Obama's lead over Clinton narrows: Reuters poll By Steve Holland Wed Mar 19, 7:03 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.
Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.
The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.
McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.
That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.
"The last couple of weeks have taken a toll on Obama and in a general election match-up, on both Democrats," said pollster John Zogby.
Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent, narrower than his 50 to 38 percent advantage over her in February.
"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Zogby said
Obama gave a speech on Tuesday rebuking his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for sermons sometimes laced with inflammatory tirades but said he could not disown him and it was time for Americans to bind the country's racial wounds.
The poll showed Obama continues to have strong support from the African-American community but that he is experiencing some slippage among moderates and independents.
Among independents, McCain led for the first time in the poll, 46 percent to 36 percent over Obama.
He was behind McCain by 21 percent among white voters.
Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.
"And, just the closer he gets to the nomination, the tougher questions whites ask about an African-American candidate," Zogby said.
The March 13-14 poll surveyed 525 likely Democratic primary voters for the matchup between Clinton and Obama. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
For the matchup between McCain and his Democratic rivals, 1004 likely voters were surveyed. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
Obama related to Pitt, Clinton to Jolie By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - This could make for one odd family reunion: Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
Researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society found some remarkable family connections for the three presidential candidates — Democratic rivals Obama and Clinton, and Republican John McCain.
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.
Genealogist Christopher Child said that while the candidates often focus on pointing out differences between them, their ancestry shows they are more alike than they think.
"It shows that lots of different people can be related, people you wouldn't necessarily expect," Child said.
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.
"His kinships are across the political spectrum," Child said.
Child has spent the last three years tracing the candidates' genealogy, along with senior research scholar Gary Boyd Roberts, author of the 1989 book, "Ancestors of American Presidents."
Clinton's distant cousins include beatnik author Jack Kerouac and Camilla Parker-Bowles, wife of Prince Charles of England.
McCain's ancestry was more difficult to trace because records on his relatives were not as complete as records for the families of Obama and Clinton, Child said.
Obama and President Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662.
Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins, linked by Edwin Hickman, who died in Virginia in 1769.
Clinton and Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed, both related to Jean Cusson who died in St. Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society, founded in 1845, is the oldest and largest nonprofit genealogical organization in the country.
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand.. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer tal k about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontr unner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he l ost. < /FONT>
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadine jad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescript ion drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co value s, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if p eople don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the rea l Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Well Ken Blackwell certainly hit on every single issue regarding Obama. But can I say that it is very close to Hillary's platform as well. And remember...the press has done such a brilliant job of putting Hillary and Obama on the front page of every media outlet known to man that we don't have a clue about McCain. Actually the press has done nothing but hurt Hillary and Obama by putting them in the limelight and leaving McCain in the dark. And leaving all of us in the dark as well.
Ya know the truth...I don't have a clue what McCain's platform is!! Not a clue! All I know is that McCain is just sitting back, without media coverage, watching Hillary and Obama self destruct.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The Democratic Party is no longer a democratic organization. As far as I can see, it no longer believes in democracy. Being a lifelong Democrat, I’m dropping all my affiliation to that party and will not support any of its candidates. I no longer care if Obama or Clinton is the Democratic candidate, because they will probably not have been picked in a democratic manner. If the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has its way, the people of Florida and Michigan aren’t going to be counted — some democracy that is. Superdelegates, party bigwigs, should have no more say than the regular Democrat elected in the voting, let alone pick the candidate prior to the convention. Howard Dean and the DNC should be ashamed of themselves. Right now, I can only hope my fellow Democrats will see the light and let their leaders know that they are unhappy with the DNC’s use of their power and making your votes worthless. THOMAS J. KENNEDY Schenectady
If you’ve been following the news media lately, you’ve been led to believe that you basically have a choice among three candidates in the 2008 presidential election — Clinton, Obama or McCain. Well, I’m happy to inform you that they’ve ignored one other candidate in this election — Ralph Nader. Furthermore, I’m sure that the news media’s omission of Nader is no accident. Remember that in 2004 they did everything in their power to keep Nader out of the presidential debates. If you go to http://www.votenader.org, not only will you get a better understanding of just where Ralph Nader stands on the issues of our time, but you’ll have a better understanding of why the news media tried so hard to keep him out. So the next time you’re watching the news, remember that you really do have a choice; but it might not be the one the news media wants you to have. MICHAEL HOOK
IGNORING RALPH NADER??? What rock has Mr. Hook been living under these last few months? Anyone would think that the only two running for this election was Obama and Clinton. It's a liberal media for God's sake. Who else's butt would they be up?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Obama Says He's Visited 57 States By John Stephenson | May 9, 2008 - 21:26 ET
Amazingly, Barack Obama claims to have visited 57 states! I'm going to be generous and chalk this gaffe up to exhaustion, because it is difficult for me to fathom that someone who wants to be the President of the United States could actually be this stupid. Watch the video.
I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this, and you can bet the media will give it a complete pass. Marc Ambinder reminds us that the media wouldn't do the same if this had been McCain.
But if John McCain did this — if he mistakenly said he’d visited 57 states — the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying….
Of course the leftwing media would have a field day with this if it had been McCain, however since it is Obama expect to hear crickets.
Then visit the all new Schenectady County Republican Club Blog, located at:
http://scgopclub.blogspot.com
We want to hear from you on who is going to win the 2008 Presidential race and why -- and any other issue pertaining to federal, state and local government.
Go to http://scgopclub.blogspot.com and make your voice heard!
Then visit the all new Schenectady County Republican Club Blog, located at:
http://scgopclub.blogspot.com
We want to hear from you on who is going to win the 2008 Presidential race and why -- and any other issue pertaining to federal, state and local government.
Go to http://scgopclub.blogspot.com and make your voice heard!
The Number One Reason John McCain Should Be President
By Lorie Byrd Published: 05-16-08
Recently on a talk radio show, the guest, a Democrat, said there was little difference in policy between John McCain and the two Democrats running for President. Many of those calling in agreed. Considering McCain’s recent comments on global climate change and his position on some other issues I can understand why some might have that impression.
If voters are convinced there would not be much difference in policy between a McCain and an Obama presidency, it is likely the majority will go for the young, charismatic candidate who would make history as the first black President. If they vote for Obama thinking he would be the same on policy as John McCain, though, they will be making a big mistake.
On some of the most important issues the country faces there are huge differences. On one issue in particular, national defense, McCain has demonstrated that he is the only candidate of the three we can afford to have as President at this time.
Democrats see the Iraq War as an issue that will hurt McCain. The war in Iraq is unpopular, and since the progress and success that is now being seen there is receiving little media attention, it is likely to remain so, at least until November.
McCain was not only supportive of the decision to go into Iraq, but he was a strong proponent for “the surge.” In fact, much of McCain’s criticism of the war was based on his belief that a larger force was needed.
McCain has not been an unquestioning cheerleader though. In addition to being a steadfast supporter of the mission, in his criticism of troop levels, McCain has also been an outspoken critic of policy failures there. This gives him credibility with many Americans who were not necessarily against removing Saddam Hussein, but rather have problems with how it was done.
The position popular with Democrats now is that we never should have removed Saddam Hussein and that even if there have been positive results of it, the surge should never have occurred because the war is ultimately unwinnable and the surge only prolonged it.
There is far from “little difference” between those positions. There is a huge difference between the two.
Putting Iraq aside, John McCain is the only candidate for President with military experience. (Hillary’s Bosnia sniper fire claim only highlighted that fact.) Some Democrats have now come up with an attempt to level the playing field against McCain based on the nature of his service. One argument now being floated by some Democrat Senators is that McCain did not learn the lessons of Vietnam because he was “sealed away” as a prisoner of war.
The New York Times reports that “in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol.”
Ed Morrisey wrote in response, “[Senator Max] Cleland says that he didn’t know which heart and mind would blow him up, but McCain didn’t have to wonder at all which would torture him. He got a good, close look at the evil that totalitarians produce for over five years ‘on the ground.’”
Morrisey went on to note that later McCain studied the war in great detail at the National War College, served for over twenty years on Senate committees overseeing the armed services and their strategies and tactics and that “for almost 40 years, McCain has kept himself not just informed but critically involved in matters of national security and defense.”
On the other side of the aisle, Barack Obama has served just over three years in the U.S. Senate and in addition to making irresponsible statements regarding foreign policy he has shown a thin skin when those statements are criticized – and sometimes even when they aren’t.
Even with the problems many conservatives have with McCain on issues such as campaign finance reform and immigration, they must realize that on the issue of national defense John McCain vastly differs from his Democratic rivals. There are other issues, such as abortion and spending, where McCain’s policy is in line with conservatives and is 180 degrees different than either Obama’s or Clinton’s policies. National defense, though, is the area where the President has the most direct control and at this place in history it is the one area that we cannot afford to gamble on a careless, inexperienced, and ill-informed candidate – no matter how pretty he can speak.
What matters is not how well the candidate speaks, but what he says and time after time Obama has shown he is simply not qualified for the job. Even if it is on this one issue alone, national defense, conservatives must support John McCain in November. McCain spoke this week about the things he imagines seeing in the year 2013, at the end of a successful first term. If Obama is commander-in-chief those four years, I don’t think I want to imagine the result in 2013.
Lorie Byrd is a Townhall.com columnist and blogs at Wizbang and at LorieByrd.com
Logged
