Hillary (finally) Takes Significant Lead Over Obama

[soundguy]

Good News for all of us hillbots eh?

Looks like the faux exterior is finally being stripped away enough to expose the naked prince.

Link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc

[adoraz]

1. and Obama has the lead in the other tracking poll

if I was you, I would wait a few days to brag. wait until we see the speech's impact.

[Oleladylib]

2. It was a matter of time...I am surprised at the "earliness" of it all

I figured by June.

[joeybee12]

3. Yeah, Obama has two strikes...lying about Canada-gate, then lying

and saying he didn't know about wrights' more controversial comments...remember, it's not what you do, it's the cover-up that kills you.

If this holds up for a while...wonder how much buyer's remorse people will have come August?

[jakem]

4. Hmm. anyone want to count Hillary's strikes?

[TeamJordan23]

5. Just yesterday, her WH records show that Hillary was out supporting NAFTA. nm

[joeybee12]

12. She gave a talk..BFD...she wasn't yelling and screaming against

it like Obama was in Ohio...big difference...try again.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. It was Senator Clinton's campaign that lied about the NAFTA-Canada thing...

...don't let facts stop you, though.:eyes:

[joeybee12]

9. No sweetie, the facts are Obama's guy met with canada, Obama denied

it and had to later admit that the meeting took place...he lied. There was a report that it initially might have been Clinton's campaign, that was debunked, but if you actually spent some time outside of Obama-World, you would know some facts.

[TwilightGardener]

15. No, sweetie, the Canadians approached Goolsbee, and Goolsbee

never told them to disregard what Obama was saying about NAFTA. In fact, he told them the same thing Obama was saying about NAFTA--and the Canadian embassy agreed, and they apologized for mischaracterizing his statements. But Obama did not SEND him to talk to the Canadians. It was HILLARY that was initially the target of the Wink-wink charge, and someone decided to go after Obama and smear him instead. You are fact-challenged.

[joeybee12]

20. Obama said they never met, regardless of who sent who..

...then it came out that they did...he lied. I swear, it's like trying to explain to people that Saddam wasn't involved in 911...you Bots are pathetically fact challeneged...

[TwilightGardener]

21. LOL! He didn't know that someone from Canada sought Goolsbee

out and talked to him. That's not a lie--Goolsbee is an advisor, but he's also a professor or something at the U of Chicago, and the "meeting" obviously was either not important or forgotten.

[Pryderi]

19. In your Hillith-faire haze you forget HRC's campaign telling Canada to take her position on NAFTA "w

"with a grain of salt"?
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/march/17/nafta_gate_blown/&c=2
Feb. 26: At the budget lockup in Ottawa, Mr. Brodie approaches a small group of CTV journalists and, in what appeared as an offhand remark, said that the Democratic leadership candidates' talk of renegotiating NAFTA was political posturing and not a serious policy position. According the CBC, Mr. Brodie tells CTV that the Obama campaign told Canadian diplomats that the NAFTA talk was not serious and that the Clinton campaign told Canadians to take her position on NAFTA "with a grain of salt." However, according to CP, Mr. Brodie remarks only that the Clinton campaign contacted Canadian officials to say that the discussions should not be taken seriously.

[ccpup]

11. and don't forget Barack lying in April of 2007 to ABC News

in response to Don Imus' own racially insensitive fiasco with regards to the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, Barack was the first Presidential candidate to call for Imus' firing and then stated "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Needless to say, Pastor Wright WAS with Barack's campaign at the time, HAD said racially insensitive things about Whites for twenty years and CONTINUED to work on Barack's campaign for nearly a year until the Racially Insensitive Comment boot went on the other foot.

link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3031317&page=1

[joeybee12]

14. Would I call that a lie? maybe it's better labeled hypocrisy...

...let's start a thread on that! }(

[ccpup]

23. go for it, joeybee12

it's my birthday today and I don't know if I want to start my New Year rolling around in the partisan muck if I don't have to. Well, any more than I have with my ABC News link, that is.

:evilgrin:

[Botany]

6. Give it up

Obama has more votes, more delegates, more states,
and is all but tied on super delegates who by all accounts
will end up supporting Obama by a large %.

It is over for Hillary she is all but mathematically out of it.

Her now documented support for the creation of NAFTA

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html

will not go over well @ all with unions and blue collar in PA.

The only thing she is doing is hurting the party and Obama in
what some might see as plan to help McCain win the G.E. so she
can run again in 2012.

Obama has won and had the lead over Clinton from the start of the
primaries in January and that lead continues to grow.

[Tarc]

8. The Wright fiasco is rightly taking its toll

The average American voter fundamentally opposes the nonsense that Rev. Wright has spewed over the years, and the fact that Obama has fawned at his feet for two decades has made the image of the two inseparable.

[Sean Stuart]

26. Welcome to DU, Karl!

[bowens43]

10. actually, it shows us that slinging shit

plays well with the masses. We have a chance to do something positive for our nation and the HillBillys are trying desperately to give us 4 more years of bush / rovian politics. More of the same old shit from the same old shit slingers. It's no wonder that the youth of today have little interest in politics. There is virtually no difference between bush/clinton.McCain.

Hillary is not fit to be president.

[Little Star]

13. Obama now trying to put race back in the box, after using it in

his speech to save his political butt. Did they think it was going to be a one sided conversation? Good judgment, not.

[Sean Stuart]

25. He was forced to address it. He did not bring it up.

Obama has avoided using race in his campaign. He was finally forced to address it when the rightwing and the MSM started beating him with the "Oh my God he's a scary black man" stick with the Wright footage. To avoid it further would have been political suicide and naive. It would have been the equivalent of John Kerry pretending that the Swiftboat attacks did not exist (which he did, and which cost him the election). Obama's speech was necessary to prevent the rightwing MSM from defining him with Wright's incendiary comments.

You say that he's now trying to put it "back in the box," when if you've been paying attention at all since 2007, you'd know that he's simply trying to turn his campaign back to what it was - one that transcends race.

[JimGinPA]

16. Check Back In A Week And See Where The Polls Are Then...

Just sayin'

[TwilightGardener]

17. National polls don't really matter, because most people already voted.

At this point, state polls matter more, in states that haven't voted yet.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. BHO can't win a national election..Support HRC's Scorch Earth Policy

[LTR]

22. *AHEM*

Rasmussen Tracking 03/15 - 03/18 47% 42% Obama +5.0%
CBS News 03/15 - 03/18 46% 43% Obama +3.0%
CNN 03/14 - 03/16 52% 45% Obama +7.0%
USA Today/Gallup 03/14 - 03/16 49% 42% Obama +7.0%
Reuters/Zogby 03/13 - 03/14 47% 44% Obama +3.0%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

[Sean Stuart]

24. Or maybe it was the racial fear promoted by the MSM with the Wright footage?

I know, I know. Too obvious.

[Dinger]

27. Good News! Thanks! (nt)

[ohtransplant]

28. This article isn't slanted at all (sarcasm)!

I haven't made up my mind and will vote for our nominee. For that reason I rarely post on this topic - especially in GDP! The vitriol is toxic - literally.

That said, I have to question the following snippet from the article;

"Gallup said polling data also showed presumptive Republican nominee John McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant."

Why is a four point lead significant but a three point lead is not???

Just askin'