Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The Tide Continues to Turn Towards Obama

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday evening strongly indicates that the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton is losing much of whatever steam it's been managing to previously hold onto. Conversely, Sen. Barack Obama, in the wake of the Rev Jeremiah Wright and Bosnia controversies, has managed to gain appreciable momentum. HillaBamaDramaRama continues.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, and compares the results from March 12th. Below are the poll's key findings.

-Negatives: Clinton has jumped to 48% from 43%. Her negative rating is now bigger than her positive (37%). By contrast, Obama's negative rating sits at 32% against his 49% positive. He was previously at 51% positive/28% negative

-Obama vs McCain: Obama up 44%-42%, from 47%-44%.

-Clinton vs McCain: McCain has pulled ahead 46%-44%. Clinton previously had held a 47%-45% over the Arizona Senator.

-Obama vs Clinton: 45%-45%. This is significant, since Obama has come even for the first time. Clinton had held a 47%-43% lead.

-White Democrats: Clinton leads 49%-41%, down from 51% to 39%.

-Blacks: 51% have positive views of Clinton, down from 63%

-Women: Clinton dropped to 44%-42%, from 51%. This is significant, as women have previously been a major part of Clinton's core constituency. If she continues to lose women, she's history.

-Overall values: 52% said Clinton doesn't have the background or values they identify with, against 50% who say Obama does (but 57% said that the GOP's presumptive nominee John McCain does).

But most disturbing is that 20% of both candidates supporters said they will defect to McCain if the other candidate wins. This is truly incredible, and quite frankly, suicidal. This sort of angry revenge-voting will be disastrous for the party come November. (I will write more on this Thursday).

While I have been calling for the campaign to run its natural course till the end, it's becoming clear that for Clinton, the pressure is intensifying. Though she vowed on Wednesday to remain in the race for three more months, she must have a very strong showing in Pennsylvania April 22nd, and her polling must stabilize, or she will be likely exit then.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Don't ususally love David Brooks but, boy, he nailed this:

Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

Anonymous said...

"But most disturbing is that 20% of both candidates supporters said they will defect to McCain if the other candidate wins."

What crap. Pretty pathetic Andy that you too have now decided to just plain LIE. Were you dodging sniper fire in Bosnia too?

The ACTUAL poll shows:
Clinton supporters defecting to McCain at 28%
Obama supporters defecting to McCain at 19%

Poll data is here:

Sidney Condorcet said...

Andy, you should have stressed that this poll was among Democrats only. One of the electability arguments against Clinton is that half of the nation say they won't vote for her under any circumstances. Now, even half of democrats polled have negative feelings toward her. That's just remarkable. I'm sure, though, that once the nomination battle ended the numbers might subside a little, but still. Half of Democrats have negative feelings of Senator Clinton. This does not make me feel vindicated, but rather sad. Senator Clinton is smart, capable and cares intensely about the issues, but she has run a campaign that does her a serious disservice.

Anonymous said...

WOW,WOW,WOW it's a NBC/wall street journal poll,these people are the CLINTON haters of the last 16 years, and their going to give you a fair and balanced report,lets have a run down of nbc 6-9 morning joe.they have made a show out hillary the monster and obama the saint,9-5 daily news,the bimbo blond or the brunette fall over each other trying to find hillary's biggest fault,while setting there telling how the demon hillary is attacking the saint(obama).5 to 6 hardball,you know chris mathews,hated hillery for the last 12 years and has openly said so 6 to 7 new program at present,used to be tucker,we all know he liked hillary.7-8 hard ball again,8-9 oberman has yet to say one good thing about hillary,but every progam and I do mean every program tells you how great obama is and if the monster hillary has said anything bad about the saint(OBAMA)9-10 abrams report only one that tries to be fair,then it's lock you think any one with common sence would believe this poll,there isn't a news reporting agency out there thats played it fair with the clintons

Anonymous said...

What most of you naive folks don't understand is that Obama will never win in November.

Too many Republicans have pushed him forward, but will vote for McCain in November.

How could you folks miss reality? Where I live Obama will never win. Too many racists aren't dead yet.

I feel very sorry for those of you who are not politically savy. You will be very upset when this all comes down.

Anonymous said...

OSTROY IS CLEARLY WRONG. I wonder if he's received threats to switch sides. Other than the polls one hears on MSNBC Hillary is ahead by a small margin, but SIXTY-FIVE percent of Dems will vote for McCain rather than Obama. The polls showing the two neck in neck were on CNN.

I would like to know who owns MSBNC because they are to a person, and have been, hostile towards CLinton and totally for OBama. There has to be some advantage to that network for there to be so obvious a comgaign against Hillary. Even my Republican friends notice it and are offended by the injustice.

This a.m. MSNBC quoted ITS OWN POLL showing Obama ahead. They are lies.

Now there're articles discovered which were written by Wright that spew the same hatred. Obama cannot win the presdiency. I and others simply will not support a man affiliated with a subversive movement, or one that appears to be. Get Wright on TV to tell us what the Black Liberation Movement is.

In the meantime leave Hillary alone to run her campaign.

Anonymous said...

I back anonymous 9:21's statements. I, for one, am pushing for Obama, but will never vote for any Democrat in the general election.

I also enjoy fighting for Obama in one voice while fighting for Hillary in another voice.

Emotional Dems are too easy to play with. I'm a registered Democrat, so none of you can say I don't belong in the debate because everybody "has the right" for their voice to be heard.

Too bad the DNC is going to decide the winner in a smoke-filled back room deal. None of your voices will be heard. Can anyone spell "disenfranchised" ?

Sidney Condorcet said...

Why can't someone invent software to keep all of the Republican trolls from this site's comments section? I wouldn't mind if they were reasonable Republicans, but no, they're idiots.

Plenty of capable politicians have run horrible, negative campaigns. Being capable and running a bad campaign isn't mutually exclusive. Peyton Manning has had his share of bad games, but I still call him a capable quarterback. You schmuck!! Go back to your hole.

Anonymous said...

I went to sleep a happy person because all the networks showed Hillary was ahead. And I want to say that even FOX NEWS is being fairer in discussing all three candidates, than MSNBC is. Chris Matthews leads the pack in venom but they all contribute except, lately Joe Scarborough.

Obama can't win the presidency. Those supporting him are leading us to defeat. The Repubs won't even have to "swiftboat" him. All they have to do is keep airing the words of Wright, his church and the tenets of the Black Liberation Theology.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."--William Gladstone

The comments on this site, as well as the practice of our national politics since 2001, lend considerable credence to Gladstone's keen observation.

Anonymous said...

"FEAR is an emotion indispensable for SURVIVAL" -- Hannah Arendt

Sidney Condorcet said...

Yeah, indispensable for survival in the wild. Not in civilized society. Moreover, you may want to reread Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism as I believe you miss the point of Arendt's philosophy and it would clarify the context of the quote you've misappropriated.

Anonymous said...

Sidney you, a.h. Don't pull that phoney "semantics""Context" argument. What would be clearer or in fact more obvious. Even leaving poltics which is the purpose of this blog, out of it watch "THE VIRGIN SPRING" again. A perfect example of naivete/trust leading to destruction.
Or look at the homeowners who were not cuautious/fearful/suspicious of lenders. THe list is endless. Do you think it's passe to worry when walking in certain neighborhoods for example. Have you heard of the murders and carjackings in Memphis? Don't you think we should have feared "red flags" in Bush's character? You must be one of the very rich, privileged people in our society who have never had to function in "the real world." Or maybe your're the "Bubble Boy."

Anonymous said...

Naive Obama supporters are leading us to defeat and I just don't understand why no one will take this up.

Too many racists are not dead yet.

Anonymous said...

Sidney is obviously not a gay person, a woman, a black person, an old person, a child, an abortion doctor, an associate of Geraldine Ferraro or a poor person living in the world today. He lives is a dream world.

I guess he carries a hand gun so he feels no need for fear.

Anonymous said...

911 - It seems that the Clinton haters are not all Republicans....

One of the most interesting aspects of this whole thing is how quickly so many party lions and hot shots were willing to vote against the Clintons the minute they could do so without having to vote for a Republican.

Let's be real here - a heck of a lot of people in our own party swallowed a lot of bile to defend these dirtbags because to allow them to be consumed would only put the GOP in charge. We defended them out of necessity, not out of loyalty to them per se.

These two are so self consumed that there is no oxygen left for anyone else. They've given us up on key issues just to be able to protect their own sorry asses.

Seems that there are more Clinton haters out there than otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Oh God, how I pray that those two "dirtbags" are elected again. THeir selfishnish translated to financial comfort for me and peace of mind during Bill's two terms. I don't care if he had an affair, if she's a b-----, if the blacks and others couldn't wait to desert them, or any other accusation anybody can make (except of course disloyalty to America); I didn't suffer and had peaace of mind. Now I am in big trouble financially and I worry constantly about my coutnry.

Anonymous said...

the 90s are over folks. dotcom bubble is no longer here to prop up the poor decisions of Hillbilly's republican lite first two terms. Hillary can't win against McCain because if the choice is between Republican and Republican lite. The real republican will win. Can you imagine the McCain commercials if Hillbilly were the nominee? You think the out of context soundbites of Rev Wright are being played continuously - the Bosnia LIE would be on display 24x7by every right leaning mouth piece in the country!

Anonymous said...

I won't presume to guess what Hillary and Bill Clinton are thinking, but it is clear that she has no realistic chance of winning the nomination in 2008. However, from here in the cheap seats, it sure looks like she is intent on crippling Barack Obama so badly that he will loose the general election in November, thus, positioning herself for another run in 2012. Hillary Clinton needs to know that, if Barack Obama - the most inspirational Democrat since RFK - loses to John McCain in 2012, I, for one, will place the blame squarely where it belongs, on her, and, I can gaurantee that as, a Democratic Precinct Captain, I will make it my politcal life's work to make sure that she is challenged in the primaries, and that she is NEVER, EVER elected to higher office.

sicnarfe said...

Hillary is becoming so toxic that her chances of ever getting into a high position in the Democratic Party are miniscule. Which suits her fine, because the Democratic Party was never a comfortable home for her. She really belongs with the Mellon Scaifes and the Rupert Murdochs of this world. Democratic circles are not for the Clintons, they hob-knob with the Bushes and their ilk. So she belongs with the Lieberman crowd of conflicted Republicans who are finding their way back to where they belong. But before she "comes out" she will perform her Freddy Kruger routine on Obama, and destroy the Democratic Party in the process.

You may ask about her motivation for the mean spirited destruction of the party? I can only surmise that she and her husband entered this race for nefarious reasons. They were not committed to the welfare of either the Democratic Party or that of the American people. Their intent was to cash in on the highly lucrative business of influence peddling, largely to the detriment of the American people. Their donors have made the initial investments, but Barack is obstructing the game plan and their path to the bounty awaiting them. I can imagine those donors watching their investment go down the chute, but as a measure of compensation to them, she’s putting on a grudge-fest to destroy Obama.

It is my belief that the Clintons have burned their bridges with a lot of people; all they have left are some threats. Their style of politics is over, thank God. We are in need of true leadership to help us get out of the hole George Bush & his co-conspirators have dug for us, and Hillary and Bill have intentions other than to help us.

Barry Schwartz said...

I have gone from a refrigerator covered with Clinton White House photos to hating both Hillary and Bill Clinton. However, I would not hesitate to vote for her if she got the nomination due to a meteorite hitting Obama, and I would not object to having Obama pick her as running mate (which would be a way to mollify some Clinton boosters).

I expect likewise from others. This is not high school, get past that.

Anonymous said...

Obama did not vote for the Iraq War because he was not yet a Senate member and could not vote. Judging by his comments in his book _The Audacity of Hope_ on
p. 294, it's quite probable that he would have voted for the war if he had been in the Senate at that time and could vote, as Hillary Clinton was and could do. This is a quotation from his book in his own words of his attitude toward Iraq at the time the Senate vote was taken: "Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried. Like most analysts, I ASSUMED THAT SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND COVETED NUCLEAR ARMS. I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was undisputed; I had no doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him...I also said that 'after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, [of 9/11?] I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance' and would 'willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.' ... "But I had no way of knowing at the time whether my assessment of the situation in Iraq was correct."
These words do not seem like the words of one who was violently opposed to the war and definitely would not have voted for it, as he has said subsequently that he was opposed to the war from the beginning. I believe that more focus on the "Audacity of Truth" would be appropriate for this candidate.
The discrepancy between his attitude toward the Iraq War as stated years ago in his book and as stated in recent speeches is considerably more serious than
the discrepancy between Hillary's memory of sniper fire and the event as she described it previously in her book. Candidates can make mistakes, but some mistakes are more serious than others.

The Ostroy Report said...

Oh, how the spinmeisters love to spin their webs of deceit. What ANON 4:57 fails to provide us with is the paragraph which immediately follows the one he quotes above from Obama's "AUDACITY OF HOPE":

"What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies.”

To use your own words, ANON, does this sound like someone who would've voted for the war?

Next time, full context would be nice...especially if you want to be taken seriously.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Best smackdown I've seen in some time. Nice work, Andy...

Anonymous said...

Thank you 4:57. Everyone seems to have forgotten that we all knew/thought the threat was not imminent including Hillary and me. However those in power worried because the inspectors were not allowed in. She as did Edwards and many Dems voted to empower Bush to go to the UN and demand the inspectors be reinstalled. However, if, as the CIA was reporting to Congress, it was true that unbeknownst to us, it was found Saddam was a threat, Bush could start a war. Bush lied, but the safety and the welfare, seemingly were on the line. Who could risk being wrong about the danger? It was no risk to Obama if he were wrong because the the safety of America was not in OBama's hands.

Anonymous said...

The tide isn't turning against Hillary. It was against her from the start...if by "tide" we mean the national media and most cable news personalities at least.
We were treated to disingenuous and evasive replies from Obama and black leaders regarding Pastor Wright. The media was all starry-eyed over Obama's speech that was nothing more than an attempt to divert our attention from the anti-American commentary of Pastor Wright....the bulk of his tirade.
We were spoon-fed flawed reasoning and moral equivilancy. In contrast, Sniper-gate drew more out-rage from "journalist" and bloggers. How dare she? This, we were asked to believe, was proof positive that Hillary was corrupt to the core. Huh?
Did I miss something? She was there, in Bosnia, supporting our troops. Andrea Mitchell, who traveled with Hillary, stated that the plane did take evasive maneuvers to avoid possible sniper fire, and they we're all informed that there were snipers reported in the nearby hills. The ceremony, not surprisingly, was moved inside. So what was the
horrendous crime Hillary was guilty of? Exaggerating the danger I suppose. She WAS there in Bosnia. She WAS visting our troops. There WERE snipers reported nearby. Case closed I guess......she is a criminal of the worst stripe.

Anonymous said...

7:17 PM,
Put a fork into Hillary. She's done.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy says:
Oh, how the spinmeisters love to spin their webs of deceit. What ANON 4:57 fails to provide us with is the paragraph which immediately follows the one he quotes above from Obama's "AUDACITY OF HOPE":

"What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies.”

To use your own words, ANON, does this sound like someone who would've voted for the war?

Next time, full context would be nice...especially if you want to be taken seriously.

This is anon 4:57, responding to the above objection or "smackdown" as someone crudely labeled it. (I didn't realize, being new here, that "smackdowns" are part of the mission.) Anyway, to answer your question, both my quotation and your quotation from Obama's book do sound to me like someone who would or could have voted for the war. His entire two page dissertation on the subject conveys the impression that he, like many others, was uncertain about his stance at the time. He never at any point stated that he categorically would not have voted for the Iraq War as he is now stating. Considering the whole context of his comments, which you rightly value, Obama comes across to me as being uncertain about which way he would vote. We will never know whether he would have voted for war or not, so there is no proof either way. Therefore, my opinion is as relevant and valid as yours. I maintain that in the light of the context of his entire book, he probably would have voted for the war had he been in a position to do so. I'm not trying to smack anybody down here, so I may not fit into this "forum" too well. I applaud your concern about context and would encourage you to read Obama's other book, _Dreams from My Father_ to acquire an even broader contextual base for understanding Obama as the angry racist supporter of an anti-Christian, anti-American pastor; the self-admitted user of illegal drugs like pot and cocaine; and the political opportunist who will "stick with the Muslims" if the "political winds blow in an ugly direction." From the total context of both of Obama's books emerges a man who is fanatically preoccupied with and angered by the inexcusable injustices and indignities perpetrated against blacks by whites. I did not understand this aspect of him until I read the "context" of both books. I fully support your emphasis on understanding information in context and strongly encourage all to read both of Obama's books. This "spinmeister" fully supports truth over deceit. My major concern about Obama is the possible deceit involved in Obama's stated oratorical messages when compared to the subliminal messages of hate and resentment that emerge from the context of his books. Long live contextual understanding!

Anonymous said...

Hillary is far from "done!" She is not a quitter and will not be "done" until she achieves her goal of giving this country the economic and social renaissance it so desperately needs. Her race with Obama is currently quite even with no absolutely obvious winner, and despite the doomsayers who have asked her to quit, she will persist until all of the American people, delegates, and superdelegates have had their say. That's the truly Democratic way. Judging by precedent she has already set, I believe that she will continue to work for the American people under any circumstances in which she may find herself. As President she will work effectively toward the needed metamorphosis from economic breakdown to economic stability. Don't ever "count her out!"