Clinton, Obama PA race tightens

Yay Pennsylvania!

People are finally waking up to the fact that Hillary Clinton is not a viable candidate. Her lies and inability to effectively manage a campaign, let alone our country, are finally catching up with her.

With the poll numbers shrinking, I keep expecting another crying moment or some other well-staged tactic to sway the electorate.

I cannot understand why she is still supported by respected feminists - she has set women back at least 20 years with this campaign.

I guess money "can" buy everything even if it is not warranted. If he buys his way into the presidency it still wont make he qualified to be there. The people of PA are foolish if they think that just because he can over advertise Hillary it makes him the best choice. I predicted in 2000 that if bush won the election he would destroy this country and I am saying it again. Only this time the country is already destroyed by the loss of the men and womem of our armed forces and the debt he has incurred. So the only thing obama can do is drive this country even further into the abyss.

Incorrect -- Hillary didn't win Texas.

Too bad there was not victory for Clinton in Texas. I don't understand why this myth is continually perpetuated in the media.

Josh, with all due respect, she didn't win Texas. She got the popular vote but a minority of the delegates due to the unique way things are done there. HRC folks may not like that set up, but if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be screaming about how they won it and how unfair it is to say they didn't.

I think at least as a reporter, you ought not to take sides on this, maybe say she took the popular vote (narrowly) but he took more delegates.

Note how the longer the campaign goes, the more Barack seems to go up while Hillary's support stays static or even slips. This was true even in Ohio, where her win should have been bigger than it was.

I'm wondering if Barack's staff at the Chicago Tribune will examine his pro-gun statements in Pennsylvania with his anti-gun voting record in Illinois??

Here is an interesting article I'm sure the folks at the Chicago Tribune would never cover:

Something happens to Democrats on the gun issue when they run for
president. For John Kerry during 2004, it was awkwardly posing in brand new
hunting gear at a seemingly endless series of hunting photo-ops.

But in what will probably be the most improbable change, the Politico
reported on Saturday that Barack Obama was making a big play for gun
votes in Pennsylvania. It is not particularly surprising that this change
is occurring with the crucial Pennsylvania primary soon approaching.

With about one million of the country’s 12.5 million hunters,
Pennsylvania is number one in the nation in the amount of time its
citizens spend hunting. With about 600,000 people with permits to carry
concealed handguns, Pennsylvania also has more permit holders than any
other state.

Others, such as Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way, a
progressive think tank, view Obama as starting to position himself for
the general election.

Yet, it should be a hard sell.

Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up
while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political
group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a
“ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he
responded “yes.”

Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his
presidential campaign “flatly denied” Obama ever held this view, blaming
it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama’s own
handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI’s board of
directors, some of whom have worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told
Politico that “I always believed those to be his views, what he really
believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as
a nationwide candidate.”

But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one out there.

In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative
National Political Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all handguns,
but it did find that Obama wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all
forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast
majority of rifles sold in the United States.

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for
the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence
Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free
America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its
name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his
tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder
of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s
question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first
time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe
that people should be able to own guns.”

When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about
his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he
simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me was closer to what the IL
State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating
that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry
concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic
studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential
atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)
altercations."

Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with him on this.

The Obama campaign’s strategy largely follows 2003 surveys produced by
Democratic pollster Mark Penn showing that if Democrats didn't show
"respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would
presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according
to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they
want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can
run on and win on."

It was the same strategy that all the Democratic presidential candidates
seemed to follow in 2004.

Earlier this year, Karlyn Bowman at the American Enterprise Institute
said: “The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on
the issue well. . . . the right to be able to own a gun seems to be
firmly held, and I think that's why both candidates say what they say."

In practice, saying that Obama now believes that the Second Amendment
means that there is an individual right to own guns doesn’t mean anything
if it can’t even prevent guns from being banned. And even today, despite
the pressure from the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is unwilling to state
that DC’s or Chicago’s ban on guns are unconstitutional.

Obama’s website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian
ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.” The notion that people
might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn’t
something that he sees as legitimate.

On both his Iraq and trade policies, Obama has already faced the
embarrassing situations where his top advisors have had to tell people in
other countries not to worry because he doesn’t believe what he is
telling American voters.

With guns, it sure looks like Obama is again telling voters what they
want to hear, not what he plans on doing.

I think this poll shows a pattern that has occurred throughout this campaign. In states where Sen. Obama is little know, Sen. Clinton has a huge advantage based purely on name recognition and some nostalgic association with the (Bill) Clinton years. However, as voters get to know him, either in person at campaign stops or through TV ads, they actually choose to support Sen. Obama based on his IDEAS,rather than reputation.

The fact that Sen. Obama has more money now than Clinton is do largely to the efforts to bring in new activists/supporters into the fold. The share of his $$ from small donors vastly outweighs that of any other candidate. This is a function of his grassroots support, not big business or lobbyist clout.

GOBAMA!

That's the way, keep it up PA!

GOBAMA!

Mrs. Clinton's squandering of her brand name and her huge initial resources, her mismanagement evident from day one of her campaign all prove that she will be a catastrophe as President. Look at how she threw her Chicana manager Patti Solis-Doyle and then her chief strategist Mark Penn under the train when she got herself into a train wreck. Worse are the malicious, deceitful manipulation of media and working class Americans and the deliberate divisive tactics that use gender and race to incite the demons in US history that appall so many of us. Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million of her "own money," a "good investment" she said, to buy the nomination. AND check out the Clinton Dynasty's 110 million dollars gained in 7 years! She pays over $40,000 each year to keep her houses clean, while blue collar women from whom she is seeking donations earn much less than that a year. As a senior citizen feminist, I denounce and reject the Clinton dynasty and hope the Pennsylvania patriots will do likewise. In contrast, Senator Obama's campaign is an excellent demonstration of his judgment in policy making, delegation of responsibility, fiscal control, leadership, and all manner of management crucial for a President.

Yes she did win Texas in fact if you don't count caucuses she wins every state. And if Obama's people did not turn away Clinton's people at the caucuses she would of won them to. Wake Up.

When you add up the delegate totals for Texas, Sen. Obama won. Period. HRC may have won the popular vote by an extremely narrow margin. But since this is a delegate race, that narrow margin is irrelevant for the Texas race.

Why does the media keep saying HRC "won Texas"? Is it sheer laziness, duplicity or is it stupidity?

John D., how do you come to the conclusion that banning semi-automatic guns will ban nearly all gun sales in the US??? Statistics show that gunownership as a wat to stop intruders "when the police are not around" is ineffective. Witness that guy in Louisiana who shot and killed a young boy who rang his doorbell. Only people who are trained should handle guns.
The US has by far the highest murder rate in the developed world, by a factor of 11 : 1 over western Europe. I think limiting access to assault weapons is reasonable.

When Bill Clinton was in office the United States was better than it ever was. People had money and lived well. No one knows Obama. He is to shady and he is the one who made this racist. He has every one snowed. How stupid people can be. If you think he is going to change anything, you are so wrong. You all better wake up before it is to late. Hillary would make a great president. And she is the only one to beat McCain. Not Obama.

Hey anonymous, where is the evidence that Obama's people turned away Clinton voters in Texas? Quit making up crap to make yourself feel better about a lousy candidate. If republicans crossing over - 100,000 according to the AP - to vote for Hillary as a weaker candidate against McCain per Rush Limbaugh do not vote, then Obama wins the popular vote too. Face facts, HRC has run a lousy campaing, not the kind of manager who will be "ready on day one."

Obama is pro nuclear. What is wrong with everyone? He is so sneaky and he does not tell the truth. Look at all he did vote on. You would be surprised. No one really checked him out.

Who cares now? The Democrats are history, courtesy of Mrs. Clinton. PA voters are the last chance for the party. I am pessimistic.

Barry cleaned her Clock as he had a superior Camp Pain in place.....Hilliary flushed $25 million down the toilet in Iowa.....Barry had 10 times the troops on the Ground in every caucaus Sate

I would like to know why you did not print my information I sent you. I do not think that is fair at all.

The fat lady is warming up to sing for the Clintons...

"if you don't count caucuses she wins every state" Anon

If you don't count the caucuses? Apparently Hillary and Mark Penn assumed they wouldn't count. How else can you explain their weak campaigning in caucus states? She didn't win in Illinois and Wisconsin either. Can you tell me who won the primaries in those states?

Hey, here's an idea you'll love! If you don't count the votes for Obama, Hillary wins! How does that sound? It's the only way she'll be able to win at this point.

I would like to know why you did not print my information I sent you. I do not think that is fair at all.

Clinton is the most acidic, devisive candidate in the entire election. Her muck is muddling things up and no one is talking about anything but her foolishness. She has used gender and race biases and got away with it. FEMINISTS have disappointed me the most. They should be harder on her. If they want the whitehouse, they need to ASK her to stop crying and campaigning as a WOMAN, and be an all-inclusive AMERICAN. And then to add injury to insult, she just lies and lies and lies. That team is terrible. Quitting is a GOOD thing when nothing good can come of it.

Clinton is the most acidic, devisive candidate in the entire election. Her muck is muddling things up and no one is talking about anything but her foolishness. She has used gender and race biases and got away with it. FEMINISTS have disappointed me the most. They should be harder on her. If they want the whitehouse, they need to ASK her to stop crying and campaigning as a WOMAN, and be an all-inclusive AMERICAN. And then to add injury to insult, she just lies and lies and lies. That team is terrible. Quitting is a GOOD thing when nothing good can come of it.

Organizational skill is an important skill for a good CEO, and Obama's campaign has demonstrated that he has that. Combine that with his temperament and intellect and he'll clearly make a better President than either of those other two.

"I guess money "can" buy everything even if it is not warranted. If he buys his way into the presidency it still wont make he qualified to be there. The people of PA are foolish if they think that just because he can over advertise Hillary it makes him the best choice."

-----------------------------------------

LOL!!

What did Hillary have besides name recognition (due to being married to Bill) and the fatcat Democratic donors to get her early big lead in the first place (this, btw, is what got her elected to the Senate for NY state even tho she had ZERO ties to the state)?

As for Obama - at the very least, the $$ is coming from hundreds of thousands of small donors and not a small group of fatcats.

Wow !!!!! Hillary threw Mark Penn under the bus , but as is typical with her, she didn't run him over. Still trying to have it both ways. Please Pennsylvania put a stake through this vampire's heart.

Go Obama, go, we love ya in PA!!!

I think Senator Obama shows wisdom and class when he publicly states that Senator Clinton has every right to remain in the race. A good, rigorous, intelligent debate of the issues, even if it goes all the way to the convention floor, will ultimately be a good exercise for the Dems---and thus for the nation.

Hillary will win Pennsylvania!

Ellen, Hillary probably will win on PA, but if she doesn't win by 15-20% it's as good as a loss for her side. A narrow victory won't help her cut into Obama's lead.

Hillary is doing something most women will never do, are not qualified to do or afraid to do.She is running for President. She is tough, she is strong, she is brave, she is a real leader. She will win the nomination and the presidency. Go Hillary!

Obama- says one thing in Illinois, says another in Pennsylvania.

Obama-Change you cannot trust.
No-Bama 2008

How did Obama introduce race into this nomination process? Is it just the very fact of his candidacy. God help us and deliver us from these closet racists.

Don't count the caucus states? That's the problem the democrats have had over the last few elections cycles. Cherry picking in which states to compete. Hillary was using sam strategy early on. That's why now she's in the fight of her political life. She now finds herself short of money and having to compete in states that heretofore had never been considered as part of the nominating process. She was short sighted. Not a good characteristic for POTUS.

Do we think he's going to change anything? Haven't you been paying attention? He already has changed everything. Hillary could never have done that because she is not the change candidate. The only thing she wants to change is who is occupying the WH. Obama wants to change the mindset of the country. And he is well on his way to doing that.

Hilliary be a man and bow out of the race...

As a 51 year old white male, I came into this campaign as a HRC backer. I am an independent and try to support the person I feel would be best for the country. I am sorry to say that HRC has lost my support.

There are several reasons for this. First, she is very condescending in her delivery. She comes across as being someone who feels she is owed the nomination. Not taking some states seriously has put her in dire straights. I would not want the leader of our country to take shortcuts or assume things that might turn out to be a problem later.

Secondly, her negative campaign has convinced me that she is more in it for herself than the country. I honestly believe that HRC or Obama would be a good leader. However, I am seeing more of the same old politics from the HRC side. She has done more to hurt the democratic party than help it. I am also worried about who HRC has surrounded herself with. She has not done a good job of being CEO of her campaign, therefore, I cannot see her as being a good CEO for the country.

I feel that the President is the figurehead for our country. The most important thing a President can do is surround him or herself with good people. Clinton has taken large amounts of money from lobbyists while Obama has gained his support from the general public. I have come to the realization that she would "owe" too many favors to be truly effective.

We need a person that can unite the nation, not just the republicans or democrats. I think Clinton has made this a tough thing to do, but Obama is, in my humble opinion, the only candidate left that has that chance.

I wish the people will wake up and see that Hillary is our best choise to get things done in this country. Barak is to inexperienced and those in Congress will take advantage of it. He is not the one to take this country to the next level from where we sank to under King Bush.

Yes, Obama won Texas, because this is a delegate race. He garnered more delegates in Texas than she did. And that has to do with proportionality, and the way the delegates were assigned according to the previous election.
The same type of proportionalityh is due in PA, so Obama will do very well in PA. Go Obama!

Ok guys, is everyone having fun yet? Please articulate with accurate historical names, years etc. where the "current split of sitting members between the two major parties existed" and long term positives were enacted at the federal level for this country?

Why this is important? Simple, stop focusing on the destination at the "top spot" for the elections. Get a clue, realize that for almost 50 yrs, little useful acts have passed when one political party DID NOT have an overwhelming; e.g., a veto-proof number votes.

Pay more attention to your elected members at local, and state level and what "they are doing". We have had every race and gender represented at thes levels for at least 50 yrs. Wake up!!

Guess What! Hillary did win Texas! Period. Second, She won every state that matters to Dems. come November. The only reason Obama is winning now is the fact that the Republicans have banned together to vote anti-Hillary not Pro-Obama ... there is a difference - Come November McCain will Beat Obama... Trust ME. Ohio and FL are needed... Look at the last Three Elections... without FL the winner would not be whom it has been. People, Democrats WAKE UP! I, have nothing against Obama... The fact is... he CAN NOT win. Period. I think you naive people (prob. Bush voters) think you can force change ... not going to happen. The system is too heavy and strong to change... In my opinion... Hillary should break off from the Democratic Party and start her own Party And run against Obama and McCain.... That would show em.

I just want a better explanation in regards to Obama not having experience. He clearly has plenty of experience. the problem is if you hear that he does not have experience, enough, it becomes a broken record. even though it's not true. The simple fact is that Obama has done tons in his political career. All of which like most congressman you probably cannot name. If you do not like barack, just say that and leave it at that. Don't make ignorant statements to make yourself feel better.

hey Mark. No one really knows Obama. He is racist and his people did turn away
Clinton supporters in Texas. You better wake up. Obama is not going to bring the people together. He is all talk. Hillary is for the people whether you believe it or not. I can not believe how many brainwashed people there are in this country. And the republicans voted for Obama not Clinton because they know they can beat Obama. You get real.

As an independent who is looking for someone who can truly unite the country, I can't back Obama because despite the rhetoric his actual voting record was the most liberal in the Senate. He was to the left of HRC. While I agree with liberals on some things, I don't on all. Because his voting record doesn't credibly mirror his avowed/professed wish to unite the country, I wouldn't vote for Obama. No one who is a uniter would occupy the extreme at either end.

Senator Obama has outperformed, outfundraised and outorganized one of the most formidable politicians the Democratic party has to offer (Senator Clinton). Senator Obama has done this with very little name recognition, no political machine and very few of the known Democratic operatives and his opponent, Senator Clinton has 100% name recognition, the political machine (especially in Penn) and almost all of the known Democratic operatives on her side.
Hopefully, Senator Obama will come at least within 7 in Pennsylvania, as that would be an outstanding comeback from 18-20 points down. It would also make the chance that Senator Clinton can pass him in pledged delegates, which is already highly unlikely, almost impossible.
Some people don't seem to realize, however, that right now even if you include MI and FL, Senator Obama still leads Senator Clinton in pledged delegates by 118 (a significant almost unsurmountable lead). Some people don't realize that Senator Obama has won not only more contests (30-16), but also more primary states (17-15), more big states (9-6), more typically blue states (12-7) as well as more typically red states ((16-9) and more caucus states (14-1). He also recently took Texas from Senator Clinton's win column -- and that is one of the biggest states which makes his lead in big states 10-5.
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-vs-obama-stats.html
Senator Obama is the best hope of the Democratic party come November 2008 and all that he is lacking is more time to get himself known to all voters. The more time Senator Obama has, the better he does.
...and John McCain Repeats Al-Qaida Shiite Confusion?? President Obama - hurry up please and take office! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/john-mccain-repeats-al-qa_n_95624.html

The RPC Pennslyvania poll average has Clinon up by7.9% today, April 9.

The most recent poll has Hillary up by 18 points.

What will it take for the mainstream media to report that Hillary is way ahead in PA and the trend is in her favor?

Let me guess, an actual win by double digits--at which point the (Obama loving media) will refert to "well, she was expected to win anyway.