Clinton slips, Obama gains in new poll

No link yet, but I have CNN paused and I'm reading the data off the tv:

It's a CNN/Opinion Research poll.

October:

Clinton-51%, Obama 21%, Edwards 15%

Now:

Clinton-44%, Obama 25%, Edwards 14%

MOE +/-4.5%

well, it's a start.

now Mrs Clinton will have to rustle up her very own fag-basher in order to gain lost ground. On the plus side, they're not that hard to find.

Oh HOW utter charming of you to use such a phrase :sarcasm: :eyes:

Hillary's even slipping in Rasmussen's poll! She's down to 41%.

Obama though has them damn sink holes he keeps hitting.

It was more than a debate stumble. It was the real her finally exposed.

and after all the dental work, let's get back to the campaign.

She has had a fundraiser by Murdoch and was endorsed or hangin' around with anti-gay people herself. And I haven't heard her say she disagrees with any of them.

and, as I pointed out earlier, anti-gay people are not that difficult to find. :(

:shrug:

AIDS test to being gay?

Obama did that when he toured Kenya.

A pattern is developing and it's not a good pattern either.

how about when Obama linked having an
AIDS test to being gay?
Obama did that when he toured Kenya.

Although this appears to be a wholly invented incident (if you have a link, I'll gladly read it), it may be possible to discern what you're getting at.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11292.html

At a televised debate in the good old USofA itself:

NPR’s Michel Martin asked the candidates, “(W)hat is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge?” When it was Joe Biden’s turn, the senator suggested the key to combating AIDS is prevention: “I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There’s no shame in being tested for AIDS. It’s an important thing.”

The audience laughed nervously. When Biden was done with his answers, Obama, smiling, interjected.

OBAMA: Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear — I got tested with Michelle. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. SMILEY: Ah.

SEN. OBAMA: In — when we were in Kenya in Africa. So I don’t want any confusion here about what’s going on. (Applause continues.)

MR. SMILEY: All right.

SEN. BIDEN: And I got tested to save my life, because I had 13 pints of blood transfusion.

SEN. OBAMA: I was tested with my wife.

MR. SMILEY: And I’m sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying it.

SEN. OBAMA: In public. (Laughter.)

Everyone laughed; the debate continued.

His intentions -- comic relief, distancing himself from "gay" -- can't be known for sure.

But if that's what you were getting at, you surely did get it all in a hash, didn't you?

affair or using needles.

You don't have to be gay to get AIDS.

are in the seperate but equal tier.

So doesn't that cancel out his pro-gay marriage support?

But Dennis Kucinich is anti-abortion

Where have you been the last several years??

Kucinich, prior to 2003, had a abysmal record on reproductive rights.

Whether he's "anti-abortion" now I wouldn't know, but he is about the strongest pro-choice politician in the US.

His statement explaining his change of mind/heart at the time was one of the most cogent and concise arguments for choice I have seen. He said that without the ability to make their own reproductive choices, women could not exercise autonomy as agents in their own lives. (I paraphrase because I can't find that statement anywhere, and my long-ago post at DU quoting it has gone down some black hole.)

That isn't the standard mealy-mouthed crap about safe, legal and rare. That is full-on pro-woman rhetoric. He may have had to be beaten over the head to get it, but you just can't say things like that if you don't.

I'd love to see Kucinich's program implemented in the US -- me being in Canada, whence much of it comes ;) and wanting all the best for the neighbours.

But I wouldn't actually want to see him be president of the US, because I don't think he would be effective in that role. So I have to settle for cheering for someone else, who at least I won't expect to do any further damage to the rights of my sisters south of the border.

Where Dennis Kucinich says that he's now had a change of opinion, and is indeed not now pro-Life, but is indeed now pro-Choice....then I'll happily retract my comment about him being anti-abortion :)

Myself, I'm pro-Choice in the instances of rape, incest and where the life of the Mother is in danger, I don't support abortion as a means of contraception nor do I support Partial Birth Abortion, or Late Term Abortion or whatever one might want to refer to it as....I see no need for Late Term Abortion, if the Mother's life is in danger in late pregnancy, then she can have an Emergency C-Section.

I support Roe v Wade, I support abortion remaining safe, legal and rare.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=kucinich+abortion&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Let me offer one of the first results:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
(emphases mine)

* Litmus test on Roe, but as part of a culture of life. (Apr 2007)
* Women's right-to-choose is essential to gender equality. (Nov 2006)
* Abortions should always be legal. (Jan 2004)
* Shifted to pro-choice when women's health became at risk. (Dec 2003)
* All men & women have right to make difficult moral decisions. (Aug 2003)
* Supreme Court nominees must agree to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Apr 2003)
* Women can't be free unless they have the right to choose. (Apr 2003)
* Prevention, education, & health care, to minimize abortions. (Apr 2003)
* Life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)

Voting Record
* Journey in 2002 from pro-life to pro-choice. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)


I figure NARAL should likely have got it straight.

It doesn't come much more pro-choice than "Women can't be free unless they have the right to choose."

Now you can feel free to oppose Kucinich becuase he doesn't agree with any of your petty moralizing intermeddling desire to butt into other people's lives!

Safe and legal are the job of government. Rare is the hallmark of someone who thinks other people's choices are their business.

Retract my comment about Dennis Kucinich being anti-abortion then.

How am I "petty moralizing" and butting into other peoples' lives?

but I can't think of any other way to characterize:

Myself, I'm pro-Choice in the instances of rape, incest and where the life of the Mother is in danger, I don't support abortion as a means of contraception nor do I support Partial Birth Abortion, or Late Term Abortion or whatever one might want to refer to it as....I see no need for Late Term Abortion, if the Mother's life is in danger in late pregnancy, then she can have an Emergency C-Section.

I support Roe v Wade, I support abortion remaining safe, legal and rare.

Petty, finger-pointing, buttinski-ism. No woman's need/wish to terminate a pregnancy, or her reasons for doing so, are any of your damned business. The number of abortions that are performed, as a result of women's individual decisions, is none of your damned business. Period.

And I don't know whether you've fallen for the "Partial Birth Abortion, or Late Term Abortion or whatever one might want to refer to it as" shell game or are intentionally perpetuating it. I'll just point out, for the benefit of anyone who needs the help, that the procedure that demagogues refer to as "partial birth abortion" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH late-term abortion: it is a *procedure* that the legislation bans, not abortion at a particular stage of pregnancy, and in fact the procedure in question is most commonly used in the second trimester.

Kucinich saw the light. It isn't actually that hard.

way to tell it like it is!

of Kucinich sitting in a dark room with a lightbulb hanging from the ceiling, being beaten about the head with bats labelled "autonomy", "fundamental rights", "equality", "respect", "dignity of the individual", and like that. ;)

It can take a while for the battering to get through the layers of bullshit, but it's always to someone's great credit when s/he sits still for it and lets the light shine in. It's the sign of a decent, rational person. Just as, as our estimable Joyce Arthurs said, legal abortion is the sign of a civilized society.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/civilize.html

I have a feeling that Biden's inner circle isn't quite as dedicated to things like what Kucinich's hit him over the head with. I'd like a shot at it myself ...

What I believe is my own personal opinion, there's no NEED for you to get in my face, so to speak.

I was PERFECTLY polite and courteous to that other poster, and I even had the decency, after he/she posted the links, to retract my previous comment about Dennis Kucinich being anti-abortion.

I'm entitled to have my OWN opinions, and I'm entitled to have my OWN personal beliefs....and I'm not the sort of person who gets in peoples' faces and DEMANDS that they AGREE with my opinions and beliefs and/or DEMAND that they adopt my opinions and beliefs.

I'm astonishingly open-minded, and I'm able to respect someones differing opinions.

I don't need to "see the light", so please don't patronize me....it's my personal opinion, that if a woman gets into difficulty during late pregnancy then she can have an Emergency C-Section....and as I said, I'm pro-Choice in the cases of rape, incest and where the life of the Mother is concerned.

I don't believe in abortion as a means of contraception, it's not THAT difficult to use contraception if you're going to have sex but don't want to create a baby....abortion SHOULDN'T be used as a convenience because someone can't be bothered to use contraception, IF you don't want to use contraception and you don't want to create a baby, the answer is simple - DON'T have sex in the first place.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to change my mind regarding Late Term Abortion OR change my mind about being against abortion being used as a means of contraception....why? Because they are alternatives:

Late pregnancy difficulties, the woman has the option of having an Emergency C-Section and remember to use contraception during sex if you don't want to create a baby.

Also for the RECORD....I DON'T believe that life begins at conception, up until a certain point, the thing is just a bunch of cells, with no brain stem, no eyes, no fingers, no heart, no other internal organs et al, therefore it's NOT a human being, just a collection of cells.

I'm also 100% pro-Stem Cell Research and THAT INCLUDES that I'm 100% pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

As I said, I'm perfectly respectful towards those who differ with my opinions, I don't get into peoples' faces nor do I DEMAND or EXPECT people to agree with my opinions and/or adopt my opinions.

If you can't handle this, then I'm sorry :)


On Edit: Dammit spelling error....need more Espresso

it's my personal opinion, that if a woman gets into difficulty during late pregnancy then she can have an Emergency C-Section

Let us know where you practise medicine. So we can all avoid it.

As for the rest of it ... your personal opinion about other people's sex lives, your personal opinion about their worthiness ... I'll just remind you of what I've already said.

Mind your own fucking business, and even you might find the world a little nicer.

I find sweeping statements about abortion ONLY in the case of rape or incest very sanctimonious. Fine if a person wants to apply that to themselves, I respect that, but anything else is all that you point it out to be.

Just as Hillary used to be a registered Republican, but is now a registered Democrat.

yes, Kucinch used to be anti-abortian.

But NARAL has given him close to or 100% ratings for years now.

And he votes like it.

Hill, of course, sometimes still votes like a Repo, but that's another issue.

So we've already now established that.

I sent this to the Washington Blade, and added it in the comments section. I've posted it at DU 25 times or more. No interest.

"John Matthews and Linda Short. They voted to put discrimination into the SC Constitution, they voted FOR the amendment to ban gay marriage. These two people are co-chairs of the campaign, they have much more of a platform than some singer at a one-time event. Why is there nothing said about them?

What about Darrell Jackson, who's receiving $10,000 a month 'consulting fees'. On the floor of the SC Senate he said:

"Now we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else. My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to..."

Yes we do know how he feels about homosexuality, he feels it's a sin.

So you've got these three people taking key positions in Hillary's campaign, you've got Bishop Long and Rev Mayberry -

and your concern is this one event where Obama also added a gay minister??

I think some people have got their priorities way mixed up."

that way it won't be ignored. :)

They're not. This has to do with Hillary's flip floppery.

Senator Clinton is ONLY 23% AHEAD of Obama....and this is considered GOOD by the Obama supporters for some bizarre reason?

Nobody is claiming Clinton doesn't still have a commanding lead :shrug:

Obama had gained like 15% in the polls, then yeah I'd say, that he was gaining traction and Hillary would be having some problems.

A significant gain is a significant gain...

.

It seems to me you are implying that the poll is suspect because the margin of error is about the same as the difference. But you left out something: statistically, the margin of error goes both ways!

Let's put it another way. Consider the new poll....

Now:

Clinton-44%, Obama 25%, Edwards 14%

MOE +/-4.5%

With a 4.5% MOE.....the real results COULD be Clinton 39.5%, Obama 29.5%, Edwards 18.5%.

This result is statistically the same as suggesting that the slip in Hillary's lead is just MOE stuff.

They can be easily manipulated....after Tiny Tim's performance the other night and the 6 man Gang-Bang of Senator Clinton....of COURSE they're going to mix the latest polls with the "special sauce".

Hillary's probably on 54% let's face it....remember these are the SAME pollsters that were manipulating polls for Dim Son, until he sunk SO low they just couldn't pretend that he was "popular" anymore, when it was obvious that he was clearly despised by a solid majority of the population.

I recognize that some of Hillary's gaggle are faith-based kool aid drinkers. They will believe Hillary is over 50% even if she is at 30.

Fact is, according to several polls she is slipping. And to assume it is simply by the Margin of Error is just that...an assumption. More than likely wishful thinking.

Margin of error of 4.5% means either way! That is statistics, not opinion. If the poll says 40% with a 4.5 MOE, that means that statistically the real number is between 44.5% and 35.5% at a probability of 95%. Which of course means that there is a chance that the real results are beyond that range!

I know you WANT to believe that the new poll results are just statistical burps instead of reflecting real changes in public opinion. However, you have no basis to assume that the MOE is going to go in the directin that you want it to go.

I think the polls are silly this early out. I do think it is hillarious that Hillary supporters are getting upset at the polls these days. Because they have been so obnoxious about throwing polls in everyone's faces for months now. Couldn't be more hillarious!

Over 20 is fabulous and a monstrous lead

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

Hillary is 23% AHEAD of Obama....and SOME Obama fans are like "WOW! Hillary's SLIPPING in the polls and LOOK Obama's GAINING on her!"

Gosh, I don't know....Lol!

and then there are the others, too. See the trend lines here? It's not good for Hillary.

Why isn't he 11 points up?

it's sinking in. Give it time.

The NEXT gaffe will sink him....actually he's sunk already, he's NOT going to recover from hitching his caboose to Donnie "God saved me from homosexuality" McClurkin....and the Cult of Obama in South Carolina clapped and cheered McClurkin.

Sorry, but he is not sunk. He spoke out against McBigot. His voting record speaks for itself. He's not an evasive FLIP-FLOPPER (yes, if the term fits, wear it) like Hillary is, and he will win.

her momentum has stopped and Obama's has begun.

Dean was way out front, Clark was seen as the one with the potential to stop the Dean steam roller.

My how things can change.

I don't give Hillary's early lead any credance. Half of the voters haven't even started paying attention yet. This is all the preseason.

We'll see in early January/lste December.

Poll numbers dropping. Nothing to worry about. :shrug:

Yeah Senator Clinton was 30% in front of Obama.

Now Senator Clinton is 19% in front of Obama.

She's in fine shape, she's still going to beat him....the MOE in that poll is also 4.5%, that's a pretty big MOE.

I think you're failing to see what's going on here. She's slipping in at least 3 polls so far.

Hillary's support dropped from 51% to 44% yet Obama only gained 4 and Edwards lost 1%.

In the Newsweek poll, Hillary lost 1, Obama gained one, but Edwards lost two to the 2nd tier.

On edit nevermind....it was the WaPo poll.

He's hardly GAINING any traction at all....and when one factors in the MOE, Obama probably hasn't actually gained ANY points at Hillary's expense.

So yes, she's in great shape....whereas Obama is still stuck on Square One with no movement.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

He gained six points in another poll while Hillary slipped in THAT poll, too. He's movin' on up! I'd rather be him than her.

If the trend continues, Hillary is toast. Actually, she is toast crumbs.

If the trend does not continue, Hillary is still in the lead.

No need to argue about it here! Nothing we can say or do is going to change whether this is a downward trend for Hillary or not!

We simply don't know yet whether it is a trend. If it is, Hillary will not win. Period.

Wishful thinking on both sides perhaps. We shall see!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/05/poll.presidential.08/

CNN/Opinion Research has been including Gore then removing him in polling. The numbers you give for the 1st example matchup with the non-Gore numbers from earlier.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Afterall, he's not in the race.

Good thing people saw who she really is NOW before it's too late.

Edit: Fixed name. (Fingers working faster than the brain.)

Nixon's white house council?

Or perhaps you meant our party's illustrious chairman, Howard? :)

Someone was just in my office talking about John Dean's appearance on Olbermann last week, and I guess the name stuck with me while I typed.

:)

:D

:hi:

Hope all is well! :hi:

So polls are now "OK"?

Isn't it when a Clinton supporter posts a poll, shit files all over ..... "That's corporate media for you, trying prop up Clinton" ...... "Oh look another 'Hilbot' trying to tell us the election is over'"


Isn't that ironic?

Not ironic at all.

Good try.

Or trying to cover your ass.

:hi:

Then I imagine you will see daily polls trickling out of IA by the 2nd week of Dec.

good thing!

Statistically speaking, with that margin of error, isn't he in the same place he already was?

:shrug:

JMO.

then it finds a new home.

Two-step...

Things are a-changin'!

The Clinton campaign must be very worried or else they wouldn't have dispatched Bill
to do spousal support in Vegas.

K&R :toast:

Thanks! :toast:

Maybe there is something to that politics of hope

Though it is funny to see those who claim polls don't matter to then praise results when they find them conveniently supporting their argument.

There sure is.

are flawed.

And things are looking good for Obama and not so good for Hillary.

as long as they are put in proper context.

Your poo-pooing of polls aside...

Do you deny that there has been a shift (perhaps only a slight one) in the dynamics of the race?

due to the debate likely. But I put more emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire polls and not national ones. I'll be happy if Obama is ahead in Iowa or NH.

There's definitely been a shift in the polls, but whether or not that means the "dynamic" has changed remains to be seen. A poll is a snapshot of one "moment". "Dynamic" suggests movement over a period of many moments.

Patience, grasshopper

However, your candidate would admire the wild-eyed word parsing...even (or especially) when you're wrong.

Hillary supporters. They have been obsessing about polls for months now.

I have this vision of a Hillary supporter on a date. Things are going well. Everything is clicking. Wine. Good food. Dancing. AFterwards, at her door, she asks him if he would like to come inside for awhile. And his reply....."according to a recent Gallup Poll Hillary is 24 points ahead in Pittsylvania County Virginia and Obama slipped by 1 point"....

Friends don't let friends date Hillary supporters....sarc

by HRC supporters

I do see a desperate fantasy by a Hillary Hater

Just discussing the polls. I do find it similar to Bush that anyone who reports or says anything critical of hillary or even polls showing her down....are called "haters". It used to be anyone who disagreed with the iraq war were called "bush haters". My how things stay the same even when the names change....

I see only one poster coming close to skepticism. Just one.

Right.....

So we are all in agreement except one that Hillary slipped last week and this may have some significance?

Then why is this thread so long?

If you could point out any others, I might believe there's more than one

And the thread is long because this is DU.

If you back up this sub-thread, you will see that it starts out with me saying its nice to see Obama supporters believing a poll. I didn't say anything about how meaningful the poll was in my original post, but you twisted my words to make it sound as if people who disagree about the significance of this poll do not believe the poll itself.

signed,
Not A Hillary Supporter (but couldn't resist)

I'm sure the person who drew that cartoon isn't a Hillary supporter either. :D

National polls mean nothing...I don't believe them...

No one I KNOW supports Obama so they must be wrong...

Why the HELL is the MSM trying to shove Obama down our throats...

The election has been decided...why bother to vote!!!


Did I forget any?

How about "I will NEVER vote for Obama in the GE".

but they don't apply to Obama like they clearly do to Hillary.

How transparent was that?

Care to expand on that?

I responded in kind.

I have to laugh! You Hillary folks have been shoving polls up everyone's arses for so long, it is about friggin time you had to taste some of your own medicine!

Doesn't taste very good....does it?

Right now, the only thing that matters is Iowa.

First, he leads within the MoE in a poll or two...big news...

Then, he holds Hillary to a single digit lead...

Then, Hillary is held under 40% of all Democrats

Now, Hillary is held under 20% lead is considered big progress...


I wonder, when Hillary regains the margin of a week or so ago, what the new criteria for good news will be with Obama supporters...

against Obama.

Lots of proof that she is doing an outstanding job campaigning.

No one supports her!

So how do you like that?

:D

from calteacherguy:

Newsweek
11/2/07

<snip>

Clinton's support tops out at 49 percent in trial heats against Giuliani, Thompson and Romney. Her four-point margin (49 percent to 45 percent) over Thompson and Romney is significantly less than Edwards's and Obama's performance in those head-to-heads. Obama and Edwards both lead Romney by 53 to 37 percent. Edwards leads Thompson 53 to 39 percent; Obama leads him 52 to 39 percent.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67789

Going from a spread of 30 points to a spread of 19 points is a pretty big deal.

I hate the New Math that is taught these days!

Get over it, Hillary supporters. "your girl" took a hit in the chin this week.

Pretending it didn't happen just makes them look silly.

Yup. And the hits are still coming!

Video link of Bill Schneider segment on the latest CNN poll:

http://thepage.time.com/2007/11/05/clinton-drops-in-new-cnn-poll-numbers/

Thanks for the link. :hi:

And you're going to believe that little sack of shit?

Of course he's going to bash Hillary, she's a Democrat and the GOP are TERRIFIED of the woman....why? Because they know she's going to beat them like a red-headed stepchild is why.

The THOUGHT of the Clinton's back in the WH is going to drive the RW finally TOTALLY off the deep-end, they're going to be dribbling spittle down their ties before March 2008....when Hillary has won all the primaries from January-March except maybe like she might lose....I don't know, one of them, she'll win the rest though.

YOU should be SUPPORTING Senator Clinton, don't you want to drive the Bushbots TOTALLY INSANE? Wouldn't that be HUGELY satisfying? Imagine Election Night, they'll be just about ready to be strait-jacketed and carted off to the nearest Booby-Hatch!

Obama's a Dem., too, and the FACT is that Hillary's momentum was stopped. Obama ticked up. You don't like it? Don't blame the messenger.

The GOP WANTS to run against Hillary because the Repub. voters will run over their mothers to vote against her. She'll lose.

continue the partisan, poisonous political atmosphere in Washington. It is time to "turn the page" on the way business is done in Washington--not make it worse!

I think if she dropped it is because she peaked a month or so ago as I suspect.
However, I don't trust the polls much. Too many indies to tell and I think this is one race no one can predict.

I think her best days are behind her and reality is setting in.

The good thing is the Indies will probably go to Obama.

I wanted to go over some other figures before commenting further, but I also see an 11-point movement in the polls, with Clinton declining and Obama gaining. Unfreakinbelievable. Oh, hell yes.

And I will forever be grateful to John Edwards for kicking the door open in this campaign. The guy holding the coats in these frays always seems to benefit, and I am so thrilled with the movement in the polls.

Obama came out with an aggressive policy of diplomacy towards Iran, advocating peace through diplomacy. Hillary is campaigning on fighting a better war. This choice has never been clearer for me.

Cheers.

Yes, you're exactly right.

I LOVE that Edwards is attacking Hillary. He's being very aggressive. Sadly for him, they don't like that in IA and some other places. Meanwhile, Obama is shining in the sun while being firm but respectful. Edwards doesn't have the money to continue, either.

Yup, Obama's coming out with bold plans, separating himself from the others. And he's immune from the "being for the war before being against it" charge. (And wasn't his bit on SNL great and to the point?)

It was a lovely valentine to an extraordinary candidate.

I LOVED it and I'm sure people who don't know him got a nice intro. to him in that skit. The words he spoke summed him up perfectly. And so did Hillary's reaction. :hi:

he was portraying himself as the humourless git he does tend to appear to be, but having the wit to get the joke on himself ...

And Hillary having a normal reaction to a humourless git being a pompous ass ...



Too many pronouns, fixed.

I bet you're not an Obama fan, are you?

I'm neither a fan nor a non-fan -- or both a fan and a non-fan, depending on which facet of the slowly spinning ball that is every human being I'm looking at.

I also manage to see and recognize and acknowledge what I see without first having to filter it through some "hmm, am I a fan of this one?" filter.

How anyone could not see Obama standing there pontificating about not wearing a costume on Hallowe'en as the very picture of a pompous humourless git, I don't know.

It put me in mind of when me 'n three of my women friends ran a joint personal ad many moons ago; four women, 22 feet 4 inches, 7 degrees ... the newspaper had to run it a second time for free because where it was supposed to say "no accountants need apply", the print version read "no accounts need apply". Hahaha. Seriously. Anyhow ... no, actually, I'm thinking of one I ran myself about as many moons ago. I said I wanted someone who would play games, play around or do dishes: pick any two. There were actually people who responded by telling me what sincere fellows they were, and how they would never play games. Duh. Yahtzee, anyone? So they really and truly picked doing dishes. The expression dull as dishwater did spring to mind.

The thing was that Obama was taking part in the mockery of himself. That's how I saw it, anyhow. I may have been looking at it through the prism of the border that separates you from Canada, where we all mock ourselves all the damned time. I wish I could find a video of the leader of the Reform Party going on a satirical comedy/news show on national TV (one so much better than Stewart/Colbert it hurts) and getting his fingers stuck like an idiot in one of those stretchy straw things that trapped Data in the old STNG, and laughing his head off ... but you can find Bob Rae, candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party last year, going bare-bum swimming with the host of another show ...

That Obama's boosters wouldn't see the humourless-git self-mockery in that skit ... well, just goes to show ...

His little girls are too cute and pops is, well....certainly not bad on the eyes.

Obama is picking up some ground because he's being more himself instead of listening to his handlers who had him sounding like a political robot before. As far as the Goddess of Peace, well when you're that much in the lead, it's only inevitable that you're going to slip somewhat. Should be a great race down to the finish with these two. I'd like to see Biden and Kucinich pick up ground and make it even more interesting.

the accuracy of this poll

After all, Edwards is doing all the work.

Obama didn't tell Edwards to attack Hillary like he's doing. I'm sure he's thankful that Edwards is doing it, though! Obama has been consistent throughout the years unlike Hillary AND Obama. He deserves to gain and will. :hi:

Hydrogen sucks. It doesn't deserve to be #1 on the charts.

They still call it the White House
But that's a temporary condition, too.
Can you dig it, CC?

:shrug:

I'd think I'd know that song. I love funk!