Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Hardball]

Poll: Clinton's negatives reach new high
Posted: 10:48 AM ET

Clinton and Obama are tied in the latest poll.
(CNN) – The increasingly charged Democratic race for the White House appears to be hurting Hillary Clinton significantly more than Barack Obama, a just-released poll suggests.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent — the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton — down from 45 percent two weeks ago.

The new poll comes at the end of one of the most hostile months in the Democratic presidential primary race, during which surrogates for both campaigns resigned after uttering controversial statements, and controversy swirled around Obama over past statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

But despite fears by some of Obama's backers that the Wright controversy would take a toll on the Illinois senator and his presidential hopes, the new poll shows his approval rating has remained virtually unchanged at 49 percent. Only 32 percent of Americans give him a negative approval rating.

Meanwhile, in head-to-head matchups Clinton and Obama remain deadlocked for the nomination, each drawing 45 percent among Democratic voters. Both are also statistically tied with John McCain in matchups: Clinton is two points behind the Arizona senator while Obama is two points ahead — both within the poll’s margin of error of 4 percentage points.

[Hardball]

Sorry about the double post but I found this interesting.



Pledged delegates up for grabs, Clinton says
Story Highlights
Sen. Clinton, again, says pledged delegates are not bound to election results

Clinton: 'Every delegate ... is free to make up his or her mind however they choose'

Democratic strategist says the timing of the comments is no accident

Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242

From Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.

It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.


"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago.

The last time a major candidate lobbied pledged delegates to switch sides was at the 1980 convention, when Ted Kennedy's campaign tried to recruit delegates who arrived at the convention supporting eventual nominee Jimmy Carter.

After that battle, the Democratic Party altered a provision that required pledged delegates to support the candidate they had arrived at the convention to back.

Clinton advisers have cited the altered rule, which dates to 1982 and says only that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

The same year, The Democratic Party created a new category of delegate -- the so-called "superdelegates" -- party leaders and elected officials who are free to support any candidate they wish, regardless of vote totals in their home states.

Some states require their delegates to support the candidate they are pledged to but most do not.

Earlier this month, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes first raised the prospect that pledged delegates were not legally bound to vote as election results indicate -- an idea that has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of rival Obama. Watch more on the candidates' dust up »

"Despite repeated denials, the Clinton campaign has again admitted that they will go to any length to win," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said again Wednesday.

The Clinton campaign has said that they had not been planning to try to actively convince the Illinois senator's pledged delegates to switch sides and would not do so in the future.

But on a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Ickes defended Clinton's Monday remarks and repeated his view that pledged delegates were free to switch their allegiance at any time.

"I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged," said Ickes.

"I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention."

He added that although the rules permitted them to campaign pledged delegates to switch sides, they had not engaged in such an effort.

The timing of the latest round of comments was not an accident, according to veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf.

"It keeps them in play. It makes party players understand that they're serious, and they'll stay in the game," Sheinkopf said.

He added that party insiders were likely to view the threat merely as a bargaining chip by an extraordinarily seasoned political team.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the criticism entirely.

"I don't think she floated that idea. I think she was repeating the idea," he told reporters Monday. "Simply stating a fact I don't think is a cause for hysteria."

All AboutHillary Clinton • U.S. Presidential Election • Barack Obama • Democratic

[Hardball]

Clinton backers don't sway Pelosi
Posted: 03:14 PM ET

Pelosi is sticking to her superdelegate argument.
(CNN) – A recent letter from several Hillary Clinton fundraisers to Nancy Pelosi seeking she step back from her contention that superdelegates should support the pledged-delegate leader appears to have had little effect on the House Speaker.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said late Wednesday the California Democrat stands by her argument that the party's superdelegates would do damage if they go against the will of voters and hand the nomination to the candidate who finished second among those delegates awarded from the round of caucuses and primaries.

"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," Daly said. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

The statement comes a day after nearly 20 high-profile Clinton fundraisers strongly criticized Pelosi for that position, arguing instead that the superdelegates "have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee."

The fundraisers, who reminded Pelosi in the letter they have been strong contributors to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also urged the House Speaker to "clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."

"Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Sens. Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August," Daly also said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses."

Pelosi first expressed her stance in an ABC News interview earlier this month — one that benefits Barack Obama, whose current pledged delegate lead of 171 is virtually insurmountable given the party's proportional delegation allocations, even if Clinton were to win each of the remaining 10 primary contests.

An Obama spokesman called the Clinton fundraiser's letter "inappropriate."

[jubaji]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/y_news:y_news_highe_820:3a8ea6fd7e1dca84f0260e0b8dadbcc6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7313117.stm

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDMxMzhlMDBjNTRkNTFjOWFmM2JjOWRjNGEyOTk1ZGI=

[DickHardman]

IN A wide-ranging foreign policy speech, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, has promised a collaborative foreign policy that seeks the input of allies abroad, contrasting sharply with the go-it-alone approach of the Bush Administration.

Senator McCain refused to give ground on Iraq to his Democratic rivals, declaring the US's continued presence there was a "moral responsibility" and that a reckless withdrawal could lead to "genocide". Withdrawal would be an "unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation".

In his first major foreign policy statement, Senator McCain delivered an impassioned argument that achieving democracy in Iraq was a necessary part of a peaceful world.

"Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war already lost in Iraq," he said, without naming Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. "Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq to fight al-Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake."

But even as he defended President George Bush's war policy, he outlined a sharp critique of the Administration's dealings with foreign allies.

In a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, Senator McCain called himself a "realistic idealist" and outlined a world view that mimicked some Bush Administration critics who say the first task of the next president must be to repair relations around the world. "Today we are not alone," he said. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed."

The speech drew a quick response from Senator Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, who lashed Senator McCain for vowing "to carry out four more years of George Bush's failed policies, including an open-ended war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars while making us less safe".

Senator McCain renewed his call for a "global compact - a league of democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he downplayed cowboy diplomacy and stressed co-operation on global warming, torture and trade.

"We need to listen … to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," he said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

Mr Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. Senator McCain suggested he would embrace the controversial Bush policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending Mr Bush's newfound willingness to meet allies halfway.

But Senator McCain said he would break sharply with Mr Bush's efforts to accommodate Russia, saying he would push to eject it from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/iraq-exit-could-lead-to-genocide-mccain/2008/03/27/1206207301202.html

[Liberty]

Very well. I'd hesitated to post this here since it's more in line with our "Liberty's Moral Issue" post. Perhaps it belongs here as well. Here it is:

See Mike, this is why I hold off til “the verdict is in.” McCain is now running around with Mitt Romney.

”Romney's tenure as CEO of the leveraged buyout firm Bain Capital resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs through layoffs and bankruptcies. Romney, the wealthiest candidate in the 2008 presidential race, ran Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999, during which time he earned the bulk of his fortune.

Bain Capital specialized in buying companies in distress and revamping them, often by cutting jobs and closing plants. Some of Bain's purchases became more efficient and successful businesses, while others, loaded with debt from Bain's fees, were forced into bankruptcy, costing more jobs.”

That kind of of support/concession/grey area is one I’d not concede.

Of course, now there’s talk of Romney as McCain’s possible running mate. If that should become reality, McCain may have found his Cheney, and Obama’s recent, “McCain is running for George Bush’s 3rd term,” may have been accurate.

"I value his advice and his counsel," McCain said, speaking to reporters in the Salt Lake City airport hangar after he and Romney joined up for the first of two fundraisers. "He has earned an important place in the Republican Party. . . . We are united -- now our job is to energize our party -- and I believe that Gov. Romney can play a very important role in that."

To quote your very words, Mike, " What does it way about a man's morals that he would continue to keep someone like that as a mentor and advisor when his views are so clearly immoral, unethical"

[Liberty]

Liberty, for just once, speak plainly. Are you saying that you would not trust McCain as a President because he attacked an opponent on the campaign trail?

I am saying I'd hesitate to trust anyone who falsely attacked someone throughout the campaign trail. Quit making my answer grey!

To paraphrase Romney, show me where I have said I would not trust some one simply because they did their job and challenged/attacked someone on issues that needed addressing! Again:

I am saying I'd hesitate to trust anyone who falsely attacked someone throughout the campaign trail.

Having hopefully cleared that up, let me explain my use of the word "hesitate."

When Obama found himself having to back peddle on his previous claim he'd never heard Wright's comments, I had the following reaction, 'He is either simply lying, or he found himself cornered/under pressure and blurted out the first thing he could think of, to his later regret, or there is some other reason.'

I am saying that I think I'll hold back on my verdict as to whether or not he deserves my vote, for now.

When I saw McCain both misquote and (in other parts) quote Romney not only out of context, but then reinterpret Romney, despite both Romney's and the moderator's having continually pointed that out to him, my reaction was similar to my reaction to Obama's slip-up, fabrication, what have you.

"Similar," in that McCain is a warrior. His fabrication, what have you, whatever, was clearly not a slip-up, was clearly not due to his having felt pressured. He was calm as he could be.

I am saying I'd hesitate to trust anyone who falsely attacked someone throughout the campaign trail. I am saying that I think I'll hold back, for now on my verdict as to whether or not either candidate deserves my vote.

You can trust a buddy in a fight even though he'd bend your girlfriend over the hood of his car if you weren't looking, so obviously you're capable of overlooking some character flaws if someone serves a greater purpose. So are you saying McCain's accomplishments mean less to you than his debates with his political opponents?

You're still avoiding the very core of the issue, and you're still dancing around without talking about the candidate you supported from the beginning of this.

I am saying I could walk away from a buddy who betrayed me. How the hell is that the same as a total of 4,000 moms and dads and counting, having to bury their precious, irreplacable sons and daughters, because so many trusted a candidate - you included - even though he lied through his teeth not only during his campaign for office, but to get us in the Iraqi mess we're now in?

Right, I'm somehow supposed to forget that lesson, throw all caution to the wind, once more, rather than hold final judgement until better facts are in, just to make you happy!

I'll make it really simple. Don't run around snipping and quoting. *_Just answer the following:_* Do you think McCain taking economic advice from Romney somehow makes him less able to be the President? Do you think Obama's choice of friends and advisors makes him more desirable than McCain, since you're very clearly willing to judge McCain by his association with Romney?

I think McCain's taking economic advice from Romeny, given Romney's having supposedly increased his fortune at the expense of thousands of job losses AND BANKRUPTCIES, should be cause for hesitency. Especially given that McCain is campaign war-chest poor and Romney has more money than Obama and Hilary combined can ever raise!

I'm saying it should be looked into.

I think Obama's friends and advisors should also be cause for hesitancy and further probing.

We're talking about people who will drastically efect the lives of millions for generations, not some pal one can simply walk away from should he prove a snake with one's girlfriend!

How you can equate these two scenarios to be one and the same just so you can hold your view is beyond any apt description!

I'm saying my verdict is still out on all but Hilary, whom I could never vote for given her's and her husband's treacherous ways.

Are we clear on all this, now? Never mind, what's the use?

[Liberty]

McCain's True Record

Mike, you see fit to post only the positive on McCain, you might want to have a look at this:

http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ariz-republic_chap_I_1999.htm

[Liberty]

And as you do so, you'd also do well to remember Mike's Rule of Politics #!:

Judge the issues, the ideas, and the people on their individual merit, within context. Changing the context changes the content.

In fact, Liberty, I'm going to make you a deal:

I am going to delete every single post you make on this topic from this point forward unless you will answer this question:

Why won't you post material about your candidate, Barack Obama?

Do you realize that if you'd spent an equal amount of time and effort educating people about Obama, we'd (a) actually be having a discussion, and (b) learn a little bit about both sides?

Nice way to control this issue to your liking. Sad.

I doubt this will appease your attempts to shift things your way but here's my explanation anyway, thanks, by th way, to your one-sided advice to open my eyes - I do not trust Obama his Rezko connection, his Wright denials, nor his constant harping on how he protested going to war in Iraq. In this he is no better than McCain's subtle manipulation of his time in a Vietnam prison ages ago, etc. Now, why would I post Obama's supposed qualifications given the above?

[Liberty]

Mike, I don't know what else to say. I started out defending Obama. I'd about made up my mind to vote for the guy when some of your challenges , and what I was seeing on the tube - the 3 negatives I've already mentioned caused me to seriously consider some research. Serious negatives in my book. I also began to consider McCain. Then , it dawned on me all I'd ever heard were his Vietnam prison time over and over, which bothered me. Still, in light of how you felt about the guy I began to research him and found all had not been rosy. So I held back on both. I'd already put my research on Obama on hold as I did not see a point. And now I felt the same way about McCain. I truly had sought your help on all this. That's unfair, I know. I'm a big boy. But this is my first election (just turned 18 last week) and I did not want to screw my vote up. Please understand that I see character above qualifications and past deeds. As an example of what I mean, these past few years the Roman Catholic Church has been rocked to it's core by the revelation that some of it's priests, men known for years of good service in their communities, have all along been active pedophiles and rapists. Nothing new for anyone who knows Church history. Despite there years of service, some of these people have been monsters.... The governor of Puerto Rico is currently under indictment on campaign fraud - the very thing he voewd to claen up during his run for office. I'm sorry Mike, but I firmly believe digging up the dirt along with the good on elected officials is not only wise but necessary. Spew all the vile you wish to spew at me. But it will not alter my conviction on this in the least. That said, I see no cause to continue to try to reason with you on any of this any further. In this you have been a great letdown. Respectfully...

[Hardball]

Well, Well, Well, Senator Clinton wins Pennsylvania and now it looks like she will win the whole thing................................

[jubaji]

How do you figure that last part of your statement?

[Hardball]

How do you figure that last part of your statement?

It's up for debate. LOL Besides, Senator Clinton is claiming to be ahead in the Popular Vote.

[jubaji]

By all accounts she is still well behind in popular votes and delegates.

[Hardball]

By all accounts she is still well behind in popular votes and delegates.

After Penn. she claims to be ahead in the popular vote and the Super Delegates.