New ABC/WaPo poll - 49% Clinton, 26% Obama, 12% Edwards

The latest ABC/Washington Post poll is out, and it underscores the dynamics we have seen in this race since sometime in August.  

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit /1050a1ElectionYear-Out.pdf

The poll

Hillary Clinton 49
Barack Obama 26
John Edwards 12
Bill Richardson 2
Joe Biden 3
Chris Dodd 1
Dennis Kucinich 2
Mike Gravel 0
Other (vol.) 0
None (vol.) 1
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 1
No opinion 2

Trendlines:

9/30/07

Hillary Clinton 53
Barack Obama 20
John Edwards 13
Bill Richardson 3
Joe Biden 2
Chris Dodd 0
Dennis Kucinich 1
Mike Gravel 0
Other (vol.) 0
None (vol.) 4
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 1
No opinion 2

9/7/07

Hillary Clinton 41
Barack Obama  27
John Edwards 14
Bill Richardson 2
Joe Biden 3
Chris Dodd 1
Dennis Kucinich 2
Mike Gravel 1
Other (vol.) 1
None (vol.) 4
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 0
No opinion 5

---------------------------------------- -----------------------

Internals

19. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) Regardless of who you may support, who do you think
(ITEM) - (Clinton) (Obama) or (Edwards)?

11/1/07 - Summary Table

All Any 2 None No
Clinton Obama Edwards (vol.) (vol.) (vol.) op.

a. is the strongest leader 59 24 12 1 1 1 3

b. is the most honest and trustworthy 34 29 18 5 2 7 5

c. has the best chance of getting elected president
in November 2008 62 15 14 1 2 1 5

d. best reflects the core values of the Democratic party 44 25 21 2 1 2 5

e. is closest to you on the issues 46 27 18 * 2 2 5

f. is best able to handle the situation in Iraq 50 23 16 2 1 3 4

g. is best able to handle the situation involving Iran 52 22 14 2 * 4 7

Analysis of internals

Hillary Clinton leads on every internal measured.   The most important internals here are, in order:

1. Electability. Clinton is seen as the most likely Democratic candidate to win in Nov. 2008 against any GOPer.  This internal is not close at all.  62% of all Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents in this poll believe that Clinton has the best chance of being selected president in Nov. 2008.  Obama is seen as that most electable Democratic candidate by only 15%, well below his overall polling performance.  Edwards is seen as the most electable by 14%, pretty much in line with his overall polling performance.

2.  Situation in Iran.   Clinton scores big on this internal.  Apparently the developing situtation in Iran has added another strong point into Clinton's internal numbers, yet one more reason to vote for her.  She is seen by a full 52% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents as best able to "handle the situtation involving Iran." Oly 22% believe that about Obama, 14% name Edwards.  Clinton holds an almost 4 to 1 advantage over Edwards on handling Iran, a better than 2.5 to 1 advantage over Obama.

3. Situation in Iraq.  Democrats and Deocratic-leaning Independents are obviously satisfied with Clinton's plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq, with a full 50% naming Clinton as the best candidate to "handle the situation in Iraq." Obama comes in at 23%, Edwards at 16%.  A better than 3 to 1 advantage over Edwards, a better than 2 to 1 advantage over Obama here.  

4. Hillary Clinton scores big when it comes to who of the candidate is "closest to you (poll responders) on the issues." 46% have Hillary Clinton as "closest" on the issues important to them, 27% see Obama that way, 16% name Edwards. A 20% advantage over Obama and a 30% advantage over Edwards on being the most in sync with Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents on the issues they care about is proof that Clinton has connected, particularly with the middle class, whereas the other candidates have so far failed to make their cases on the issues.

5. Strongest leader. This is also a very important, decisive, internal.  It goes right at the Commander-in-Chief threshold question, the readiness to be president.    Here Clinton scores it out of the ballpark.  59% of responders see her as the strongest leader of all candidates. Only 24% name Obama as that leader, Edwards is at 12%.   An almost 2.5 to 1 advantage over Obama and a 5 to 1 advantage over Edwards.  If the other candidates are not perceived as stronger leaders compared to Clinton (in fact, lag behind strongly) how can they make a case for themselves as better suited for the presidency?  

6. Honest and trustworthy. Clinton wins here as well.  34% (Clinton) to 29% (Obama) to 18% (Edwards).   To wit, Clinton has an almost 2 to 1 advantage over Edwards on who the most honest and trustworthy candidate is, which is in a way ironic, since Edwards has tried to make honesty and trustworthyness an issue.  It probably would have a chance to resonate better if more Democrats thought of Edwards as the most honest and trustworthy of all candidates at this point. Indeed, according to the data he is seen as the least honest and trustworthy of the 3 top-tier candidates.    

Clinton vs. GOPers

Here Clinton beats any GOP comers.


Fifty percent of Americans prefer Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. (That compares with 51-43 percent a month ago; in this poll slightly more, 29 percent, identify themselves as Republicans, vs. a 2007 average of 25 percent.) Pitting Clinton against McCain produces a 52-43 percent contest, while her lead grows against either Thompson (56-40 percent) or Romney (57-39 percent).

Issues advantages Democrats have over Republicans

The Democrats have smaller leads on taxes and immigration, and run evenly with the Republicans in trust to handle terrorism, Bush's cornerstone issue.

Trust to handle:

Democrats Republicans
Health care 54% 29%
Iraq 50% 34%
Economy 50% 35%
Taxes 46% 40%
Immigration 42% 35%
Terrorism 41% 42%

On the 3 most important issues imaginable we have strong advantages:  Health Care, Iraq and the Economy.   Right now we have advantages on Taxes and Immigration as well.  Only on the broader question of "terrorism" are we even with the GOP.  This bodes well for the upcoming year as we get into the 2008 election season.  If these preferences don't change over the course of this next year we may see a blowout election favoring the Democratic party in 2008.  

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,131 adults, including an oversample of African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents (weighted back to their correct share of the national population). The results have a three-point error margin for the full sample, four points for the sample of 598 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 4.5 points for the sample of 436 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
 

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

lol

Clinton is plunging! and I want to eat brown hare!

by prisonbreak 2007-11-04 08:14AM | 0 recs
I have pledged to gnaw off my right arm

- sans painkiller - if hillary loses the nomination... a weird bet I agree but I have maxed out on my financial abilities to bet, though I have considered taking a loan out to put more down on her...

But now the odds are so skewed towards her, it makes it not worth the trouble...

oh to be a betting and delusional edwards supporter.....do you know that the odds on him to get the nomination at intertrade are now 25 to 1...

for Hill ya gotta bet 8 to win 2.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I have pledged to gnaw off my right arm

The core support for Clinton is so high that I am willing to say that if Edwards wins Iowa, he still cannot win the nomination simply because of Super Duper Tuesday.

However, anything can happen and I would not be surprised Edwards or Obama does win the nomination.

by RJEvans 2007-11-04 01:40PM | 0 recs
hell - i have been saying for months

that Id be happy to give Iowa to Edwards...

He is no threat whatsoever and he would then hurt Obama in both NH and SC and still guarantee Hillary a rolling round up...

I have worked in many a primary, the twits in the media dont have a clue ....and a very good friend of mine who is high - high - high up in team Obama has complained to me that they are still doing nothing in the states after SC...

Its Bill running a campaign against the second rate Axelrod and the third rate trippi, there is zero chance that they can out think the big dog.

I have worked with both those guys.  i know Im smarter then Trippi - always have been - and that Axelrods no brighter then me...but Clinton...hell...he's cruising in fifth gear when I on my best day am revving in high 3...

These mooks are not in the same league...

remember,

she has to win by only one....she has a big cushion to cover any media blows..no matter if they are delivered by obama and Edwards themselves.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: hell - i have been saying for months

i know Im smarter then Trippi - always have been

smarter THAN Trippi. When you are making a comparison it is always THAN.

by alarabi7 2007-11-05 06:09AM | 0 recs
i always screw up then

and than...

and i type too fast too care..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-05 01:04PM | 0 recs
yeah - it was the dumbest thing ive read

here and shows where the anti hillary venom will lead...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-13 01:47PM | 0 recs
Chicken counter
by horizonr 2007-11-04 04:20PM | 0 recs
49% Clinton, 26% Obama, 12% Edwards

These are extremely impressive numbers for Hillary.  She is simply the strongest candidate running for President.  Thanks georgep.  I knew when I woke up this morning and saw the poll on hillaryhub.com that we could count on you to share it here.

by Regan 2007-11-04 08:35AM | 0 recs
Not surprising.

I wouldn't expect Hillary to drop too far in the national polls.  Going from a 33% lead to a 23% lead is really no big loss to her -- she's still way ahead.

The real focus should be on those early states.  Having a net loss of ten points in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina would be a big deal.

by Namtrix 2007-11-04 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

OMG. It's the end of the world for Hillary supporters. Clinton goes down 4 points in one month. I'll take it, especially when she's at 49%.

by RJEvans 2007-11-04 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

yea place your bets on it, it will feel so good when you're downfall theory falls flat.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-04 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

Again.

by RJEvans 2007-11-04 10:01AM | 0 recs
that jerk Vox said that?

and he whines like a baby when i call him a naderite - what an ass...

and these people wonder when we show contempt for them when they attack hillary with gop-chris matthewesque scripts...

glad to see i was right bout him...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: that jerk Vox said that?

Seriously, holden, I know you are your own person, but don't call fellow posters "jerk."  In no way do I agree with him that BC should have resigned (one of the most ridiculous and harebrained "ideas" I have seen from a non-GOPer, bar none) but that still does not mean you should use "jerk" as a description.  It is, after all, against the board rules to do so, and as posters we should abide by the rules of the site.  

by georgep 2007-11-04 04:04PM | 0 recs
george im done with being nice to these people

done.

Any one who says that hillaary is corrupt and deceitful has crossed over to the other side in my pov and I will treat them with the same contempt that they traeat a woman i have known, admired and really, really liked for 15 years now.

They are jerks to me and if they said these words in my presence id make them cry, I swear it.

Let em ban me, I couldnt care less, these sites have little import on the real election no matter what these sites owners and the dolts in the msm try to pretend.

My Party's base?  Please...

I spent my life for years fighting the media and the right during those dark days of the impeachment - gop coup - if you think that im gonnaa be "nice" to some guy who "claims" to be a democrat who saiys that....let me just be clear....

you dont know me very well...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: george im done with being nice to these people

You need to grow a thicker skin, holden.  I am sticking up for Hillary Clinton against all attacks, which are usually unfounded and, frankly, based on ignorance.  Let's face it:  Those attacks are generally extensions of a thrust that was "handed" to the posters from the candidate they support.  Either via email message or speeches.

So, what to do with the attacks?  I personally treat those attacks the way they deserve to be treated.  Without getting angry or "hot under the collar."   Why?  Because they serve a purpose.

1. They show desperation on the part of the candidates and their supporters.  That realization is a good thing, I would not want to silence that.

2. Attacks on the frontrunner who is the likely nominee tend to paint the poster into a corner.  The posters with the more vile examples of daily hit-diaring and the most rude language can hardly come back after the nomination fight is over with "Oops, I really didn't mean anything by it.  Go Hillary."  Nobody would buy it.  They would also not realistically continue to bash the Democratic frontrunner who we want to help get into the White House without being told to cut it out.  They then either disappear from here for good or write very little about the presidential race.  They are certainly not going to be allowed to continue to spread anti-Hillary stuff or pro-Nader diaries, I would imagine.   Something to look forward to, in any event.  

3. The rules of this site specifically give poster a free pass when it comes to describing candidates.  Since that is the case there is no point in getting angry when someone uses that freedom.  You can state what you think about Edwards and Obama, and if someone gets angry and attacks you over that with cheap insults, they are wrong.  You are allowed to make deragatory statements about these other candidates, period.  However, with that freedom comes the realization that the flip coin is that others are also allowed to make deragatory statements aimed at your candidate.  I would just say your piece, correct mistakes made, compare claimed behavioral pattern to that of the other candidates,  mock the hell out of the offending party, and move on.  

by georgep 2007-11-04 06:13PM | 0 recs
george

i dont care about the "rules" here on these sites.  they have been used to squash those who support Hillary here when that bowers dude was banning left and right and still every day over at kos...i dont care if they ban me...it is obvious that this crud is coming from these campaigns...I know trippi and Gibbs, theyre low ball creeps, I am sick of their attacks and im swinging back....personally I think its now very, very clear that these sites have had zero effect on the electorate at large.

after feb 8th, i will be working with the campaign on issues that will involve the web and I will argue very clearly that we cannot keep supporting - we being the unions and the other funding orgs - the sites that are working directly to hurt our party's interests....

last week kos wrote that both Gerald McEntee and the entire dem congress in the ninties was "corrupt"....bullshit!....these sites are just an interest group - sure as shit nOT our party's base......its a few thousand people - not the millions that they claim...

i like your stuff, Im not telling you to fight back with these folks, but again, if someone attacks a womans honor and character, a woman that I know aand deeply respect and who has been very, very kind to me....im gonna fight them....be they republicans, media hacks, or idiots on the internets...

she haas taken many hits from our enemies in the last fifteen years, for these idiots to treat her so disgracefully is unacceptable to me.

These campaigns aand the candidates themselves are now just regurgitating the right wing and media attacks word for word!

Its personal now, not politics.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

The internals of this poll are devastating indictments on both Obama and Edwards for not being able to make a good case to the Democratic voters that indeed one of them would be better on handling Iraq, or Iran, or the economy, or is a strong leader, or is honest/trustworthy.  In fact, Edwards lost a full 4 points within one month on just the honest/trustworthy question alone.  Time is running out rapidly.   These internals are so hugely in favor of Clinton that it is hard to see how the race can be turned around.  For instance, Edwards, who only 18% consider as that most trustworthy/honest Democratic candidate would have a hard time making an honesty/trust argument, given that he himself is not regarded highly there (in fact, he has lost trustworthyness and honesty points.  Most Democrats probably scoff and scratch their heads when they hear that argument, given their own perceptions of the candidates here.  

by georgep 2007-11-04 10:10AM | 0 recs
I used to have a boss who was the exec dir

of the party under Bob Strauss - aka OZ - he said that ya learned nothing from the outside page of a poll - everything worth knowing was ....inside... everything...

these clued out fools aint gonna know what hits em...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I used to have a boss who was the exec dir

You are right with that one.  These polls test Democrats and Independents alike, when you parse it down to just registered Democrats only, Clinton gains an even heavier advantage.  Many states don't allow Independents to participate in their primaries/caucuses, so the "Democrats only" rule many states operate under is bound to make things even rougher on Obama and Edwards.  

by georgep 2007-11-04 07:25PM | 0 recs
yeah, thats a reform that i never agreed with

anyhow.

democrats and democrats only should be able to choose our nominee.

Tthere will be plenty of people voting in our primaries that will be with nadewr next fall...thankfully, their numbers are negligable these days...

though not here on the INTERNETS!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 10:03PM | 0 recs
Actually
Via Marc Ambinder:

In the Washington Post-ABC poll published 9/30, Barack Obama had 20% of the net leaned vote; he has 26% in the poll ending 11/1.

Clinton inched down from 53 to 49. That's a net change of...well, enough to take notice of and to see whether other polls pick it up.

. . . . .

In the late September poll, 35% found Clinton to be the most honest and trustworthy; 34% do now.

Obama's numbers in the field ticked up from 26% to 29%.

That Democratic leaner differential is +10% for Obama.

On "honest and trustworthy," it's +4% for Obama.

by horizonr 2007-11-04 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

 A 23% poll margin is absolute blowout territory, an embarassing margin for those right behind any way you slice it (up to this point.)  For Obama 26% of the vote is in line what Obama had all year long, which in itself is bad news for Obama (zero upward movement.)  The big story here  is that Clinton gets 49%, almost 50% of all support, far more than all other 7 candidates combined.  It is not that Obama did any moving, he did not, has been flat all summer long.  It is that Clinton has gone way up to these types of numbers for us to see consistent 20%+ blowout polls like this one.

 On honest/trustworthy - Clinton "lost" 1%?  You have to be kidding.  A 1% movement in any poll is always noise.

But, knock yourself out.  If I were an Obama supporter and I looked at the internals that this poll has, I would not want to speak about them either.  Electbility, Iraq, Iran, Economy, closest on issues,  strongest leader.   Oh my.  :-)

by georgep 2007-11-04 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Your candidate f***ed up last week. Period.

by horizonr 2007-11-04 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Wishful thinking.  Your candidate f-ed up numerous times, and you always thought he did "just grrrrreat."  So, even if that were true, she has a very long way to go to catch up with Obama on messups in any event.  

by georgep 2007-11-05 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

Oh Please rssrai, Hillary will come out strong at the debate in Vegas and redeem herself. She'll gain those 4 percentage points back. I will take her numbers over Edwards any day.

by lonnette33 2007-11-04 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Not surprising.

Also, Hillary is launching her 4-day campaign tour in Iowa this week to unveil her energy/rural policy plan.

That may give people something else to talk about.

Her campaign is moving a long with its agenda, while Edwards and Obama are still stuck on negativity.  

I still can't believe that after 9 mos of impressive campaigning and performance at debates, anti-Hillarites think her campaign is DOA b/c of Tuesday night's debate.

by FilbertSF 2007-11-04 10:35AM | 0 recs
its cause theyre haters not thinkers

Im sick of these people and the trippis and Gibbs of these campaigns....sadly, I now realize that edwards and Obama aint much better themselves.

The gloves are off, its bare knuckle time...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:22PM | 0 recs
Sometimes we have to remind ourselves

A) Democrats don't take their orders from Tim Russert or Chris Matthews

and

B) Most Democrats are not represented on blogs were Edwards has a lot more support than he goes in the general public.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-04 09:37AM | 0 recs
I despise the GE NBC crowd

more then anyone in the game and I have for a decade or more....any dem who sucks up to those vipers - those lost boys of jack welch are no friends of the dem party.

the idea that Obama and edwards are now following their scripts show me that these two guys are not even close to half understanding what they have done to us in this time period...or maybe like egomaniacal insider wannabees like trippi....they just dont care...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:25PM | 0 recs
So this came out a day after the debate?

In which case the debate probably had no effect on these numbers. Neither did her playing the gender card.

How much ya wanna bet that next poll will show the gap even narrower. I'll bet 50 "cyber" dollars (meaning not real dollars cuz I can't see how to arrange such a thing realistically.)

by Mystylplx 2007-11-04 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: So this came out a day after the debate?

You are probably right, but her comment about, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" most definitely helped her.

by lonnette33 2007-11-04 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: So this came out a day after the debate?

Yes. I think she recovered from the gender card thing pretty well. Although she was clearly playing the victim card, and pretty clearly intentionally presenting an image of the one "girl" getting picked on by all the "boys," she turned it around by claiming she had never meant it like that, and that it was really a sign of how strong she is, etc.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on where you stand) the media isn't playing up that aspect so much. It's getting more interesting and that trend should continue right into February.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-04 11:30AM | 0 recs
gender card?

oh how how obama and his followers aree now on GE scripting - how completly naive and irresponsible...

and this guy thinks hes ready to run the world?

what a joke!

Hill has to win by only ONE DELEGATE dearie....no more...

Obaama leads in zero states outside his own, EWdwards is losing even in his own...wake up, smell the coffee...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: gender card?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I understand that she only has to win by one delegate. I also understand that she's still way ahead in the polls. But what does that have to do with the fact that she blatently played the gender card the first time she has been seriously challenged in this campaign? And what does that have to do with the fact that the poll numbers mentioned in this diary don't reflect that fact since they came out before this all came up?

Dount count your chickens before they've hatched.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-04 02:45PM | 0 recs
so you guys actually think

that when you repeat media talking points like...she blatently played the gender card ....that you are being deep and insightful?

She's gonna be our nominee....she needs to win by just one...understand this...stop repeating media driven attacks on Hillary that only help the GOP.  Obama and edwards obviously are now so delusional in their anger that egoes are not gonna be rewarded that they are beyond help...doesnt mean you have to be just as dumb...

Do you not even remember what the media did to gore in 20000 and how the bradley campaign by joining in the media attacks...helped them?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: so you guys actually think

She blatently played the gender card. You can call it a "media talking point" all you like, but in this case the "media talking point" is true.

And she's NOT going to be "our" nominee--at least she isn't going to be MY nominee.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-05 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: so you guys actually think

Nice.  That is good to know.  So, will it be Nader, then?  Or any GOPer?  

by georgep 2007-11-05 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: so you guys actually think

I live in Ca. So to be perfectly honest, if Hillary is the nominee and if it looks at all like she could lose Ca. then she'll get my vote. Otherwise... who knows? Not Nader. Not any GOPers. I'll just have to look at the smaller party candidates and see who strikes my fancy.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-05 12:57PM | 0 recs
f-ing moron

by holden caulfield 2007-11-05 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: So this came out a day after the debate?

Very doubtful.  We have seen Rasmussen's daily tracking poll numbers for Clinton go up by 5 points in the 2 days following the debate.  I don't think there was any movement whatsoever, up or down.  Think about it:  

Las week we had seen several lower polls for Clinton:  Zogby at 14%, Fox at 17%, Rasmussen at 18%.  During and after the debate the polls have increased again to 23%, 23%, 26%, 19% and Rasmussen at 23% now.  I don't think a case can be made that anything related to the debate has hurt her.  Looks like the opposite so far.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

by georgep 2007-11-04 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: New ABC/WaPo poll -

This is great.  I do remember people-including Hillary supporters- thinking the 53 percent was too high and not in line with other polls at the time.  I would also agree that the poll probably does not include the aftermath of the debate and that it is possible that she might go down in the next poll is a possibility if the attacks have produced results.  At any rate, she is still so far ahead, a coule of points more down won't matter much, I think.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-04 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: New ABC/WaPo poll - 49% Clinton, 26% Obama, 12

I agree endless poll posting is a bit pointless, especially national polls.  However, georgep is a very intelligent, substantive poster, and I kindly ask you, both to raise the level of discourse here and out of respect for your fellow human being, not to call him stupid.  Your point is taken, but for us to win with any of the nominees we have to stop this fighting.

by Todd Bennett 2007-11-04 12:20PM | 0 recs
both Edwards and obama themselves

have joined the media in calling Hillary false, deceptive and corrupted...Im not pretending that its just their supporters or staff anymore, this is now a very nasty campaign and civility has gone out when those disgraceful attacks came in.

Its 2000 all ovcer again.  Bradley joined the media and called gore a liar before the gOP dared to....have you noticed the glee coming from both the gop and chris matthews this week after the attacks from obamka and Edwards this week?

They wanna use gop - msm attack scripts on our soon to be nominee, fine, well my respect for them has disappeared for good.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:36PM | 0 recs
waaa!

stop telling us the reality!   waaa!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: New ABC/WaPo poll - 49% Clinton, 26% Obama, 12

The level of analysis on this site has gone down so horrifically that its a sad joke. There is nothing but chest-beating and name calling, and its driven away people with real thoughts.

by AC4508 2007-11-04 01:49PM | 0 recs
real democrats will not stand for your

attacks on Hillarys character....its a disgrace.

Why dont you just go over to Kos where you can troll rate and gang ban anyone who dares disagree with your charges that Hillary is dishonest and corrupt.

After she wins the nomination this site will be much more popular with the dems who will use it to work to win back the White House and you banning whining hillary hating folks who keep claiming how "high info" you are can just go over to Nader 08 or just go away in general....

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: New ABC/WaPo poll - 49% Clinton, 26% Obama, 12
So let me get this straight. First of all, I'm not a real Democrat (see: www.il11thdems.org). Then you accuse me of attacking Hillary's character, but without any evidence whatsoever. Third you accuse me of banning folks when I've never rated anyone before.
Bravo, Holden. You're baseless claims really elevate the discourse of our site and party.
by AC4508 2007-11-04 02:57PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------