinton term in which a balanced budget is attempted, which could perhaps lead to yet another boom economy. I see this as politically important, and as important for future generations.

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

...and I don't mean to imply that only H. Clinton could be the standardbearer of the "how this budget thing is done right" strategy, but Edwards is unfortunately moving far away from any type of budget balance efforts. Not sure about where Obama stands, a quick search brought up nothing. I am sure a future debate will address the issue of a balanced budget.

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

Roosevelt dealt with unemployment rates upwards of 17%, abject poverty, starvation, dead bodies in the streets from hunger.

When the Saudis admit that they've peaked, we'll likely see those conditions again.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:19:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 1)

"Roosevelt dealt with unemployment rates upwards of 17%, abject poverty, starvation, dead bodies in the streets from hunger. And, yet, aside from the emergency budget he managed to keep a budgeted household, strived to keep the budget as balanced as possible. "

Oops, that's a bad argument George. The year when FDR tried to balance the budget is the year of the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937. He took badly needed money out of the economy to balance the budget and he ended up throwing a wrench in the still struggling economy. Remember that the US didn't get OUT of the Depression until we went really really into debt during WWII and fully mobilized the country with government money.

by adamterando on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (3.00 / 1)

This is just bad economics and intellectually lazy stuff - including on politics and policy.

It's not a matter of yes or no to deficit spending, but more importantly, on what a government spends. And to claim that balanced budgets had much to do with the Clinton boom, well that's just listening a little too much to Robert Rubin and the post-90s punditocracy that was too economically illiterate or ideologically-driven to say anything else.

If you'd like one source, I'd suggest this roundtable that EPI did, including Joseph Stiglitz and Max Sawicky, and also Henry Aaron. Actually, a lot of EPI's research in the "Agenda for Shared Prosperity" and the writing and research work especially by Stiglitz and EPI's co-founder Jeff Faux from the past decade or so lays out the economic and policy case for leaving out the strict adherence to balanced budget mania and getting down to some real policy work that is economically powerful and politically potent.

It's only when people allow themselves to be sucked into a "tax and spend vs. fiscal restraint" debate that that dynamic happens (which seems like a truism). This is where the vital importance of framing and communicating becomes even more apparent. Clearly, as witnessed above, most Americans don't know and can't/won't follow the minutia and intricacies of economic policy (and it's far more minute and intricate than what we'll see around here). But that doesn't mean they can't get the idea if it's explained by someone clearly and simply.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

Your condescending tone aside, why is it you think that YOUR opinion is the right one? I find budget balance a very strong political statement. Especially right now, with Bush disregarding the debt completely and spending like there is no tomorrow, we have a great opportunity to slam the door on all this "GOP is the fiscally responsible party" nonsense.

In my opinion it is silly to argue that "tax and spend vs. fiscal restraint" was and is NOT a powerful argument that works, especially with those voters we need to keep in our fold to win. I have not seen the issue framed the way you think it should be framed, and to hit Americans with minutia and intricacies seems like a recipe for disaster.

And, yes, announcing that one is working towards budget balance and actually achieving it is a major aphrodisiac for the overall economy and markets. You are clearly underestimating the cause and effect that occurs in that situation, but far be it from me to call you "intellectually lazy" for doing so. :-)

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. First, Obama is not Edwards. Although I admit there is some uncertainty about Obama because he is new to the national scene, he has convinced me that he can hit back (and quickly) when attacked directly- starting all the way back to the John Howard/Australia kerfuffle and the FOX madrassa smear. Are you kidding me if you think Obama would backtrack in any way on Roe v Wade?

I think she is a higher risk as the nominee given the high negatives. Plus, are you ready for the level of toxicity from others (95% of Republicans and 25% of Democrats) that HRC would bring as the nominee and as President? Is it worth it? The Republicans are laying in the weeds because they want her to be our nominee. We are probably pretty close on most things but your more conservative Florida Democratic slip is showing.

The problem with totally accepting what the voters decide is that the voters decided for Bush in 2004- :-(. For a Democrat, the 2004 results in Florida were sobering (is the I-4 corridor hopelessly Republican?). BTW- you stole our head coach (from the real Bay Area- the San Francisco Bay Area) and you almost stole the Giants from us in the early 1990's. I'm envious because I think Florida is HRC's firewall- she seems unbeatable there. Finally, I 100% agree with you that the better candidate will come out of this year long nomination process.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, lovingj! (none / 0)

Let me clarify that I think that ALL 3 top-tier candidates are "good" candidates. They all have their quirks and weak spots, but they each have something to offer and are plenty competetive against the GOP candidates. I just think that overall there is more "substance" to the Clinton candidacy. I guess everybody has different ways of assessing this. I personally am more than ready for a showdown with Republicans over "The Clintons" or whatever you want to dub it. Bring it on. Their worst nightmare would become reality if Clinton became president. I have no sympathy for them, they are the "common enemy," despite the concilliatory rhetoric coming from Obama towards them.

The voters decided on Bush in 2004 is correct, but it was really Kerry to a large extent. I liked him, I worked for him here in this state, but ultimately he was not able to make his case. He allowed the GOP to define him, and he took what should have been a convincing victory (given Bush's negatives) and narrowly lost. He was still our best candidate, but in 2004 our selection was rather thin to begin with.

Gruden is a bit in a pickle here in this Bay area, although he still has a lot of backing. But he needs to produce better showings than what we have seen last year, or he may just come back your way. :-)

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Points, (none / 0)

I was watching C-SPAN this morning and of course, news is Fred Thompson. I wrote a while back, that if he got in he would be a candidate to siphon indies and some dems votes. And of course, here are some moderate dems calling in stating they would be open to voting for him, because they like him. Now, I know everyone states this is not enough, and it is not. But, you can prop an actor up to know enough on the issues, and throw out that charm and wit, and he can get by. Look at who is in the office now!! Bush did not get there because he is the smartest guy in the room, he just knew enough, knew how to get it across and folks did like him. I think our best bet against Thompson, because he was a very "light weight Senator" is Edwards or Obama. Hillary will drive folks the other way for sure, again I don't care about her winning in the polling race at this time, it is her negatives that will be her downfall. Just let her and Thompson go at it in a debate, and let him slip up with a one-liner on her, and it will be one. Hopefully, if she is the candidate it won't happen, but I just see folks who are not media or issue savvy, buying into this man. Why? Because he will keep is short to the point and plain and simple. "Charm" that is why.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparent typo (none / 0)

"Obama is no softie so my advice to him would be to stick to trying to salvage his "campaign come true gone bad"." should start out "McCain is no softie...", right? Otherwise I don't understand it.

by idea list on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:06:34 PM EST

Re: Apparent typo (none / 0)

No, maybe too much slang eh? I am saying that Obama is no punk (or softie), however, McCain keeps lobbing insults at Obama like he is going to roll over and cry.

Obama Citizen Ad Videos

by lovingj on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparent typo (none / 0)

Sorry, I get it now. the "him" refers to McCain, not Obama. And you're right, I see no evidence of Obama being a pushover.

by idea list on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain smackdown (2.50 / 2)

I'm impressed the Obama people have copied the Edwards supporters with an Evening News Roundup. :) Thanks for following, guys! :)

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:08:23 AM EST

Re: McCain smackdown (3.00 / 1)

No problem. Great idea by you guys. Appreciate you letting me use your patent, trademark, copyright, or registered only.

Obama Citizen Ad Videos

by lovingj on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain smackdown (2.00 / 1)

Hey,

At least yours is actually backed up with facts as opposed to theirs which consists of made up polls claiming that the second tier candidate is really a top tier and beating both the front runners in polls they pulled out of their hinder regions.

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain smackdown (none / 0)

Mostly I think it's nice that everytime your 'transcendental' candidate reveals a new policy, it's milquetoast, 1990's retread. The health care debut is the perfect example. Nobody liked it. Even many Obama supporters were upset that it doesn't cover everyone, which the Edwards plan does.

The plan he unveiled is not universal, so from this point on he can stop saying he supports "comprehensive universal health care," because his plan just simply isn't that. You'll know he's lying because his ears get bigger.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Head to Head Match-ups! (none / 0)

Movie-star Fred vs. High-negative Hillary

Movie-star Fred vs. Rock-star Obama

Movie-star Fred vs. Former President Gore

Movie-star Fred vs. Exciting Edwards

What's the best combination?

I favor Obama, but I'll take Gore or Edwards to go head-to-head against Fred.

Hillary vs. Fred? God save us!

by fatcat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:53:36 AM EST

Re: Head to Head Match-ups! (none / 0)

Sorry, I meant to say that Obama vs. Fred is the best combination. But, if not Obama, then I'll take Gore or Edwards befor I'll take Hillary.

Let's hope for Rock-star Obama vs. Movie star Fred!

by fatcat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Head to Head Match-ups! (none / 0)

In recent polling, Edwards beats Thompson head-to-head in 15 of 16 states, including those in the south - and most by large double-digit leads. Obama didn't fare nearly as well, beating Thompson in only about 9 - and where Edwards and Obama both beat Thompson, Edwards does so with a far larger margin.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Head to Head Match-ups! (none / 0)

Uh, since you are responding to a Hillary slam, aren't you forgetting that in that poll Clinton did also extremely well against Thompson? Much better than Obama?

Here are the numbers.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surve yusa_fred_thompson_v.php

Perhaps "rock-star" Obama needs a few more singing lessons, if those head-to-head numbers are any indication. :-)

by georgep on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:39:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Head to Head Match-ups! (none / 0)

Since we are talking about head to head match-up's here is Zogby's poll of May-17-20th:

President Barack Obama? It's no longer just a Democratic fantasy. Barack Obama may be young and black, but Americans prefer him to Hillary Clinton and even Rudy Guilliani and John McQuain if the general election were held today - that startling conclusion was made by a new Zogby telephone poll conducted from May 17th to May 20th.

In a contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respondents picked Obama 48 to 43. Between Barack Obama and Rudy Guilliani, respondents picked Obama 48 to 42. Barack Obama would similiarly defeat Arizona Republican John McCain 46 to 43.

The margin of error on the poll is said to be 5% but clearly the young Senator from Illinois is the real deal even among non-Democratics. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton even loses to Rudy Guilliani in a general election match-up, 43 to Guilliani's 48

by BDM on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards vs. Thompson (none / 0)

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:55:56 AM EST

Poll, schmoll! (none / 0)

Ah.....another Clinton lover, eager to throw up Hillary's early lead in polls.

Of course, they never talk about Hillary's incredible name recognition relative to other candidates, particularly Obama. Nor will they talk about Hillary's 15 years of fame, as opposed to Obama's 2 years of fame.

Could it be that everyone knows the name "Clinton" while people are still getting to know the name Obama?

Could it be that being married to a popular former president gives one certain name recognition advantages that others don't enjoy?

Of course not......right, Clinton lovers?

by fatcat on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:22:45 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.