Nose and Nose: Obama 48% Clinton 47%

-

042508DailyUpdateGraph1_rn3w9kl2as.jpg
Gallup says that Hillary Clinton’s surge from the 40% level is primarily from undecided voters.
Obama’s numbers seem steady — not falling, but also not rising.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

16 comments on “Nose and Nose: Obama 48% Clinton 47%

  1. leo says:

    Hollywood would recast that movie: Hillary as Michael, Bill as Vito Corleone, Wolfson as Sonny, Garin as Fredo, Evan Bayh as Hagen, and Rendell as Luca Brasi… but Wolfson as Brasi sways me, it’s politics not business.

    Reply

  2. leo says:

    Well, I just thought I’d post some bright and shining comments from the female heir to the “Democratic Party’s brightest spot,” via Newsweek (BTW thanks dark1p):
    “Notables who abandoned her for Obama will get the Big Chill. ‘He’s dead to us,’ a Clinton aide was quoted saying of John Kerry…. A major donor, conflicted between the two candidates and apologetic over his backing of Obama, found Hillary less than sympathetic. ‘Too bad for you, because I’m going to win,’ she snapped.”
    Think Hillary as Michael, Bill as Vito Corleone, Evan Bayh as Sonny, Garin as Fredo, Rendell as Tom Hagen, and Wolfson as Lucca Brasi (of course).

    Reply

  3. Dan Kervick says:

    Sorry, the previous post was supposed to be attached to another thread.

    Reply

  4. Dan Kervick says:

    Iran is to a significant degree theocratic, but I don’t think it is accurate to describe it as “old-fashioned”. The Iranian revolution, and the constitution that came out of it, show an interesting mix of theocratic and republican ideals. Iran is almost without question the most democratic state in the region, save perhaps for Lebanon, with numerous elected offices at different levels of government, and a system of checks and balances among competing constitutionally established power centers. The constitutionalism makes Iran a “modern” state, unlike the very traditional kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula, or highly centralized authoritarian states like Egypt and Syria.
    But it is true that most of the people we classify as terrorists are militant Sunnis of the Salafi traditions, and they do idealize the early Islamic community, at least as they imagine it. They also do pen general criticisms of western society, although their chief beef with the West is that it has been invading, occupying and dominating their lands and peoples since the time of Napoleon, and they want us out. Many of the Salafists, by the way, are bitterly hostile to Shia Islam in general, and Iran in particular.
    Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia present a superficial veneer of modernity, because they have used their oil wealth to build a lot of very modern buildings, and provide a lot of consumer goods for their subjects. But there is nothing modern about the way these societies are are organized and governed.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, where’s that “Tahoe Editor” dude?
    Oh, oops, never mind.
    (I just read “dark1p’s post.)

    Reply

  6. Joe Klein's conscience says:

    CeeHussein:
    It is Hillary’s business too. She is trying to claim she has experience. What she won’t come out and say, but which of course she will hint at, is that she was a co-president. If she wants to claim the eight years Bill was President as “experience” then they better open the library records. Look at all the WH records they won’t release. That sounds like someone with something to hide. Especially after the mess of the Boy King.

    Reply

  7. dark1p says:

    And a big thank you to all the Obama supporters here for buying the Obama campaign’s words, lock, stock and barrel, and for helping to institutionalize the right-wing denigration of the Democratic Party’s brightest spot (the Clinton presidency) in over 40 years, along with a woman (Sen. Clinton) who has been a life-long Democrat and fought for my Party and liberal causes since she got out of law school. But I know, that doesn’t matter, because it’s more important to portray her as pure evil and Obama as pure good, both portrayals so far from reality that the mind reels.
    Good job, folks. Nicely done.
    And to those of you who wonder why Sen. Clinton manages to get so many votes when so many people find her so dishonest and untrustworthy, it’s because some people don’t want to share their secrets with her. They want her to kick some butt on their behalf and work the system so the Bush disaster can be turned around. This includes bipartisan work that she’s been commended for from both sides of the aisle since becoming a Senator, something the Unity candidate hasn’t bothered to do at all.
    Great going, people. Glad you got involved in the process to pull the Party and the nation together, as long as it means blind, unquestioning acceptance of your candidate and anything his campaign or surrogates say. Regardless of facts, history, or the record.
    I suppose the only thing left to do is to purge the Party of all those who have not sworn obedience to the Leader. And from there, we can move on to the entire country and destroy anyone who disagrees.
    Thanks for doing a better job than even the ’68 convention. But my guess is you don’t know what I mean because you weren’t around then, so it can’t be very important.
    My Lord, but you people are off the deep end. Me, I’m voting for the Democratic nominee whoever it is. I know they’re both flawed but well-meaning people…even thought they’re both such quintessential politicians.
    “What we assume others to be capable of is most often a reflection of ourselves.”

    Reply

  8. CeeHussein says:

    Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband’s business, not hers.
    JohnH,
    There is an indymedia article that claims that the five million that she lent her campaign came from the foundation funds.
    If true it makes her a liar again.
    Does anyone believe that McCain won’t use this against her?
    Vet her now.

    Reply

  9. leo says:

    Obama numbers went down briefly with the negative attacks (that the Clinton team will not admit) surrounding the debate, Hillary’s have surged due to PR razzle dazzle — her fake funding surge and imaginary “turning tide”.
    Clinton’s bigger/former supporters (Richardson, Kennedy, Nunn, Boren, Reich, Guerra-Mondragon, etc….) are leaving her because her fraudulent message, and potemkin campaign, is obvious to anyone paying any attention — unfortunately this does not include the many innocents that Hillary scams at her speeches on the trail of her undead campaign.

    Reply

  10. Dan Kervick says:

    I think it is useful at this point to escape from the debates of the moment, take a look back, recover some perspective, and appreciate the scope and magnitude of Obama’s political achievement.
    Clinton had absolutely everything going for her coming into this nomination battle. Bill and Hillary Clinton were the reigning king and queen of the Democratic Party. Not only had she been the presumptive Democratic nominee since November 2004, she had the entire formidable Clinton machine behind her, built up from two victorious presidential campaigns and two victorious senatorial campaign, a machine that was virtually identical with the Democratic party machine. She had the lion’s share of the elected officials, party operatives, state party chairs and big money donors. She had a commanding lead in all the early polls, and held that lead for month after month after month. Leaving aside incumbents running for re-election, Democrats hadn’t had such a clear nominee apparent, such an obvious shoe-in, since … actually I can’t think of one. She was even more of a lock than Gore in 2000, since Gore had to contend with a certain amount of flack *from* parts of the Clinton machine.
    Obama also had Edwards to deal with, the VP candidate from 2004 who had himself built up a substantial operation during that year’s primary campaign. But Obama, a first term Senator, has in just a little more than a year built a powerful national machine that easily leapfrogged Edwards and, short of some last-second miracle, has beaten the Clinton juggernaut.
    The Democrats haven’t had a guy with this much game in many decades. I get a bit of a chuckle out of Steve’s occasional disparaging comments about Obama’s failure to put Clinton away. Steve must have been the only guy who watched the US hockey upset victory over the Soviets in the 1980 Olympics and complained during the tense third period, “Why can’t the Americans just put these red bozos down?”
    The Clinton weakness that so many failed to weigh sufficiently was this: polls show a substantial majority of *Democrats* do not find Hillary Clinton honest and trustworthy. Clinton’s transparently poor relationship with the truth, something she shares with her husband, gets a lot of laughs on the talk shows, but it is no joke. It is very hard to imagine how she could govern effectively, and win legislative battles and other crucial battles for public opinion, if even a majority of her own party doesn’t believe what she says.

    Reply

  11. citizen says:

    according to the simple mathematically law of probability HRC was eliminated after Wisconsin….acceptance is difficult….eventually you came to terms with sant claus fable thus we have hope your denial will end and rational thinking will restart.

    Reply

  12. JohnH says:

    Normally I give short shrift to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, but today I think they have their facts and conclusions correct. And it is devastating to Team Clinton, which claims to be thoroughly vetted due to their long exposure in the public eye. Nothing could be further from the truth. The period from 1998, when Hillary was preparing to run for Senate, until the present have received almost no scrutiny. This editorial helps fill the void. This is so important that I include it in its entirety instead of providing a link as I normall do:
    Clinton Foundation Secrets
    Wall Street Journal
    April 25, 2008; Page A14
    Transparency is a popular word in this presidential election, with all three candidates finally having released their tax returns. Yet the public still hasn’t seen the records of an institution with some of the biggest potential for special-interest mischief: The William J. Clinton Foundation.
    Bill Clinton established that body in 1997 while still President. It has since raised half-a-billion dollars, which has been spent on Mr. Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas and global philanthropic initiatives. The mystery remains its donors, and whether these contributors might one day seek to call in their chits with a President Hillary Clinton.
    [Bill Clinton]
    That’s no small matter given the former first couple’s history. Yet Mr. Clinton says he won’t violate the “privacy” of donors by disclosing their names, even if his wife wins the Oval Office. What is already in the public record should make that secrecy untenable, however:
    Chicago bankruptcy lawyer William Brandt Jr. pledged $1 million for the Clinton library in May 1999, at the same time the Justice Department was investigating whether he’d lied about a Clinton fundraising event. The Clinton DOJ cleared him a few months later.
    Loral Space and Communications then-CEO, Bernard Schwartz, committed to $1 million in 2000, at the same time the firm was being investigated for improperly sending technology to China. Loral agreed to a $14 million fine during the Bush Administration.
    A major investor in cellular firm NextWave – Bay Harbour Management – pledged $1 million in 1999, when NextWave was waiting to see if the Clinton FCC would allow it to keep its cellular licenses. NextWave didn’t immediately get its licenses, and Bay Harbour never made good on its pledge.
    And let’s not forget the $450,000 contribution from Denise Rich, which was followed by Mr. Clinton’s pardon of her fugitive husband, Marc Rich.
    American citizens are limited to donating $2,300 to presidential candidates, but there are no limits on gifts to presidential foundations. We don’t think there should be limits, but without disclosure the potential for political conflicts, real or apparent, is extensive. Were it not for some enterprising journalism by the New York Sun in 2004, for example, we might not know that notorious trial lawyer William Lerach had made a donation to Mr. Clinton’s foundation. Lerach has since been indicted for, and pled guilty to, fraud. Would the Clinton Administration have pursued a similar fraud case?
    Presidential candidates also aren’t allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big.
    Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba’s Chinese homepages posted a “most wanted” list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn’t returned the Alibaba money.
    No doubt all of these donors would say they gave their money without a single string attached, and Mr. Clinton rightly points out that other former Presidents keep their library donors under wraps. If Mr. Clinton were merely a former President building a library for history’s sake, we might not worry. But he is a potential first husband whose spouse could influence countless decisions, foreign and domestic.
    Mr. Clinton seems to understand the value of his mere association. Consider his relationship with Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton on a trip to Kazakhstan in 2005, won a Kazakh mining concession, and then committed to donate more than $130 million to the Clinton Foundation. In a letter we recently published1, Mr. Giustra insists his gift was entirely philanthropic and that he won the Kazakh concession on the merits.
    More recently, we’ve also learned Mr. Clinton arranged for Mr. Giustra to meet with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. A Canadian company that Mr. Giustra’s firm was advising later acquired interests in Colombian oil fields. Some of the money Mr. Giustra has given the Clinton Foundation has been earmarked for development projects in Colombia.
    How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There’s no way of knowing. The former President insists he’s aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons.
    Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband’s business, not hers. But as she has said in the past, a Clinton Presidency is two for the price of one. Americans deserve to know who has been donating to the Clinton Foundation.

    Reply

  13. Zathras says:

    I don’t get the impression that Sen. Clinton is turning more people against her. She does appear to be strengthening the dislike for her among Democrats who preferred Obama to start with, but even if the way she is conducting her campaign is increasing the number of people who think less of her it does not appear to be increasing the number of people willing to vote for Obama.
    Every candidate for any office has a ceiling for his or her support. Where is Obama’s? He has a skillful and effective (not to mention well-funded) campaign team, and has showed himself to great advantage at several key points in this race. But his opponent now is preferred by white female Democratic voters, by voters uncomfortable with the idea of a black President, and by voters inclined to Clinton because she is more familiar, or simply because she is Bill Clinton’s wife. Obama hasn’t been able to take a lot of that support away recently. Maybe he can’t.
    Clinton has her own problems — with all her advantages, she would be winning this race easily if she not inspire as much dislike and distrust as she does in so many Democrats — but in Obama’s place I would not be campaigning as the guy who would inevitably be nominated as long as he conscientiously kept going through the motions, making the appearances, putting up the TV ads. Clinton will not leave this race if there is even the most remote chance she could win, and if she can stay in past Indiana and North Carolina Obama’s path to the nomination may not be as clear as he seems to think it is.

    Reply

  14. Dan Kervick says:

    This nomination battle has been going on since the candidates declared in the winter of 2007. Most people must have made up their minds long ago. At this point, voters who are still undecided or wavering are a small highly suggestible group of bandwagoners. If Obama has a good week, they are for Obama; if Clinton has a good week, they go for Clinton. Or else they are people who look every day for some new tea leaf about electability.
    Obama has been running a very conservative campaign for over a couple of months now, ever since he took such a commanding delegate lead. His emphasis has been on prevent defense, on not making mistakes and closing out the win. He has been putting his money into the state primary campaigns, but has, I think, neglected the ongoing national campaign and lost some control of his narrative. I think he should try to do something to inject some positive energy into his national media profile and finish strong, and on an upswing. His appearance this weekend on FOX should help.
    But perhaps he should also dip into that war chest and make a *national* ad buy, and come out with a hard-hitting anti-McCain commercial. He needs to mark his territory, so to speak, effectively declare himself the standard bearer, and seize decisive control of the leadership of his party. That will help eliminate the last traces of at-the-altar cold feet among wavering delegates and Democratic voters.

    Reply

  15. CL Theaux says:

    I think Hillary is turning more and more voters against her with each passing day.
    She behaves like someone who has never been a schoolyard bully before in her life and is suddenly trying to act the part.
    “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
    I ask you, why should the US do any obliterating when Israel is perfectly able to do that by itself with their nuclear arsenal of 200-500 warheads?
    The question itself is ridiculous, since Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons and claims to be pursuing only a peaceful nuclear energy program, confirmed by the international governing body, the IAEA. On the other hand, Israel continually threatens Iran with attacks if it doesn’t cease its nuclear program. Iran has never attacked anyone before while the USA and Israel are constantly attacking nations in the region. There is a real disconnect between reality and what Clinton and Obama for that matter, are talking about.
    It is very ugly to speak of the obliteration of a nation. It reminds me of the jubilation over the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, elderly, cripples etc.
    Hillary gives us reasons every day as to why she must not be elected.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *