Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Did you check the link?
Did you see the many links and citations to neutral news organizations? The Chicago Tribune, Meet The Press, The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times ALL report that:
Barack Obama has released all of his records, and he supports government transparency more than any other candidate.
I am not believing "spin" from a campaign. I am believing the reporting that has been done on this by major newspapers. Your failure to distinguish between the two is too stupid to be accidental, so I can only conclude that you are being intentionally and aggressively stupid.
Here's the link again:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/14/fact_check_obamas_state_senate.php
By the way, Hillary LOST Wisconsin by 17 points tonight and she'll probably lose Hawaii by at least 40 points. Cheers!
Every objective measure that I've seen indicates that Senator Obama will be a stronger general election candidate than Senator Clinton, yet Clinton supporters often maintain the opposite without supporting evidence. Why?
Obama's followers are paying far too much attention to these "measures" of electability. If you go back -- even to the 1980 GE between Carter and Reagan, Carter was favored and had a 10-point lead in polls; that eventually fell to 5-6 points, all the way up to election night. He lost...
In 1984, Walter Mondale started out (even before the Democratic convention) with an 8-10 point lead over Reagan. It slipped to 4-5 points by the GE. He lost big - winning only his home state.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis had a 16-point lead over Bush I. He lost points, which happens as elections tighten. He still led Bush going into the GE. Result? He lost.
In 2004, John Kerry had a double-digit lead early in the campaign. He lost.
These polls now mean very little. All polls -- but especially this early on -- are very misleading. Any poll, generally, can be very misleading unless you know the methodology, the questions, and the key demographics.
More than this, however, is another factor. Few of these polls look seriously at battleground states (OH FL PA). Quinnipiac did a poll over the weekend of these very states that found something more in line with what Dems will likely face in November. It shows that McCain beats both HRC and BHO in these states by 2-4 points. Independents make no difference. Both HRC and BHO get between 34-36 percent of them; and white men make no difference. HRC and BHO get between 43-45 percent. This poll is far more accurate and represents far more realistically the truth than those being put out by MSM every other day/week.
And, if you look at previous GE maps (1984, 1988, 2000, 2004) in battleground states (and "red" states) where Dems. captured some Independents and Republicans during primaries/caucuses, these same voters went Republican (or didn't vote at all) in the general.
So, one shouldn't put stock in the polls being touted now that show Obama "beating" John McCain for three reasons: a) they aren't that significant 9 months away from the GE; b) they do not look at how "battleground" states vote.
Beyond this, Battleground states are and have pretty much always been the keys to who wins the presidency.
I'm an Obama supporter and my support for him is based on my belief in the man and his positions on the issues, not on "electability" polls.
I agree with you that it is absurd to really believe that a poll in February can prove what will happen in November.
But at the same time, I think the polls can be important indicators. It is, in fact, true that the "objective indicators" (the polls) show that Hillary will lose to McCain, but Obama will defeat McCain. The poll in a previous letter showed Obama defeats McCain by 10 in swing states, but Hillary LOSES to McCain by 10 in swing states.
My question to you is, why do you believe that Hillary is MORE electable than Obama, given that she had a 47% negative approval rating before this race even began and that she has alienated millions of Democratic Obama supporters with her despicable and negative behavior during the primary?
You say swing states are important. Wouldn't you agree that Wisconsin is a swing state? Don't you find it interesting that Obama won there tonight by 17 points?
I teach college English and I'm a freelance writer. I support Hillary Clinton. Does that make me a depressing part of the past and the old guard? There is some implication in your post that Clinton and her supporters are somehow responsible for the great mess our country is in. That may not be what you mean, but it is implied.
Second, I do resent being equated with "failed policies" of the past when I spent 20 years in Washington, D.C. working for the very progressive goals that Democrats stand for: child care, family leave, job opportunities for low-income women, equal pay and pay equity for women, the promise of unions for working people, lgbt rights, among others.
Finally, I appreciate and applaud that young people see a reason to get involved in our democracy. As a professor I see that young people are the future of our country and do anything and everything to help them achieve their dreams and be responsible, reasoning, active citizens.
But it is very disrespectful to me and others like me who post on Salon and elsewhere to equate "us" (Clinton supporters) as part of a failed government, or failed policies, or business- as-usual. People like me helped build the Democratic Party. We are LOYAL Democrats who have given the greater part of our adult lives to progressive ideals and goals.
Now you might not like or support Hillary Clinton. And it is most certainly your right to equate her with failed policies or failed government. I worked in D.C. when she was First Lady. I know what she accomplished then (through work I did -- as part of a progressive coalition to develop the FMLA and job training programs for low-income women). I don't consider these "failed" in any way. If anything, these programs have established the floor upon which others, like Sen. Obama, have built his campaign.
To dismiss Hillary Clinton and her work as irrelevant and useless -- as many Obama followers do -- is insulting. And it does not stand with the progressive ideals that most Democrats believe in and support.
Words and what they imply can and do cut both ways.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
