After a six point lead today it is back to a four point race for Wednesday?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/100 8/14508.html

This guy does not know which way to go. All the better...

Oct. 6, 2008
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
(CBS) In a sign that the race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket leads the McCain-Palin ticket 47 percent to 43 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News poll.

The Obama-Biden ticket led by a wider margin, nine percentage points, in a CBS News poll released last Wednesday, before Joe Biden and Sarah Palin faced off in the vice presidential debate. Obama-Biden led by five percentage points on Sept. 25.

In the new poll, the Democratic ticket leads by 3 percentage points, 48 percent to 45 percent, among likely voters.

Barack Obama holds a 20 point lead in terms of enthusiasm. Fifty-eight percent of Obama voters say they are very enthusiastic about their candidate, while only 38 percent of John McCain voters say the same about the Arizona senator.

Roughly one in five registered voters have yet to commit to a candidate, though they may lean towards one or the other.

PLEASE GO TO CBSNews.com FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE....

Hillary Clinton WON ALL OF THE BIG/DELEGATE RICH STATES EXCEPT FOR ILLINOIS.

She won in the REAL DEMOCRATIC/BLUE states and lost in the DEEP RED STATES, EXCEPT MISSOURI, WHICH IS PURPLE BASICALLY. Missouri was the only state I was really dissapointed with. Hillary should have won that state by a couple of points.

However, she won California by 10, Mass. by 15, New York by 17, Oklahoma by 24, Arizona by 9, New Jersey by 10, Tennessee by 13, Arkansas by 43, etc.

She went against STRONG HEAD WINDS in California and Mass. with 90% of the Kennedy clan, The "Oprah", and John Zogby lining up behind Obama's ass, and she STILL won those two states HUGE!

If all of these results were reversed, the media would be tearing Hillary a "New One" yelling from the mountaintops that Omama was the REAL Democrat and won the REAL states that REALLY mattered.

I do not support John Edwards, but this picture caught me by surprise.

"Moving" is all I can muster right now....

I have been reading the forums here and the majority of you people seem to REALLY DESPISE Hillary Clinton.

You CANNOT WAIT FOR HER DOWNFALL, CAN YOU???

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK "OBAMA" IS SO DAMN GREAT???

IT IS BAD ENOUGH TO READ THE RIGHT WING BLOGS SUCH AS THOSE IDIOTS OVER AT TOWNHALL.COM, HUGH HEWITT, ETC. TEARING THE DEMOCRATS A "NEW ONE", SO WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE HELPING THEM TO ATTEMPT TO DESTROY OUR PARTY AND SOME OF OUR CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT????

DO YOU REALLY THINK IF "OBAMA" WINS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION THAT HE WILL WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION???

BUT, YOU MUST STAND BY YOUR "ALMIGHTY PRINCIPALS", CORRECT??

WE NEED TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE BACK IN 2008, PERIOD!!!

Fireproofed--and Firing Away

Hillary Clinton's 'asbestos' wards off her rivals' flames
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:26 PM ET Nov 15, 2007
Hillary Clinton said she was wearing her "asbestos pants suit" in Las Vegas, but, more important, she was wearing a smile and carrying a fistful of ammo and sound bytes. It was time to drop her rising challenger, Barack Obama, and she did it with the grin and grace of a Park Avenue gun moll. Asked at the end of a ragged CNN debate whether she preferred diamonds or pearls, she answered "both."

By that time, in other words, she was confident enough to joke about the very thing critics had been blasting her for the previous two weeks: her penchant for taking all sides of all issues.

Better rested and more relaxed, Clinton raced to the center of the ring throwing punches at Obama, claiming that his health plan would leave 15 million people uninsured, and that his Social Security plan would require a "trillion dollar tax increase." Obama counterpunched, but the point is that he was backpedaling for a change.

CNN's Campbell Brown did Hillary the favor of asking about the "boys" who were supposedly attacking her. The senator from New York was ready with an aria of lines--surely written by Mandy Grunwald and maybe even focus-grouped by Mark Penn. Clinton denied that she was playing the "gender card," but, rather, the "winning card." "I understand," she said, that "people are attacking me not because I am a woman but because I am ahead." However prefab, they were good lines--and they worked.

There was even some residual, albeit minimal, virtue in Hillary's having flipped and gyrated on the issue of driver's licenses for illegals. Having decided to change positions--and privately nudged, through intermediaries, Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York to do the same--she was able to give a one-word answer to Wolf Blitzer's straightforward question: Do you favor giving licenses to illegals. "No," she said.

Obama, by contrast, was uncharacteristically bobbing and weaving, saying at one point that, "I'm not proposing that we do it"-before giving up and agreeing with his own previously stated position. Obama also refused to give a direct answer to Blitzer's question about whether American national security is more important than human rights. Intellectually, Obama was correct in saying that it was a false choice. But that did not prevent Hillary from doing her Thatcher-Meir Iron Lady act. "The first obligation is to protect and defend America," she scolded.

Obama also had to concede to Blitzer that he had failed to vote on an Iran measure he had been lambasting Hillary for supporting. "It's true, it was a mistake," he said.

To be sure, Hillary had her lame moments. She airily dismissed the NAFTA debate in 1993 as a cavalcade of "charts," forgetting, perhaps, that union members think they have lost a million jobs as a result of the deal. And she attempted to defend the idea that people making $97,000 a year are members of the "middle class."  That's true enough for some people--the ones who think it's reasonable to have diamonds and pearls.

But when you've had a good night, that's a luxury you can afford.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/70707©  2007 Newsweek.com

»Immigration Politics: Again, a Loser for the GOP
John Podhoretz - 11.07.2007 - 16:32
Another election day has come and gone, and we've seen another, admittedly surprising, failure for those who believe anti-immigration fervor is the new driving force in American politics. Virginia Republicans were counting on the matter to help them retain control of the State Senate there, but it did not do the trick, and for the first time in a decade, Democrats are in control of the legislature in Richmond.

Some partisans on the issue claim a partial victory because of a Republican win by an anti-immigration guy in Virginia's Prince William County, but since the victor was reelected, it is a mite questionable how potent the issue was in securing his return to his own seat. What is unquestionable, though, is that in a fascinating repeat of a failed electoral strategy in Virginia's governor's race last year, Republicans thought they saw a way to win by thumping hard on immigration -- and they lost instead.

You would think, from the bottomless depths of the populist sentiment on the matter dating back to 2004, that anti-immigration fervor would be a potent issue at the ballot box. After all, despite polling that showed majority support for most of the provisions in the immigration-reform bill proposed earlier this year, the measure fell apart owing largely to a potent grass-roots revolt on the Right. (The bill deserved its fate; it was disastrously constructed and internally inconsistent, but the proximate cause of its failure was not in the drafting but in the wild hostility to any manner of immigration reform that was not exclusively punitive.)

And yet, in almost every recent electoral contest in which a candidate has sought to harness the emotional power of the anti-immigration cause to propel him to victory, the issue hasn't done the trick.

In San Diego two years ago, Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist tried to get himself elected to the House as a single-issue anti-immigration candidate and failed twice. Vulnerable Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth preached fire and brimstone on the issue last November and was turned out anyway. Another Arizonan, Randy Graf, sought victory with immigration as a single issue last year and was slaughtered at the polls. Only California Rep. Brian Bilbray, in a complex special election in 2005, made effective use of anti-immigration fervor to get himself back to Washington.

The common presumption is that immigration has become an issue of central importance in electoral politics. At some point, pretty soon, there's going to have to be hard evidence of that or Republican politicians will begin to face the very real possibility that their party is turning Hispanics into an implacably hostile anti-GOP bloc without securing any real political gain for it.

»Back to Contentions  »Back to Commentary  

del.icio.us  Google  Facebook