Here's an interesting comparison on--my gods!--policy, between Clinton and Obama.

The antitrust exemption for the insurance companies supported by Clinton is something I hadn't known about. As with Bill Clinton's post-presidential activities, and Hillary's various waffling moments about Bush's defilement of the Constitution, this is something else where Obama has really held back. Presumably he knows what he's doing, but if he winds up losing this thing, he'll regret not having called her on some of these vulnerabilities. Certainly it's not like the Clintons are holding anything back.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

Rasmussen Florida Poll

jerseyhoya wrote:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

Rasmussen Florida Poll

One of these states is not like the others... maybe Jews for Buchanan got confused again.

[url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=fc31417c-5816-4971-ac96-67161bbe397d]Iowa too:
[/url]

52% McCain
41% Clinton
7% Undecided

41% McCain
51% Obama
8% Undecided

This is a sample of 563 people. If my math is right, that's something like ten percent of the sample whose preferences are:

1) Obama
2) McCain
3) Clinton

One place where Obama has gotten some negative press, Florida thanks to the whole delegate thing, he's running 10 points behind her. Now, it could be a crappy poll, it could be that Florida is weird, or it could be some sort of a confirmation that Obama is susceptible to negative coverage more than the average candidate since he's seen so little of it.

Florida has a lot of old people and Hispanics. Those are weaknesses for Obama and strengths for McCain and Clinton. Florida might be the toughest swing state for Obama.

And in Virginia, we find... Obama wins, Clinton loses:

48% McCain
45% Clinton
7% Undecided

45% McCain
51% Obama
4% Undecided

554 likely voters. The switch margin is smaller here, but still way more than enough to swing the state's electoral votes.

That said, I think Clinton could win Virginia. Mark Warner vs. whoever for Senate should be such a rout for the Dems that a "reverse coattail" thing could happen.

Obama also hasn't spent any time in Florida and people seem to like him more as they get to know him.

The thing about this whole nomination process that's annoying me right now is that people actually think McCain is a straight talker. He's repeatedly said one thing and voted another, just like Arlen Specter. McCain can't even stand up against torture on a consistent basis and he should know better than anyone how damaging it is (he certainly says it's damaging). His "straight talk express" should have been renamed the "kiss Bush's butt express" before becoming the "straightalk express II" when he hit rock bottom and realized he wasn't going to be the GOP establishment candidate. How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

Monkeyboy wrote:How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

I think the DNC should send every national political reporter some mouthwash. Otherwise they might never stop tasting McCain...

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama also hasn't spent any time in Florida and people seem to like him more as they get to know him.

The thing about this whole nomination process that's annoying me right now is that people actually think McCain is a straight talker. He's repeatedly said one thing and voted another, just like Arlen Specter. McCain can't even stand up against torture on a consistent basis and he should know better than anyone how damaging it is (he certainly says it's damaging). His "straight talk express" should have been renamed the "kiss Bush's butt express" before becoming the "straightalk express II" when he hit rock bottom and realized he wasn't going to be the GOP establishment candidate. How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

In other words, all the stuff the crazy talk radio right wingers have been saying all along?

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

I think the DNC should send every national political reporter some mouthwash. Otherwise they might never stop tasting McCain...

Maybe you guys need to stop listening just listening to the DNC. Google John McCain torture bill.

John McCain has never changed his stance on torture. He believes all torture should be illegal. The Bush administration doesn't. In order to make sure Republicans didn't fillibuster and Bush didn't veto the torture bill McCain made compromises on what's allowed. While there was torture allowed in the bill, most forms of torture were banned. Most Democrats voted for the bill. Do they support torture? Do you think we should get rid of any Democrat who voted for the bill?

If you're looking for a President who won't make compromises then John McCain isn't the man. He won't change what he believes but in politics you can't get everything you want. He doesn't kiss Bush's butt. From almost the outset of the war McCain has been critical of how Bush conducted the war. They agree on some issues. They are both Republicans.

What gets me is that liberals slam McCain for compromising on torture while conservatives slam him for being against torture. They both can't be right. Can they?

What amazes me is that the media is so in love with Barack Obama that they set aside his lack of experience and that he hasn't done much in the Senate. They never ask him questions about the issues or wonder why he never talks about issues in his speeches. They don't ask him how he'll pay for all his social programs or what he'll do if Congress and other countries don't agree with everything on his agenda.

Maybe the media kisses up to John McCain. Maybe not. They do kiss up to Barack Obama.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

I think the DNC should send every national political reporter some mouthwash. Otherwise they might never stop tasting McCain...

lol, I really wish both Clinton and Obama would turn their ire towards him and use that to contrast with each other. I know they both want the nomination, but they're taking their eyes off the main prize at times, I think.

VoxOrion wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama also hasn't spent any time in Florida and people seem to like him more as they get to know him.

The thing about this whole nomination process that's annoying me right now is that people actually think McCain is a straight talker. He's repeatedly said one thing and voted another, just like Arlen Specter. McCain can't even stand up against torture on a consistent basis and he should know better than anyone how damaging it is (he certainly says it's damaging). His "straight talk express" should have been renamed the "kiss Bush's butt express" before becoming the "straightalk express II" when he hit rock bottom and realized he wasn't going to be the GOP establishment candidate. How can people not see this? I realize perception is reality, but holy cow, is delusion also reality?

In other words, all the stuff the crazy talk radio right wingers have been saying all along?

Amazingly, yes. But I disagree with them saying he's not a conservative. It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

I still have a slight feeling that what Limbaugh and Coulter are both publicly doing is not what it appears to be. Not anything conspiratory, but there is something amiss and I think they somehow feel that their support for Hillary will hurt her cause. I think they want Obama-McCain race for some reason.

I recognize they dislike certain things about McCain, but give me a break.

The three largest counties for Democratic primary turnout from four years ago have had mixed results from morning voting, according to local election officials.

http://blogs.wispolitics.com/election/2008/02/early-turnout-mixed-for-key-counties.html

Obama strategy for winning the White House: hoping his voters in Dane were just sleeping in shaking off hangovers.

First Word on Wisconsin Exits

I'm hearing that after two waves of data, Wisconsin looks like a blowout in favor of Obama, in the neighborhood of 60 percent to 40 percent.

NRO

Your lefty hippie sites or Drudge might have it as well.

Edit: From D-Kos

If Obama's winning among women, one would imagine he stands a better than fair shot of winning this shindig.

Straight talk express

What does this mean? It means that rather than pledge his existing certification for matching funds as collateral for the loan, which would bind him to the system and thus the spending limits, McCain carefully pledged to seek to re-enter the system later, and to use a non-existent future certification as collateral. And while the system is "voluntary," McCain essentially traded away for cash his right to choose whether to participate in the system, and even his right to drop out of the presidential race, allowing the bank to force McCain "to remain an active candidate" in order to reapply for and qualify for funds. He was betting the spread (10 points) on his own primary performance! I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan.

Is this illegal? Who knows. Note that it took several days of discussion among top lawyers and former FEC commissioners to figure out whether it was even possible to opt out of the public financing system after opting in and qualifying for funds. No one's ever done that. And therefore, no one's ever opted back in, after opting out, after opting in. And therefore, no one's ever borrowed on the basis of a promise to opt back in, after opting out, after opting in. Is your head exploding yet?

So let me get this straight. The McCain campaign took out a loan where the lender put terms in that, if met, Senator McCain could have appeared unethical. Whether it would have been is open to debate. That he never actually did said unethical act seems to be irrelevant. That it's unknown if he ever even considered doing that also appears to be irrelevant. If all you have to blast John McCain is "if things had gone differently John McCain might have done something unethical" I think Senator McCain is rather safe.

On the other hand, let's look at this quote:

During his time in the Senate, Barack Obama has been a leader on reforming the earmark process to make it more transparent and accountable to voters.

Sounds great. And it's true. Who said it? Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman.

That's great except that in 2007 Senator Obama brought $91 million in earmarks to Illinois. And he refuses to release information on his 2005 and 2006 earmarks. Oops. Saying one thing and doing the opposite. Obama refuses to address this. Instead Burton talks about hearing reports that McCain had been supporting a multi-million dollar project to establish a center at an Arizona law school honoring late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. That McCain put no earmark for that or any other project in any bill seems to be irrelevant. Obama had $91 million in earmarks. McCain may or may not have considered an earmark. Since he hasn't done any it's unlikely he was going to. And really why would a center at a law school need Federal funs anyway.

Surely Obama will respond to saying one thing and doing another. Nope. Instead he says, “Somewhere along the line, (McCain) traded those principles for his party’s nomination, and now he’s for those tax cuts.”

Of course McCain has always been for lower taxes. He thought it unwise to lower taxes in 2003 while raising spending. So he voted against the bill. Now he sees the tax cuts have worked. So he wants to keep them.

Here we have two Presidential candidates. McCain attacks Obama on something that's true, $91 million in earmarks. Obama doesn't defend but instead provides a simple statement about a complicated set of circumstances that takes one vote McCain made in 25 years in Congress and distorts it.

And you guys are calling McCain dishonest? We've been through this before. Karl Rove beat McCain with these tactics in 2000. The Dems will probably do the same.

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

:roll: