So sayeth the pollmasters at Quinnipiac anyway. Hillary Clinton would also beat McCain, but by a narrow 45-42 margin. How to interpret these numbers? Well, obviously there is Bush fatigue and general unease about the economy. But I would also take from this that the Lieberman coattails McCain had hoped for in Connecticut just aren't there anymore. It may also suggest Lieberman's popularity among independents has finally (and thankfully) evaporated. We won't know for sure until the next SurveyUSA CT-Sen poll if this is true or just wishful thinking on my part.
And with the election still seven months away, and without a democratic nominee these poll numbers are fun to look at but it would be a mistake to assume they are more than they are.
With strong support from young and independent voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama leads Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 - 35 percent in Connecticut, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. These same voters do not give New York Sen. Hillary Clinton as much support in her 45 - 42 percent lead over Sen. McCain.
In the Obama-McCain matchup, independent voters support the Democrat 45 - 38 percent, while voters under 45 years old back him 63 - 30 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University poll finds. White voters back Obama 48 - 39 percent while black voters back him 91 - 5 percent.
When Clinton faces McCain, independent voters go to the Republican 48 - 36 percent, while young voters back her 50 - 39 percent. Men back McCain 52 - 37 percent, while women back Clinton 53 - 33 percent.
Favorable
Barack Obama +59/-24 percent
Hillary Clinton +46/-47 percent
John McCain +52/-31 percent
From March 19 - 24, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,697 Connecticut registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.
UPDATE ctblogger: From CT-N, here the Q-poll press conference:
The Center for Public Integrity has documented 935 false statements made in the two-year period following 9/11 by senior members of the Bush Administration. "King George" led the pack, lying or misleading the public 259 times. http://www.publicintegrity.org...
We frequently are reminded to consider the implications of a now more dangerous world; and while few would argue about the importance of diligence, readiness or sound defense policies, there is good reason to debate about the sort of leadership America needs in a post 9/11 world. We have been bullied into accepting unconstitutional intrusions into our privacy; and we live under a government that exercises rendition, sanctions torture, denies due process, and claims "executive privilege" to prevent Congressional investigations of criminal behavior by government officials. Meanwhile, the lies keep coming . . .
In this context, it is critical to ask: Can this country survive another liar in the White House? If your answer is "no," then you might want to read on. . .
In this radio interview with Fox News' John Gibson (Feb 27, 2008), former democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro first plays the race card, in public anyway, which has caused a shitstorm this week. Ferraro rails against democrats who've sided with Barack Obama, saving special scorn for Georgia congressman and erstwhile Hillary Clinton supporter John Lewis, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, and rather oddly Connecticut congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who apparently only supports Obama because her constituents are black.
You can hear this part about 3min into the interview.
To all those offended by the racist remarks made by Geraldine Ferraro, I wanted to extend a sincere apology. Whether you're an African-American, an Italian-American as I am, or any other kind of American, you know that Ferraro's comments had no place in Democratic politics.
Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
To imply that Barack Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review, gave up a lucrative legal career to work as a community organizer in Chicago, rose to prominence in the Illinois state senate, and then won election to the U.S. Senate all because of his race, is so offensive that it's simply indefensible.
Those remarks in no way reflect the feelings of any Democrat I have ever met here in Connecticut or any other state. They were made for political reasons by a woman who should know better, and endorsed by a Presidential candidate who I once respected and admired, but not any longer.
If Clinton will not say it, and if Ferraro won't say it, then I will: I apologize. We Democrats do not in any way agree with or condone those remarks. We "denounce and reject" them.
UPDATE: Below you can hear Ferraro slamming Rosa DeLauro and Chris Dodd for supporting Obama. Ferraro says DeLauro supports Obama because of her black constituents, and she says Chris Dodd supports Obama because "the guys stick together." So Ferraro not only hates blacks but men too. Nice lady. Can I have my vote back from 1984?
Richard Wolffe joins Keith Olbermann in a brief discussion on whether Hillary Clinton is becoming the new Joe Lieberman. Actually, almost the entire show was a slam against the recent activities of her and her campaign operatives.
An increasingly desperate Clinton campaign goes after the so-called super delegates, including a 21 year old who got to have breakfast with Chelsea.
(CBS) With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama locked in a tight battle for the Democratic presidential nomination - the latest CBS News delegate count puts Obama at 1,139 and Clinton at 1,132 - it is the Democratic Party insiders known as superdelegates, who are not bound by the votes of the rank-and-file, who could decide the party's nominee.
Three superdelegates spoke to CBS News Early Show Anchor Harry Smith this morning about how the campaigns are courting them and the decision they have to make about which candidate to support.
...
"When your cell phone lights up and they say that President Clinton is on the phone, your reaction is what?," Smith asked him.
"Oh, this is a joke," Hardt said. "Someone's playing a joke on me. Until you hear his voice, and his voice is unmistakable. You know, I was caught off guard, but a chance to chit-chat with the former president of the United States is just an amazing opportunity."
Nancy DiNardo, chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic Party, also got a call from Clinton - while she was driving. She, too, first thought it was a joke.
The environmental group Friends of the Earth has been working for months to raise awareness of the coal-industry-friendly Lieberman-Warner global warming bill. In addition to pointing out the problems of the bill in this overview ...
While it's good that the Senate wants to address this growing problem, the Lieberman-
Warner bill is not the answer. It would enrich polluters while failing to do what scientists say is necessary to avoid global warming catastrophe. The bill must be dramatically improved or replaced. ...
... and other statements, they produced a video (below) to highlight its shortcomings. As the video points out, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support fixing this bill, but those fixes are not being supported by enough Senate Democrats or Republicans to get it passed.
Although Lieberman is a lost cause at this point, Chris Dodd hasn't released a position statement on the bill yet, and perhaps he can be encouraged to support fixing it or replacing it -- rather than handing over billions of dollars in subsidies to the coal industry.
The New York Times has rule, as I understand it, that prevent its op-ed columnists from endorsing any political candidate. In his column today, Krugman skates as close to an out and out endorsement as those rules will allow.
If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen.
Pretty strong language, right?. Except that it's hedged as existing in the realm of pure speculation -- "nobody knows" he is careful to say. This is a rhetorical device he uses elsewhere in slamming Obama in the service of Clinton:
Another theory is that Obama, once nominated, would receive the usual treatment: conservative pundits who've had nice things to say about him will start contrasting his callowness with the wonderful manliness of McCain, the swiftboaters will spread rumors about his past, etc.. Up to now it seems obvious to me that press coverage has been far more friendly to Obama than to Clinton; once he becomes the enemy, how well will his numbers stand up?
I don't know which of these theories is right. But neither does anyone else.
In other words, he's just blowing it out his erudite ass. And it's in the same logical ballpark as statements like, "I don't know if Saddam has WMD. But neither does anyone else. So maybe we shouldn't take any chances."
And speaking of Iraq, I might also point out that Krugman, or someone equally smart and clever (assuming that such a person exists), could write a parallel column that would conclude . . .
If Mr. Obama gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get out of Iraq in the next administration. If Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, it just won't happen.
. . . and sound just as plausible. So it's simply a matter of which is your hot button issue. For Krugman, it's healthcare, as he is not shy to admit.
I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a progressive agenda
Fair enough, but I am just cynical enough to believe that Krugman may be backing Clinton for more reasons than he cares to let on and using healthcare as a convenient peg on which to ahng his advocacy. The fact that he goes out of his way to let us know that he was dissed by the Clinton administration, only makes me more suspicious.
Does that mean that should we be foolish enough to nominate Obama, Krugman will throw up his hands in despair and vote for McCain? I don't think so. He'll almost certainly cut Obama the slack he has cut him in the past. . .
The Obama plan is still vastly preferable to plans that rely on tax credits and the magic of the marketplace.
. . . and use the bully pulpit of his column to influence what he seems to admit is policy that could well evolve.
Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.
If Obama prevails, I would expect Krugman to use his considerable gifts of rational persuasion to advocate for the election of President Obama.
As someone who feels Barack Obama is a far preferable candidate to take to the polls in November and given Krugman's outsize influence on progressives like me, I fear the effect of the columns and blog posts he has written in the recent past on undecided liberals heading to the polls on Tuesday.
I hope we can have the perspective to see them for what I believe them to be -- an endorsement of a Clinton candidacy and, to that extent, no more meaningful than endorsements by, say, David Dinkins, or some Hollywood star. When the last primary ballot is cast and the dust settles at the Democratic Convention, all these endorsements will be forgotten and we will unite behind the Dem candidate.
The organization which was born to give William Jefferson Clinton some cover during the Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress fiasco--favors Mr. Obama. The group which advocated censuring the Horn-Dog-in-Chief instead of impeachment has its members endorsing Obama over the old Chief's First Lady.
By 70.4% to 29.6%, MoveOn members (who actually voted) favored Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In an interview with Brian Williams of NBC, Hillary Clinton gives one of those political answers to a direct question, which is supposed to avoid any controversy by saying nothing, but in doing so she manges to say volumes. It'd be really interesting --and no doubt educational-- to hear Obama and Edwards answer the same question.
Brian Williams: A colleague of yours in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, is campaigning with Republican colleagues of yours, John McCain. Should Joe Lieberman still be a member of the Democratic Party? Should he be able to run a committee under the Democratic banner?
Hillary Clinton: Well, Joe is an independent Democrat. And as an independent Democrat, you know, he certainly decides who he's going to support. But he caucuses with us. He votes with us. And, you know, I certainly believe that's important we continue that.
Depending on how things go, the Democratic nomination could very well to go either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in August. Both represent "the great ideological movements of the last century--civil rights or women's rights." (quote from NY Times, 1/13/08)
I strongly recommend reading it.....its excellent, and even touches upon Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass, both abolitionists, but they disagreed on who should get the vote first, women or blacks.
My take? I like both candidates, but on a personal level, I would love to see Hillary as our country's first woman president! If she doesn't, what woman will in the future? The office of the President is the last (and the hardest) glass ceiling to smash through for women. While I believe Barack can be a role model for many, he has plenty of time & opportunity to run for the presidency....he's young! However, anything can happen before August, remember that......
If last night's New Hampshire Democratic Party 100 Club Dinner in Milford, NH is any indication we may be seeing the sudden and dramatic end to Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. Hillary was booed a few times, mainly by inciting the vocal and derisive Obama supporters, but worse for her Obama absolutely slayed the audience with another memorable speech to end the evening for a raucous crowd of 3500. This morning another 2500 packed an event in Nashua for Obama.
Sen. Chris Dodd's recent success in blocking legislation giving retroactive telecom immunity for warrantless surveillance was a real world example of how a detailed working knowledge of the legislative rules and procedures makes a leader more effective. It's not just officials who need to know the process, it's essential for citizens to be well informed as well for our system to work. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." I know I'm thankful for all the work the likes of Kagro X, Adam B, Christy Hardin Smith, Jeralyn Merritt, McJoan and Marcy Wheeler do on a regular basis educating people about the process.
Does Sen. Clinton promote understanding of our process when she says people who vote "present" are avoiding tough choices or is she just promoting ignorance of our system of government? No.
MLN is powered by