Obama, Clinton strong for McCain match in Ohio: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted February 27, 2008 9:30 AM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva

There is more at stake in Ohio than the prospects for the Democratic Party's presidential candidates in Tuesday's primary election there.

In the bellwether state that typically rings clear with the nation's preferences for a president, a tight race looms for the Democratic nominee and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, according to the Ohio Poll.

In the battle for Ohio's 20 electoral votes, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois stands virtually even with McCain in a general election matchup tested in the Feb. 21-24 survey sponsored by the University of Cincinnati. The score: Obama 48, McCain 47.

In a matchup of Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and McCain, the Republican draws 51 percent of the Ohioans surveyed, and Clinton 47 percent.

While Obama supporters may take these results as evidence of what Obama was saying in last night's debate in Cleveland -- that he represents his party's strongest contender in a race with McCain -- the Clinton-McCain matchup sits within the margin of error in this poll -- plus or minus 3 percentage points -- portraying either Democratic candidate as a powerful nominee for the party in that expected November contest with McCain.

Yet, in the final few days of the Ohio campaign, this marginal advantage that Obama holds over Clinton may well play into the calculation that Ohio Democrats make about the viability of the two candidates:

The Ohio Poll found that Clinton holds an eight-percentage point advantage over Obama among likely Democratic voters, yet nine percent were telling pollsters that they support former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and some were undecided -- raising the question of where these voters will go on Tuesday.

The poll also reveals that the presidential campaign will unfold full bore in Ohio once again.

Read more about the Ohio Poll here.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Wow. The difference in media coverage has been so stark and obvious. She "pesters" while he "challenges", when she is up by 200 delegates it is a "near tie and virtual dead heat", when he is up 60, it is a "blowout" and "it's over". When she gives a foreign policy speech surrounded by several strong, respected military leaders (with, gasp, experience - that awful “e” word – she has 27 of them endorsing her, BTW) with full media in attendance, not one of the media “journalists” shows it live. You can’t find clips of it anywhere. Had Obama done the same he would have been hailed “our commander in chief” and that headline would have been splashed on every news outlet available. Ok, let's get real. The reason Hillary was annoyed that she seems to be asked most of the questions first in the debates, is she has clearly articulated her plan and position on every issue and that "who first" format allows Obama to play follow the leader. She outlines her plan, he says "I agree with Hillary" and then is allowed to blather on and on so he gets more air time. Kind of like watching that kid in class keep looking over your shoulder during a test, after you've done all the hard work. He clearly states midway thru the debate that he would "reserve the right" to go back into Iraq (or anywhere) if there was reason to believe it posed a threat to the US. Well, duh?! That's why Hillary voted with John Kerry, Colin Powell, and many Democrats to look further into Iraq under Bush's regime. Also, why has no one mentioned the fact that Obama has voted "present' over 120 times while a senator, when he could have been a leader and taken a stand (ie - "yes" or "no"). We need a leader, not a follower. We need a leader when it is inconvenient, not just when it looks good. Go Hillary, you are awesome!


YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

Best regards

jacksmith...


You Might Be An Idiot!

If you vote for Billary!


Along with the Ohio Poll, SurveyUSA and Rasmussen polled Obama behind in Ohio by 6% and 5% respectively. After last night's debate and Obama now free to work his ground game for a week before March 4th, I expect to see the polls tied soon.


The president who had come to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served ten years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served ten years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the U.S by 33%, then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected President of the U.S. and in just one term secured the claim to being ranked as one of America's worst presidents. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.


The media is disrespectful of Americans when it flagrantly shows its bias towards Obama. The reason they want Obama doesn't really relate to Obama's ability to be President of the U.S.. They don't want Obama because he is new and they love new toys to destroy. They loved Bill and Hillary and idolized George W.. As a matter of fact, I remember that while most Americans were horrified about the conduct of George W. and his VP. Dick Cheney, the media allowed them to dictate their ways with no interference or calls to investigate. It is disgusting that we don't really have a responsible, unbiased free press.


The media is disrespectful of Americans when it flagrantly shows its bias towards Obama. The reason they want Obama doesn't really relate to Obama's ability to be President of the U.S.. They want Obama because he is new and they love new toys to destroy. They loved Bill and Hillary and idolized George W.. As a matter of fact, I remember that while most Americans were horrified about the conduct of George W. and his VP. Dick Cheney, the media allowed them to dictate their ways with no interference or calls to investigate. It is disgusting that we don't really have a responsible, unbiased free press.


Speaking of polls, here's a few that the DNC's Swamp affiliate hasn't reported:

Latest Gallup national poll, showing Republican McCain beating both Democrats, Clinton II and Obama (48-47 and 50-46).

Latest LA Times/Bloomberg national poll, showing McCain beating both Democrats. (Yes, that's the LA Times that is the Trib's sister newspaper).

Latest Rasmussen national poll, showing McCain beating both Democrats.

Anyone have any doubt why the DNC Swamp, which reports every poll result on God's green earth, hasn't reported these poll results?


Hopes and dreams are far different from reality. A president of The United States of America has no time in the Oval office to hope and dream. He or she has to act or react appropriately to protect and improve the well-being of the nation and its people. That requires experience and wisdom. In comparison, what Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton has to offer is absolutely much more than Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama. Therefore She has and will have my vote if she is a nominee.


In time of war you need a hero warrior!

Johnny Mac!


Why would we want a stupid woman for our leader? Chris Matthews said he hated Hillary and she was elected Senator not because she was smart but because her husband had an affair. So you see, Chris Matthews said she was just a stupid woman so why should we elect a woman? Women can't lead, they aren't smart enough. men are smarter, Obama is winning because he is superior to women.


Well, America, we know that Hillary will be a great president! So let's get her nominated and elected.
It is her turn. And it is our turn.


Hillary's 35 years of experience brings her back to age 25. Why not go all the way back to Kindergarden?


Bruce,
You like polls today? Anyway, maybe they didn't publish those polls because they are both within the margin of error and therefore it's a statistical tie. Didn't your "jounrnalist father" explain this to you?


"jethro", the DNC Swamp has no problem publishing the results of close "statistical tie" polls. Try reading the above article, paragraph 3, where they cite such a poll. Which refutes the very point you try and make.

Didn't your 4th grade teacher tell you to read something prior to commenting on it?

I repeat: the DNC's Swamp affiliate loves to publish poll results--except when those polls show Republicans doing well.


Yeah Bruce, you wonder why you don't see polls with McCain beating Obama vs Obama beating McCain: ANY poll that shows McCain beating Obama is within the margin of error, so it is a statistical tie. And with Obama shredding off the attacks thrown by the Clinton machine, it will be hard to see how the Repugs will successfully attack Obama and get McCain elected. This is going to be a virtual repeat of 2004, except that McCain is the 2008 John Kerry, and Obama is the candidate of change and hope that will lead our country back to the principles our Founding Fathers founded this country upon.


Well Mr. "jacksmith" (You might be an idiot...), if trailing around with Bill Clinton is "experience", the had anything bad happened to General Eisenhower, Mamie would have been qualified to take over as Supreme Allied Commander, ETO.

You don't win people to your position by calling them idiots.


The dog eat Hillary’s experience?

The nationwide campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are respectively the largest, most complex, resource consuming, people motivating, and open-ended efforts over which either one of them has ever before presided. Obama’s has been an inspirational model of good governance; Clinton’s is a fractious mess. How come her highly touted experience did not make a difference from day one?


Dump McCain

By Adam Graham on Feb 28, 08


John McCain’s condemnation of Bill Cunningham for his vigorous attack on the ability of Barack Obama to be Commander in Chief and for mentioning Obama’s middle name is the latest step in John McCain’s career of appeasing his enemies and attacking his friends.

I received a call from a reporter in rock-rib-Republican Idaho Falls asking me to comment on the discontent with John McCain. Republicans in that area of the state are down. John McCain should still win Idaho, but GOP turnout will most likely be down. The result: many good people will lose legislative races, maybe even Congressional races, thanks to John McCain.


It?s this way across America. A friend in Tennessee told me of a Congressman trying hard to get people at a Lincoln Day Dinner psyched up about supporting John McCain, but had little success. The Republican base is set to stay home in droves this year and the only motivator John McCain can provide is fear: fear of Obama, fear of Hillary. That will not be enough. There are enough people on the right for whom politics is a take it or leave it proposition. If you cannot speak to their dreams, hopes, and highest principles they will not show up. And John McCain cannot do that. Alan Keyes said it best, ?There’s not a single constituency of true conservatives that doesn’t have one of John McCain’s knives stickin’ out of our backs.?


It isn?t happening. Yes, the Democratic candidates are frightful, but that?s not enough. Bill Clinton?s liberal record in Arkansas, nor the fact that he protested his own country overseas in a time of war, nor his various unpatriotic acts were enough to stop his campaign.


Let us be objective for a moment. America is fed up with government. It is fed up with its President and gives him approval ratings in the 30s, it is fed up with its Congress and gives them approval ratings in the 20s. In a time of discontent, that empty rhetoric of change can, as it did in 1976 and 1992, overcome the fact that the Democratic Candidate is wholly unfit to be President of the United States.


If I?m wrong and McCain wins, then what do we win? Do you think after four years of John McCain, conservatives will be happier or more discontented? Will the liberal and moderate voters who John McCain is counting on elect a Republican Majority in Congress, or will they more likely vote for liberal Democrats? Whether McCain wins or loses, conservatives lose.


Some choose to sit helpless in this malaise. Some try to make a mockery of our political process by crossing over to the Democrats to cast a sabotage vote for Hillary to stop the Barack Obama train. I say, it?s time to stop the John McCain train.


Those who are finding John McCain unpalatable often conclude there is no alternative. We?re told that Governor Mike Huckabee has been eliminated from this process and that it?s mathematically impossible, and the math is clear. Yet, as Governor Huckabee pointed out recently in Ohio, if the math is so clear, why does every news site have different numbers?


The math is only ?clear? if you count unpledged delegates. Only pledged delegates are required to vote for a candidate on the convention floor. According to the Green Papers, John McCain has 874 delegates, Mike Huckabee has 210, Ron Paul has 5. What remains are many states with primaries ahead, as well as a large slate of delegates that are not pledged to any candidate. There will be several hundred delegates that could be free agents at a convention should John McCain not reach magic 1191.


Voters in states such as Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Idaho, South Dakota, and New Mexico could hit back at states that thought their voice and their vote shouldn?t matter by supporting Huckabee and forcing a vote on the convention floor. Maybe, his inability to seal the deal will convince delegates who may be leaning McCain right now to change their mind.


Many people say Huckabee is even worse than McCain. This analysis is incorrect. Huckabee is not a perfect conservative. However, he can be trusted on several issues on which John McCain cannot be.


John McCain supports handing our sovereignty off to the International Criminal Court and the Law of the Sea Treaty; Mike Huckabee doesn?t.


Mike Huckabee has a consistent record of supporting the second Amendment; John McCain doesn?t.


John McCain supports using your tax dollars to destroy human embryos; Mike Huckabee doesn?t.


Those concerned with securing the borders may not believe Huckabee on the issue because of some proposals he made while Governor of Arkansas, however, Governor Huckabee has made ironclad commitments by signing pledges by Numbers USA and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to not have amnesty. I trust Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilchrist on the border, and they trust Huckabee. Meanwhile, John McCain has not pledged to oppose amnesty and he has convinced no major figure on border security that he is serious about protecting our nation?s borders.


Finally, while Huckabee has had his differences with many conservatives, he?s not made his career antagonizing every part of the Conservative base.


At this point in the race, John McCain is taking the tact of Bob Dole. Dole, in the waning days of the 1996 campaign after he won South Carolina, quit debating because he knew that appearing in a debate beside other candidates could only hurt him. It?s a sign of weakness and an inability to defend your ideas. If McCain is afraid to take on Mike Huckabee, what?s Barack Obama going to do to him in the fall?


I?m under no allusions that Huckabee has a great shot of winning. The odds are against him.


However, I remember him being in single digits and facing the end of his campaign in August when he finished second in the Iowa strawpoll. I remember us being told the Huckaboom went bust in late December, and then he won the Iowa caucuses. I remember reading his political obituary after the Florida primary and within eleven days, voters in eight states gave him victories. Governor Huckabee has the type of character and determination to beat the odds that I refuse to underestimate him.


However, whether he wins or loses, I will not be on the sidelines moping as the GOP heads for defeat in November. I have given funds, and I?ve made calls into Texas. I will expend every effort I can, and if that fails, I can rest in the knowledge that I didn?t roll over and accept the coronation of a man who will lead the GOP to defeat this Fall.


What about you?


None of the candidates running for election in either party area an answer in my opinion.
They are part of the problem as they are all Senators now.


To the one who posted "Hillary all the way"... You have nerves saying that women arent smarter then men you should think twice before you speak. I'm not one that would vote for clinton but because of her actions you call all women stupip


to jacksmith.... you must be an idiot hillary may have experience but she doesnt use it wisely.. obama would be the perfect president


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "a" in the field below: