digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Gallup: Obama recaptures edge over Clinton

blogs.usatoday.com — Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Dvmx, on 03/23/2008, -5/+68The latest Clinton faux-moment is already over..
    • CoolWind, on 03/23/2008, -9/+3Obama has a 3% lead? From all the Obama propaganda on Digg, I would have thought he had at least a 30% lead.
    • danevahey, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics - Mark Twain
      • justineatworld, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1he never actually said that... just for the record
        • martalli, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Sounds like its fits the quote exactly. Just another propaganda statistic.
    • JakobVirgil, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Which is the kind the Clintons tell?
  • light65733, on 03/23/2008, -8/+36If happens again you know what to do, send Obama more money bombs.
    • kinerry, on 03/23/2008, -14/+4Hey, it worked for Ron Paul, right?
    • motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -2/+4Awesome idea from the Obama blogs!!!:

      By Carla 59 minutes ago

      This is AWESOME!

      Obama vs. Clinton in Steven Colbert's challenge to help PA schools.

      Even if you just donate $5, please participate!!!
      http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/leadershipboard ...

      What a crafty little man! Show your support, put a whuppin' on Hillary AND help kids with their education.
    • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -9/+2At least it is a tax write off for those on the "Obama Craze Train."
    • motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -3/+4Polls are roller coaster rides. If you want to make a real difference:

      Awesome idea from the Obama blogs!!!: By Carla 59 minutes ago This is AWESOME! Obama vs. Clinton in Steven Colbert's challenge to help PA schools. Even if you just donate $5, please participate!!!

      http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/leadershipboard ...

      Colbert is crafty! You get to whup up on Hillary and help kids with their education!
      • motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6Oops. Didn't meant to double post. Sry.
    • Myonosken, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1How would more money help at this stage? Its not like he dropped in the polls because he was skint.
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/23/2008, -41/+7Show me the campaign $$$. Whoever has the best ads, wins...at least with most people. That's because most people pay more attention to Oprah, The Bachelor, etc. than they do to the issues at hand.
    • delmar14, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2That isn't true of most people,but unfortunately elections are usually decided by "swing voters" who know dick about politics.
    • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -4/+3Because they're idiots.
      Why are you burying him? He's right.
    • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -8/+3Not to mention everyone on Digg feels the need to spank for Obama anytime they can find the chance. I've almost quit coming to a site I love because of all the Obama crushing. It's not over yet.

    • forgiste, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8I think that the people who are voting for Obama aren't as easily swayed into things. He's been treating his supporters like adults, which is unprecedented. I agree some people are gullible, but the vast majority of his support comes from people with attention spans.
  • freakk123, on 03/23/2008, -5/+43I hate to admit that I was nervous, but I was... Hopefully this upswing continues and the Jeremiah Wright business finally gets out of the spotlight.
    • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -12/+4This just shows how ignorant and lemming-like the average voter is. I will not vote for Obama after this pastor mess. I was never going to vote for Clinton no matter what. We will not get what we want but we sure as hell will be getting what we deserve.
      • cobaltgrc, on 03/23/2008, -3/+8Did you only listen to the sound bites of "the pastor mess" or did you actually watch those whole sermons in context? If you had done a little investigating you'd have noticed that it was a ***** non-issue. Let me know how much of a lemming you are.
        • duke3k, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1The only context in which those comments are appropriate is in the context where a racist black or a self-loathing white person views them. Either way, the viewer would be mentally ill, which are you?
    • captric, on 03/23/2008, -12/+4The "Jeremiah Wright business" is the first glimpse into the private workings of Obama's mind. It is also a demonstration of his lack of real leadership ability to only confront his secret past when forced to do so by the media. This was Obama's religious mentor and friend, he married him, he sat in his church for 20 years despite the anti American and racist qualities of his minister, he took his children to this church. His wife declared that only now that Obama has become a candidate for president is she for the first time proud of this country. Barrack compared the public racist comments of his spiritual adviser to the private mutterings of his grandmother and described her as a "typical white person". Obama is unelectable and if he becomes the candidate of the Democratic Party, McCain will surely be the next President.
      • neave, on 03/23/2008, -3/+12"...his secret past..."
        You mean the same secret past he published in great detail in both of his biographies?
      • skinturtle, on 03/23/2008, -2/+5Your comment sounded like some kid as they embellish a story to try and convince someone of it's authenticity. This is the kind of *****-slinging propaganda that is very common in the Billary camp.

        You are just basically trying to make a mountain out a mole hill.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4The unfortunate reality for Obama is that the Wright incident most certainly lost him some lower income white workers, permanently. His "Race Speech" certainly helped him rebound, but he's most likely garnering new voters (Or undecided), not the ones he lost. (See Bill Richardson endorsement)

      As an independent, I'm rather saddened that the Wright controversy was as big as it was. I think it's clear that Obama's views are not reflective of Wright's and the relationship was incredibly personal. (Wright converted Obama to Christianity) I don't believe in guilt by association and it's always been obvious that Obama's record and views have never been reflective of Wright. (See: McCain's support of Obama on the Wright Issue. Which reminds me of the race issue with Biden during early Dem Primaries)
    • DangerCollie, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Better now than six weeks before the general election. I have personal friends with political views I disagree with, some of them are pretty extreme. Some of them aren't serious, they're just trying to be provocative. Only the right wing stops being friends with people because you disagree.
      It backfired in a lot of ways because it gave Obama the spotlight to talk about his Christian faith. A lot of the right wing was convinced he was Muslim until he had prime time news to discuss his relationship with his pastor. And it gave him a chance to make a moving, honest and impassioned speech about his unique perspective on race relations.
      The swiftboaters will have to find a new line of attack now, one that will ultimately be less effective.
  • jbdobd, on 03/23/2008, -5/+54"As Mark reported Wednesday, Clinton strategist Mark Penn argued that Clinton's 7-point lead in the Gallup poll that day suggested voters were experiencing "buyer's remorse" over Obama." Looks like Mark Penn was wrong again. Shocking.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -3/+5Polls change with the wind. This new one says Obama leads Clinton 48% to 45%, but the poll's margin of error is +/- 3%. So I wouldn't read too much into these numbers. I'm sure Obama's staff is taking this poll (and all others) for what they are--a snapshot at one point in time that can, and probably will, change by the time the next poll is taken.
  • Dagreenman, on 03/23/2008, -6/+98Obama gained some serious momentum from this incident. Not only did he get the media off his ass and did it without seriously attacking Wright, he gave one of the most compelling speeches of our time and attacked dead on the issue of race in this country. Jon Stewart said it best. A politcian finally spoke to America about race as if we were adults.
    • NyteStarNyne, on 03/23/2008, -2/+10I agree with everything except "Not only did he get the media off his ass". They want to draw this thing out as long as they can so they can continue to profit and make their WWE PPV style intros for Super Duper Tuesdays. Personally I don't believe *all* the networks are Pro-Hillary or Pro-Mccain, but they are definitely Pro-Traffic and shameless about creating controversy. If Obama was still far behind, none of this stuff would see the light of day.
    • Jovensdesciple, on 03/23/2008, -18/+3You guys are dumb, Obama is toast. Hate it, lie about it, do whatever, he's done and you know it.
    • pyronik, on 03/23/2008, -20/+4Obama aligns himself with a bigot and we are suppose to ignore it. He is a hypocrite crying against Imus when his pastor is a real racist to the core.... screw you ***** diggers who give him a pass on everything he ***** does
      • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -9/+3Don't bother. The Obama worshipers here can't hear the truth. See how they bury you if you dare to speak against him?
        • duke3k, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1Same people who were supporting Ron Paul, ironically Paul and Obama couldn't be more different, which shows the depth of the ignorance of your average "young voter" Thank god no one from digg leaves the house and they'll disenfranchise themselves
  • vinnyvenus, on 03/23/2008, -11/+27The same Gallup Poll also shows that John Mccain is leading Obama in general election.
    • shortysmyname, on 03/23/2008, -5/+49That will change if Obama becomes the nominee, and then the spotlight will be on McCain.
      • imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -9/+3McCain is toast...
        • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -5/+4LOL!!!! You guys may be willing to overlook the fact that Obama has stood by a bigot but I doubt the rest of the people in this country will be.
          • DephexTwin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Obama denounced the controversial things that he said, and the only thing he didn't do was throw the guy under a bus, which I think was both honorable and honest. And listening to Wright's sermons in full, I also believe he has been unfairly characterized, so it's a shame Obama had to distance himself at all.
          • worbd, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1"LOL!!111", norman619... Obama totally rejected the controversial comments from his reverend, but McCain still hasn't done the same to his own!

            "LOL" indeed.

            If Obama gets in trouble for the comments made by his reverend, then the same will happen to McCain. "LOL", yeah...
      • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -12/+7Wishful thinking.

        You have not even begun to see the scrutiny of Obama's record that will most assuredly happen once he becomes the nominee. He will cease to be the "magical" candidate once his actual record and the actual consequences of what he is proposing is revealed.
        • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+8I agree... both nominees will be getting much more scrutiny from the press and from the other party. Neither McCain nor Obama have been at this level of attention in their careers, and who knows how voters will react.
          Besides, that Gallup poll asks "democrats" who they prefer as a candidate; there's no telling what non-Democrats will decide in a general election.
        • Cyrus042, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I think recent events are going to be the most critical. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve, public opinion might lean towards giving it a second chance if they think stabilization is possible. (Historically, Americans want to win wars, period.)

          Next, a souring economy could play out strangely. It might favor Obama since it's a Republican administration, but it could favor McCain as well if he gets enough support from economists. In addition, if the economy continues to do poorly, Obama simply cannot justify instituting a national health care system and increase taxes on the rich (biggest spenders). A tax increase on Americans with the biggest disposable income could do a lot of harm.

          We'll see what happens. If it comes down to Obama and McCain, we'll have two good candidates, and I think that national and international events (and how the candidates address these events) will swing the election.
      • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -5/+6I'm a Dem, but will vote for McCain if all else fails.
      • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -3/+5The time McCain has to rest while the Democrats are attacking eachother will give him plenty of opportunity to prepare for Obama
      • foofightrs777, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12What about McCain's record? He's self-professed that he's "not very good with economics". Is this really the man you want making the final decision with the economy of shaky footing? 8 years of a poor Yale businessman has been too much already for America.
        • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7Last I checked Obama isn't an economist either.
        • LeadOffMan, on 03/23/2008, -7/+3Obama's economic policies will crush an already fragile economy. If elected, he'll be a one-termer
        • mrjefflewis, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1The problem is, most Americans are profess to be "not very good with economics". As Bill Maher eloquently said, we elect leaders in our own image.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -1/+16People take out of poll results whatever supports their views. Lots of people seem to think this new poll is some permanent new momentum swing in favor of Obama. How is leading by 48% to 45% some major shift? The poll's margin of error is probably 3%. And the polls will probably change based on news about the candidates, responses to ads, the primaries that are coming up, etc.


      • xL0Sx, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7Why would you assume hte margin of error would affect Obama's numbers negatively, it could also be true that the margin of error favors Obama and it's really 51-45%. Of course poll numbers change, why the hell do you think they do these four thousand times a month?
        • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4I'm not assuming, I'm just pointing out what the margin of error is... people seem to be saying that Obama is ahead of Clinton, when in fact it could be a tie. Or it could be 51-45. I'm just pointing out that it may be a dead heat at this point, and that people will interpret the numbers in a way that fits what they want to happen: Obama supporters will take it to mean that their candidate is ahead: Clinton supporters will see it as a possible tie.
          "Of course poll numbers change, why the hell do you think they do these four thousand times a month?"
          I'm just pointing out the fact that the results of this poll are no more meaningful than that poll conducted last week, or the week before. They change with the news and voters' reaction to it and other things.
          • JohnM5, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1Yes, but he is at least winning with the sample of ~1200 ;)
      • EtherGnat, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8I agree with you to a point, but there was some concern the Wright controversy would give Hillary momentum. Obama's bouncing back in the polls helps to put that notion to rest. The only thing that really matters at this point is that it stays close--it matters little whether Hillary or Obama leads by a few percentage. Hillary has to score a knockout blow to have any chance of regaining the nomination.
        • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2This poll doesn't put anything to rest, it's just one poll. And the USA Today article, after explaining the Gallup poll, says:
          "A tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports has shown a different trajectory. In that poll, Obama clung to leads of 1 to 5 percentage points all week and fell behind Clinton for the first time today, 46%-44%."
          And most importantly, it adds:
          "As always, we remind you that these are snapshots and do not tell us what will happen in elections."


          • EtherGnat, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5One poll might not mean anything, but an average of six major polls show Obama rebounding after a slip. Again, what's important isn't who's on top as long as it's close. Hillary needs to create a major shift to have any chance. Obviously that's not happening.
  • chrissku, on 03/23/2008, -13/+40Hillary Clinton sucks.
    • imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -3/+9She needs to get out of the way - go back to the US Senate and be a team player...
    • tjlyttle, on 03/23/2008, -5/+5simple, classy, factual and straight to the point...

      i like your style
    • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -11/+5Wow. Spoken like a true Obama spanker.
    • markdall, on 03/23/2008, -9/+6I would certainly hope so, since she's a woman. She's supposed to suck... right? I mean, if you have a girlfriend or wife, don't you want her to suck?
      • NyteStarNyne, on 03/23/2008, -1/+6God, that visual just canceled my plans for masturbation tonight and sent any sexual urges I had into a ***** coma. Thanks alot
      • Abominous, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4Apparently she doesn't. Remember Bill had to get sucked somewhere else.
    • BrentyD, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1I did not have sexual realtions with that......wtf is that a woman?
    • Xcel, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1You forgot to add balls.
  • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -57/+5Obama, Osama, is there really a difference? I can't tell.
    • pintomp3, on 03/23/2008, -5/+17you should stop watching fox news then.
    • Shadic, on 03/23/2008, -2/+22Wow.. Either you're a racist, childish, or both. Good job, champ.
      • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -6/+5ummm "muslim" is NOT a race.
        • evil-doer, on 03/23/2008, -3/+4who mentioned muslims? the original post was talking about name similarities, not religion. he probably IS racist.
          • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -8/+2He didn't say anything racial.
          • Frosty122, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2jm4847, did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person? You are crazy.
          • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Frosty122: evil-doer thought I was somebody else, I was just jerking him around.
        • BlackStrain, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2And Obama isn't a Muslim so you're obviously calling him one based on skin color. There's a word for that.
          • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Common sense? Oh wait that's 2 words!
            I'm saying he has a Muslim background, there is a difference.
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -17/+3His name is Barack Hussein Obama
      • EtherGnat, on 03/23/2008, -4/+18Very good. Here's a cookie. Tomorrow we'll go over the 50 states flash cards again.
      • dtfinch, on 03/23/2008, -3/+7The name Hussein just means "handsome"
        • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3What does it matter? I mean really....
      • afterlife23, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5and yours is billy joe bob
        • Turambar, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2that's William Joseph Roberts, thankyouverymuch.
      • buhbyebot, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Stop having sex with your mom, the retardation from your father is rubbing off on you.
    • jollins, on 03/23/2008, -8/+3I don't think he was serious. Don't get your panties in a bunch, diggers.
    • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -3/+4Doesn't matter. He seems to have a ringing parade of endorsers since everyone is anti-Hillary for some reason.

      Was it really that bad in the White House for 8 years when her hubby was there? Look back, I think we were doing just fine. It's not like he's not going to have some input again.
    • felman87, on 03/23/2008, -2/+6How many times are you going to use that line?
      • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Until I get -1000, I'm still waiting for the right time.
    • saxreturns, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2That's because you're a ***** moron! I'm usually one for reasoned political debate, but in your case, I feel totally justified in limiting myself to '***** YOU'.
    • coljung, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2jm4847, stupid, moron, is there really a difference ? I can't tell
  • Hypomanic, on 03/23/2008, -5/+32I'm really sick of polls.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -3/+3Me too, and all the spinning and interpretation of them.
      Some countries ban polls for the weeks (or longer) leading up to the election. I'm thinking that might not be a bad idea.
    • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3So you gonna stop stripping?
    • DephexTwin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Me too. They are so *****. Over and over the polls end up being way the hell off compared to the actual voting results, but everyone just keeps coming back and continuing to believe they are actually accurate. It's like an abusive husband or something.
  • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -33/+6Change!!11

    Looks like the previous poll had the Obamites worried
    • buhbyebot, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Looks like you are the one in constant worry.
  • hurt911gen, on 03/23/2008, -5/+43If Hillary REALLY wants a Democrat in the White House next year, she needs to quit right now, endorse Obama, and stop splitting the liberal voters and giving extra time for McCain to campaign.
    • kinerry, on 03/23/2008, -4/+16She's an evil bitch, she won't do that because she doesn't know when to quit
    • Oozinator, on 03/23/2008, -1/+12That's the dirty secret, it's win win for Hillary! If she pulls off some improbable win this time, then great for her! If she doesn't, then she might be able to pull Obama down with her so she can simply run against McCain in only 4 years instead of waiting another 8! Always remember that she's entitled, everything and everyone else be damned.
  • monkeyrun, on 03/23/2008, -33/+8More Obama spam, exactly what we need.
    • redoctane, on 03/23/2008, -5/+9Obama spam is American spam.
      More America is exactly what we need.
      • FATEorFORTUNE, on 03/23/2008, -9/+4sounds like the typical meaningless and idealistic banter that obama lovers are so fond of hearing.
      • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -10/+3LOL Fate, exactly.

        This blind love for Obama has led them to throw out ridiculous and idealistic arguments that make no sense whatsoever
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -15/+3but but... CHANGE!!11
    • theapplegod, on 03/23/2008, -10/+2Obama spam is Obama spam. Any friggin' article a Digger can find, regardless of it's accuracy, is propelled to the home page, that is... since Ron Paul is out of the picture. Ya'll remember him? Everyone was crushing over him over the summer.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 03/23/2008, -4/+23Obama has always made people love America, while Clinton has always made people hate the leading democratic candidate.

    Edge never lost.
    • p0s3r, on 03/23/2008, -9/+2He made everyone love America except the two closest people to him, his pastor and his wife. WHAT A UNITER!
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -7/+3"Obama has always made people love America,"
      That's odd, because his own wife says she didn't start being proud of being an American until just recently!
      "Clinton has always made people hate the leading democratic candidate."
      Really? Even when *she* was the leading candidate? That's an interesting theory... I guess that's what a psychotherapist would call self-loathing, LOL!
      "Edge never lost."
      Huh?



      • Mercedes383, on 03/23/2008, -2/+5What exactly about the last eight years give cause to be proud about?
        • DephexTwin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Exactly... I have loved this country my whole life, but I'm certainly not proud of it lately.
        • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2I was just pointing out the absurdity of the comment "Obama has always made people love America." Just a little over the top, wouldn't you say?

          "What exactly about the last eight years give cause to be proud about?"
          Michelle Obama said recently was the first time in her life that she felt proud of being American. She's 44 years old, so apparently there was nothing during that entire time that made her proud of her country. I guess none of the humanitarian projects, foreign aid, diplomatic efforts, etc. the U.S. has done since the late 1960s have been worthwhile?
          • DephexTwin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I don't see how Michelle Obama's comment has any bearing on the assertion about Barack being someone who makes people love America.
          • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1"I don't see how Michelle Obama's comment has any bearing on the assertion about Barack being someone who makes people love America."
            Well, if he can't make his own wife love America or be proud of it, it makes the comment even more silly that it already is.
            Seriously, do you really think there are people in this country who actually disliked America before, but now *love* it specifically because of Obama, and no other reason?
          • DephexTwin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1"Well, if he can't make his own wife love America or be proud of it, it makes the comment even more silly that it already is."

            First of all, remember that I said that one can love a country while not being proud of it, so I wouldn't say you have any evidence to suggest that his wife did not love America. Secondly, the information on her pride in the country came from a speech where she specifically said that the reason she was proud for the first time was *because* of her husband's campaign, so really what you are saying isn't making much coherent sense. All this aside, you are overblowing the negativity of her statement in the first place. To many people, it is refreshing to have someone say a fair statement such as that, instead of the uber-patriotic lip service that we usually get from politicians.

            Lastly, you are also pushing the sentence "Obama has always made people love America" to the extreme; it doesn't assert that people who disliked America now love it, but only that the things that he does makes people like America more, not less. That is to say, someone like me, who is disillusioned with America these days, is given hope and something to genuinely get excited about.
    • LeadOffMan, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2obama and love america are words never spoken in the same sentence
      • Pr0phet, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Until that sentence right there. You're a trendsetter, man.
  • xartion, on 03/23/2008, -2/+16On Thursday when I heard that Clinton was up in the latest Gallup poll by 7 points, I thought to myself: WTF. Seeing how quickly these polls change, I think that I am better off ignoring them :)
  • dannyboy3020, on 03/23/2008, -2/+16These polls should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -3/+3but then would it really be a 'grain'?
      • norman619, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2A very large salt crystal is still a grain since a grain is a salt crystal.
    • RedStarRizing, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2so then a pile?
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Defininitely... they change with the wind, and the margin of error is +/- 3%, so who knows what the real tally between the two candidates is. And even if we knew what it was, it would change in a couple of days anyway.
    • skinturtle, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0I kinda like pepper with mine
  • jm4847, on 03/23/2008, -4/+3And the other 7%?
  • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -4/+10People take out of poll results whatever they want to believe. Some people seem to think this new poll might be some significant new momentum swing in favor of Obama.
    But how is leading by 48% to 45% some major shift? Especially when the article says right up front that the poll's margin of error is +/- 3%. Polls are just a snapshot at a given point in time and can change for all candidates based on news about the candidates, responses to ads, the primaries that are coming up, etc.
    Any poll results and their meaning should be taken with a large grain of salt, in my opinion.


    • JasonHears, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6The snapshot is exactly the point though. This snapshot is a recent snapshot, after all the Wright controversy, and after the Obama race speech. So it shows that this BIG controversy hasn't done anything major to Obama's ability to beat Clinton, even amongst Democrats.
      • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Well, in that same USA Today article it says:
        "A tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports has shown a different trajectory. In that poll, Obama clung to leads of 1 to 5 percentage points all week and fell behind Clinton for the first time today, 46%-44%."

        The Gallup poll ran from March 19-21 the article says; The Rasmussen poll is a four-day poll that ran up to 3/22, it seems.
    • riseabove, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2it's a 10 point shift. clinton mind tricks only work on the weak willed
      • hittnrun, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1Clinton mind tricks?? LOL Obama has been covorting with an America Hating Racist, wrapped up in the bible, for 20 years. He thinks he can get away with it because he can speak like a white man and all you idiots are in awe of him. If he was a Republican you people would be jumping around like monkees and calling him an Oreo or a House n!gger. Really, you ex-RuPaul people should find another hobby besides blindly following the second coming, black version of Slick Willie.
        • revisrev, on 03/23/2008, -1/+0I know a lot of white guys, and none of them speak like Obama. Can I get a youtube link to this white guy that Obama speaks like?
          • hittnrun, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1no link but how about a name????

            Try Bill Clinton.
    • neocognitism, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Look at the derivative (slope) for the past week. Every day has been steadily positive for Obama. That's a ton of momentum and portends a greater lead for him in a few days. Conversely, Hillary is headed downwards at the same rate for days.

      That's how you read a trend.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I think it's also important to note that this isn't a conventional poll. It's a tracking poll. Polls are taken daily and then averaged with the last three days. (typically 300 per day, 1200 combined.) However, they are still significant in that they give a relatively accurate sense of trends. The truth of the matter is that Obama has slowly been rebounding over the last couple days. Still, as Catty mentioned, we're talking about a small percentage that is statistically insignificant as it's well within the margin of error.

      Tracking polls are very sensitive to media coverage. I would say that much more positive media coverage of Obama after the "Race Speech" has lead to more favorable opinions of Obama. In addition, when the passport "scandal" broke (All three candidate's passport were breached, and the CEO of one contractor is on Obama's campaign), the media was increasingly sympathetic to Obama. (And possibly more critical of Clinton)

      Those things are probably reflected in the tracking polls. It's way too early to determine how a general election will pan out although it's safe to say that right now, all three candidates are viable. In fact, tracking polls and other conventional polls are more significant for the GOP because many felt that Republicans had no chance of winning the general election, however McCain has been leading or running competitive numbers. Certainly shows that Republicans were smart by selecting a more moderate candidate, and it will definitely change strategies as McCain will certainly continue campaigning in democratic states in an attempt to change the electoral map.

      Short interpretation:
      Obama is receiving more favorable stories in the news again after a wave of negative coverage.
      Clinton received a small boost after Obama's negative coverage.
      Over all, Democratic nomination remains competitive. Pennsylvania and other industrial states will still go to Clinton and Obama will still likely take West Virginia and midwestern states.
      McCain is staying competitive, but has a long road up ahead and needs to continue strengthening favorable ratings and keep unfavorable ratings low. (Currently he has the highest favorable ratings and lowest unfavorable. He needs to continue this to stay positive with swing voters and independents)
  • Thumper13, on 03/23/2008, -2/+11Anybody know where Hillary has been for the last couple of days? It's been awfully quiet there recently.
    Could she be considering dropping out?
    I know, too much to hope for.
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2No... there has been no primary since then. There is no reason to change her mind
    • FiestyPumpkin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+6Well, a video of her trip to Bosnia was released. She claimed to have had to run for cover as sniper fire flew all around her. Turns out that she was met on the tarmac by a little girl bearing flowers.
      • Thumper13, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1That's pretty darn scary if you ask me!
        Run for your cars!!!!
    • dxgg, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3Five words: the calm before the storm
      • Kyan, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4Two nouns, one preposition and two articles.
  • JasonHears, on 03/23/2008, -3/+17The biggest "controversy" faced yet by the Obama campaign, and in little over a week he is back ahead of Clinton. Note to Hillary: It's over!
    • Cattywampus, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1According to this one poll he's ahead... maybe (the poll's margin of error is +/- 3%). But the same article says:
      "A tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports has shown a different trajectory. In that poll, Obama clung to leads of 1 to 5 percentage points all week and fell behind Clinton for the first time today, 46%-44%."
    • LeadOffMan, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1you're right it is over. Give the nod to Hillary so she can hurry up and lose to McCain
  • kcap122, on 03/23/2008, -8/+8Who is voting for Hillary? I do not believe such a person could exist.
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -4/+7Just because you are blind enough not to see that there are other opinions than your own, does not mean it doesn't exist
    • neocognitism, on 03/23/2008, -6/+5They're called Zionists and Republicans.
    • jdavid, on 03/23/2008, -1/+7anyone voting for Hillary that is not a long time supporter is just voting for her to lose against McCain. It was a brilliant move by the republican party to free voters from the need to vote in a primary.
  • FATEorFORTUNE, on 03/23/2008, -8/+3Indeed, cattywampus. You can find a poll for whatever position you most want. This is a useless story.
  • hollyminkowski, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3If the convention in Denver is a real disaster with no resolution after a first ballot, they might turn to Al Gore to rescue the party.
    (Maybe it's a good time for him to start a diet :-)
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1LOL. The Goreacle really let himself go after losing the 2000 election
  • motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -2/+7He will continue to do well, no fear. The Rev. Wright bit was Hillary's best shot and right minded Americans didn't bite. She's out of ammo and out of money. I too wish she would drop out already, but it won't be long. Hubby projects June. Can't be soon enough.
    • LeadOffMan, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1no it did stick, we know who barack HUSSEIN CHE obama really is
      • Turambar, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2lol, where did the Che come from?
        • LeadOffMan, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1posters of Che in his campaign headqaurters. You have to be a moron to glorify a murderous communist, but hey that's who's supporting obama
  • kipmartin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+5he was never in jeopardy. short of Obama self-imploding, its statistically too late for Hillary. thats an objective fact, not Obama fanboy speak. why is it always painted by the press as being a close call? could it be that the media benefits from drama?

    well, there is no drama. did you know most Vegas oddsmakers give Obama 50 to 1 odds? its over, folks.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 03/23/2008, -8/+3Gallup: is made up of liars
  • AdrianaL, on 03/23/2008, -7/+0I too wish Hillary would drop out and never return!!! So but I don't like a person that has so much faith in GOD, lie in public about another person. She has cause lots of damage to Obama. But as we believe GOD helps the good and poor. Obama is the man!!
  • ivan14, on 03/23/2008, -18/+4get over with it Obama freaks. Hillary has the better chance of winning against McCain.
    RCP Average
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
    Obama 44.6
    McCain 45.9
    McCain leads Obama by 1.3%
    Clinton 45.7
    McCain 46.3
    McCain leads Clinton by .3 percent!
    also, Hillary has the better chance against McCain in three important battleground states, MI, OH and FL
    Hillary actually leads McCain in OH
    so get over with it, Obama freaks, Hillary shall win the nomination!
    • davermont, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3And the margin of error is what? These differences sound statistically meaningless, in other words "too close to call."

      Once Hillary is out of the way watch not only Democrats but Independants and Republicans line up behind Obama.
      • ivan14, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1no substantial evidence that independents especially republicans will vote for him. you cannot even prove that all democrats will rally behind him. i, along with majority of hillary supporters will not vote for a candidate unprepared for the position of presidency. i'll vote for Nader instead
        • revisrev, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0The majority of Hillary supporters are proud to have you as their spokesman.
        • trp5023, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1And I believe that's the time honored technique known as "I'll take my ball and go home if you won't let me be captain"
    • brownr21, on 03/23/2008, -2/+5Yeah, I prefer a psycho bitch held together by botox over a geniune hero also. Dumbassery '08!
      • ivan14, on 03/23/2008, -2/+0calling the enemy a psycho bitch...
        typical moronic obama supporter
    • kipmartin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3your own website shows Obama either surpassing Clinton in all categories and polls, or on a trend to be overtaken today.read your own citations--you might learn something.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/lates ...

      secondly, i dont care about her electability as i vote my conscience. and in your heart, you know thats what you should be doing. does Hillary have a dream for America? no, she has a dream for Hillary.
      • ivan14, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Obama only has dreams for himself, tony rezko, and jerimiah wright.
    • Deanblackoak, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1She can't win and you know it. This is over. The media just needs a good story.
  • foofightrs777, on 03/23/2008, -3/+22Obama is simultaneously taking and fire from both the Clinton and Republican PR campaigns and managing to hold his ground quite well. That HAS to say something about his electibility and strength as a candidate.
  • Plantagenet, on 03/23/2008, -2/+3Today Bill Clinton attacked Obama's patriotism. The Clintons are going to attack Obama all the way to Denver in hopes they can damage him enough to make him lose to McCain in the fall. Then, in 2012, they figure Hillary will get her chance.
    • slashbot, on 03/23/2008, -4/+2It can't possibly be because they want to win *this* election? Nice conspiracy theory
  • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -14/+4Attention Americans: America is a one-party government. Republicans and Democrats are two factions of the same party; the corporate party. Or if you want to be more accurate about the party that supports merging business and state authority while maintaining the trappings of representative democracy, call it the Democratic Fascism party. And that's the only choice we get because the corporations decide who you hear about.

    Do you think Obama is not a member of corporate party? Do you think he's not another spokesperson for the military industrial complex? Do you think he doesn't fully believe in the US's permanent war economy? Look behind his charisma, at his policies. He wants to expand the military, yes he does. He wants to increase US unilateralism and intervention around the world, yes he does. He wants to leave a permanent force of upwards of 20,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, yes he does.

    Look for yourself:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
    QUOTE "Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

    QUOTE "Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel."

    QUOTE "Bring a Brutal Warlord to Justice: Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by international prosecutors. After taking the presidency following a brutal civil war that decimated Liberia's population, Taylor created a rebel group that fought in neighboring Sierra Leone's civil war."

    Digg me down if you wish, but you'll only be helping to keep people from discovering where their interests really lie. If nobody is allowed to say that all of our candidates are pro-war and pro-corporation, then it will never change. It's okay to like Obama (I like him myself), but please know exactly what you're supporting.
  • FiestyPumpkin, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVsdS887HA&eurl=ht ...
  • FiestyPumpkin, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4Wait, here is a better clip as it shows what actually happened in Bosnia and the what she claims happened. Once the media start airing this (if they do), her rating will slip and Obama will be further ahead.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
    • AdrianaL, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1WOW, This is good stuff!!! How do we get this on the air? I saw a small glips on TV I hope Obama's staff gets on this soon!!!

      Thanks
  • pcressler, on 03/23/2008, -5/+1By Frank Ahrens
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, January 15, 2008; Page A04


    A day after his remarks about Sen. Barack Obama helped fuel a rancorous debate about race in the Democratic presidential contest, an unapologetic Robert L. Johnson described how frustrating it is to be on the other side of a candidate he compared to Teflon.

    "We've always said we need a perfect, well-spoken, Harvard-educated black candidate who would prove we've transcended race," the billionaire African American businessman and supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said in an interview yesterday. "Well, now we've got him and nobody knows how to campaign against him."

    Johnson reiterated that he was referring to Obama's earlier career as a community organizer when he said during an appearance on behalf of Clinton on Sunday in Columbia, S.C., that the senator from Illinois needs to explain his past. And he elaborated on what he meant when he called Obama "Sidney," a reference to Sidney Poitier's well-mannered character in the film "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."

    "What has happened, in my opinion, is that what we have created is the quote-unquote 'perfect candidate' that's like in the movies, that has absolutely no blemishes," a vision that is unrealistic, said Johnson, who started Black Entertainment Television and has been a friend of the Clintons for two decades.

    He said Obama has avoided talking about race, a tactic that Johnson said made him acceptable to the largely white electorate of Iowa. Obama won the state's Democratic caucuses on Jan. 3. "White America is saying, 'He's safe for us, he should be safe for you guys,' " Johnson said, referring to blacks. "We're letting other people pick our leaders."

    "The Obama campaign -- win, lose or draw -- is going to have to address race," Johnson said. "If we don't have this debate about race within the Democratic Party . . . we could find ourselves with a division in this party as we go up against whoever the Republicans put up."

    Johnson said that one of President Bill Clinton's political strengths was his ability to connect with black voters, and that it is an ability shared by his wife. "This is a fight between who's going to control the liberal soul of the party," Johnson said. "The people who don't like the Clintons have found the Clintons' worst nightmare -- a very dynamic, talented black man to run up against them."

    Johnson is known within the media industry as a tough-dealing, visionary businessman, apt to take a high-stakes risk in a sometimes unpredictable fashion, somewhat like fellow media mogul Ted Turner. He launched BET in 1979 with $15,000. Johnson earned praise for creating a cable channel that catered to black viewers, but he also drew criticism for its raunchy hip-hop videos, which some viewers said reinforced negative stereotypes.

    Unbowed, Johnson and his wife, Sheila, became billionaires when they sold BET to Viacom in 2000 for $3 billion. The couple later divorced. Sheila Crump Johnson, now president of the Washington Mystics WNBA team, is backing Obama.

    Johnson, 61, met the Clintons at a weekend retreat two decades ago at the Martha's Vineyard home of activist Marian Wright Edelman. He reconnected with them in 1988 and joined other prominent blacks from business and entertainment in backing Bill Clinton's presidential run in 1992, donating to the campaign and the party. "But I never got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom," Johnson said.

    Since 1990, Johnson has donated $2 million to congressional and presidential candidates, and 99 percent of that has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has given $14,800 to Hillary Clinton since she first ran for the Senate in 2000. He gave $4,500 total to Obama during the 2004 and 2006 cycles, but none so far during this campaign, the CRP reports.

    After Bill Clinton left office, he and Johnson traded professional favors, Johnson said. When Johnson was bidding to buy the Charlotte Bobcats NBA team, he asked Clinton to call league Commissioner David Stern and put in a good word for him, which Clinton did.

    Likewise, when Hillary Clinton was considering her presidential run in late 2006, Johnson got a call from her staff, asking if she and her husband could use Johnson's vacation home in Anguilla. Johnson said he was staying there at the time but left to make room for the Clintons.

    Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.
  • pcressler, on 03/23/2008, -8/+0If you want to experience the best of "Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld", please go to the following websites:


    http://www.activitypit.com
    http://www.dailygut.com
    http://www.foxnews.com/redeye
  • wowsah156, on 03/23/2008, -4/+4Again we see the negative influence of the incest queen Clinton. Why cant she just stop and admit defeat. She wont get the super delegates, and she wont win on numbers. A lot of Democrats will not forget this stubborness. In the UK Gallup is seen has a part of the Establishment and are incredibily involved with MI5. Their polls are used to manipulate opinion in the UK electorate(Since they are so stupid.).
    • captric, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Where do you get your numbers from? Obama and Clinton are in a statistical dead heat - that is less than 3.5 % points spread and vary the lead from week to week. NEITHER of them will have enough delegates to get the nomination. The nomination will be determined in the end by the super delegates who WILL take into account the Florida and Wisconsin delegates who were not counted. In addition, the Super Delegates are the political insiders who protect the nomination process from nominating someone who is UNELECTABLE. That means Clinton will be the nominee in the end and Obama will be excluded. Early pledged super delegates will see the light, change positions nominate Clinton.
      • dagamer34, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Wisconson? What? "Unelectable?" What?

        Where do you get your political news from? And honestly, for someone who was all but "guaranteed" the nomination 2 years ago (if not longer), if they can't shake off a newcomer like Barack Obama, how can you honestly tell me they have the chops to defeat John McCain? I mean, her entire argument has been about experience. "I am the experience candidate". Surely her advisors must see the flaw in such thinking when that campaign message becomes dead if she's the nominee. Consistency is key for voters. She'll have to become the change candidate, which will leave many voters confused.

        But we'll see what happens.
  • fedupamerica, on 03/23/2008, -11/+4AWESOME! OBAMA IS A MUCH EASIER DEFEAT FOR THE GOP IN NOVEMBER!
    • an0nymous, on 03/23/2008, -1/+8Honestly, I love comments such as yours. Not because they contribute to the dialogue, they don't, but because I can then examine your profile to see what makes you tick. Okay, the profile picture is of Obama and the twin towers...subtle. And the comments and Dugg stories are almost exclusively anti-Obama. You are pretty doggone active. Lots of capslock and misspellings, too:
      "LIER! IT WAS ALL THREE CANDIDATES!" seems to typify the tone and syntax. Because of the fixation on Obama, I would have suspected you as a Clinton partisan, but the few non-Obama specific references to Clinton use the perjorative "Billary".
      Okay, so you are a conservative troll who joined March 10th, 2008. Are you a paid agent? If so, you may have misjudged your audience, though you might be on to something with the "electability" message you seem to be pursuing now. I have to warn you though, capslock, excessive exclamation, and poor spelling clearly tag you as a greifer. Mind telling me who you used to post as?
      • fedupamerica, on 03/23/2008, -5/+1They have medication for your kind of paranoid thoughts. I am just another guy who is tired of watching the media and left wing bloggers dumb down the rest of America with conspiracy theory bunk. Conservative troll? I would love to debate with you on any issue any time and then we will see who the troll is. We will see who bases their opinion on emotion and who bases it on facts. As for my mispelling. OOPS! Maybe if I apply myself I can be just like a real journalist!
        Get over yourself. It was a Joke.
        BTW: Don't attempt to discredit me by making it look like I am a campaign operative. You only make yourself look silly.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/23/2008, -5/+1I just reviewed your profile. Anonymous. Looks like you need some anti psychotic drugs. Ever hear of Klonopin? It may help calm the voices....
      • iainc, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1It's probably 'nooo' again. He got banned, like three times.
  • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -12/+2"Among angry black nationalists and radical Islamics Obama has finally regained his lead!"

    Among the rest of Americans he's just that sketchy negro who thought he was going to be president.
    • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -2/+4Haha, RRJackson has to deal with the fact that no one that wasn't already a white racist, like Obama, and the ever dwindling crop of suggestible 15 year old girls (or boys), for him to play Chicken Hawk with, is getting smaller and smaller every day. The only people who still use the word Negro, are White Racists who want to be PC in public, and Really Really old people. Get off of Front St, and come clean, you're a White Nationalist, you are terrified that your little "movement" (snicker) is in danger, and you'll continue to post any and everything you can to inflame racial tension, like your hero Farthammer.

      People will take you a lot more seriously if you're honest with your hatred. I know I would.
      • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -3/+2Anyone who's noticed that Obama is a racist must be a racist!

        Run along now. You probably need to go cash that Welfare check...
        • harmonik, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3Apparently you would think it would be a better decision of Obama to disown his pastor in favor of popular opinion? What is your problem? This man is genuine, something the other candidates are not. I guess you would take public image over a man's words though, right?

          Stop with the generalizations, though.
          This is America, not White Protestant 4EVAR Land. Obama recognizes the problems that we have and are continuing to find with racial inequality. He realizes that America was supposed to be every American's land, not just some dynasty of old greedy gray-haired vampires finding weaknesses in law for their favor. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. WE WANT CHANGE. Things need to change. Unfortunately, there are still idiots around like you who are too busy living in the past to even think about moving forward. NEWSFLASH, GRAMPS: This is my generation. The youth of America are slowly becoming more and more politically organized and informed, simply because, well.. the internet amongst other things. But the fact of the matter is, this generation's general ideological stance is only the result of what we've deducted about what our parents (you) ***** up and taught us to overcome. So, if it doesn't happen now, give it another twenty years. Just look through an American history book a bit. You'll see that generally, the population tends to conform to new ideas the longer they're around. You just need to get your head around the fact that your concept of the way this country should work is not the same as what our forefathers intended.

          You make the statue of liberty cry.
          • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1I think he should have disowned his pastor 20 years ago. I don't give a ***** what he does now. He's already shown us what he believes in and it runs 180 degrees counter to my own belief system.
          • harmonik, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2You are basing this one instance on the principle that everyone who attends a church has to agree with what the pastor is saying. From first-hand experience, I know that not everyone agrees with what a pastor preaches about. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama has a relationship with this man, one that will exist regardless of what he spoke about or believes personally. To disown a longtime friend for HIS PERSONAL OPINION is wrong. To disown a longtime friend because MSM magnified his array of opinions is wrong. He made it public that he doesn't agree with Wright's speaking, so why can't you accept it?

            Use your ***** brain. Do you really think Obama is going to (or even has the power to) go into office separating the race in this country? Or put whites at a disadvantage to anyone else? I am a half-half mix of European (probably like you) and Native American. I am voting for Obama. Why? I can see through the media's *****. It's funny that you're 43 and you're still falling for whatever MSM throws at ya. Well, you might not be falling for it, but you are clearly advocating it because I think that deep deep down, you are racist yourself. Anything to keep the black-man down, right? :)
          • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Funny, but I don't have any long-time friends who make a career out of advancing racism. Maybe I'm just too choosy.
      • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2I have a netter education than you do White Nationalist. Furthermore, since you decided to bring it, WHITE WOMEN constitute the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients. Let me put things in perspective for you:

        Me: Working on my second two year degree, and after my 2nd quarter, I have 55 credits, putting me on course to compete a two year degree in 14 months.

        Get a grip moron, instead of admitting what you are, you make generalizations, indicating you are a racist, and that you are only interested in stopping a Black man from being President. Here you sit, making racist "observations" against me, only after feigning outrage at being labeled a racist. I wonderhow many of your family members, collect SSI, and other Government subsidy programs. I wonder how much "free" money you have collected.

        Now that the truth about you has finally been aired, do you subscribe to Eugenics, do you refute your own arguments based on Rev. Wrights often cherry picked comments? Will you admit you spend as much time on Stormfront.org and VVN.org spewing filth, that for whatever reason you're to afriad to man up and spew here?

        The fact is, you are a member of a "movement" that has spewed more hate, in it's existence than TCC has. You can argue that point, but like Eugenics, the argument has no basis in reality. You are a part of a movement that actively promotes the extinction of all non whites, yet you expect anyone with a rational mind to buy into your, "It's them! They're the racists!" nonsense!

        Did you know? White women are in fact, the leading recipient of Welfare funds in America. Make sure your daughter cashes hers on time. I for one PAY taxes, so those less fortunate, can get on their feet.

        Oh. One more thing. Don't forget to kiss your mom for me, when you ask for permission to leave the house today. Chump.
        • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1You have a "netter" education than I do? Heh...what colleges did you attend? What was your major?
          • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Wow. Two misspellings, call the media. My first degree is in Web Design, and my current studies are of Computer Network Technology. The first from Art Institute of Seattle, and the Second from Bellingham Technical College, both in WA State
          • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Well, I'll raise your technical colleges with a Bachelor of Arts in Cinema with an emphasis in Production from San Francisco State. Heh...but it doesn't much matter. All art degrees are kind of fringe *****. Just like web design degrees. ;-)

            I learned a lot more working than I ever learned in college, though college obviously informs the way you make decisions in your work. I've spent most of my life behind a camera, whether it was working for a newspaper or a television station. Spent some of my childhood in front of a camera in the early 70's. None of it makes my opinions any more valid. Just like none of your resume makes your opinions any more valid.

            Assuming that your political opposition are inferior to you is the biggest mistake we make in the American political process. Left-wing fanatics assume that all righties are retarded and right-wingers assume all lefties are commies. By constantly misunderestimating each other (heh...) we continue a pretty nasty cycle.

            None of which changes the fact that Obama is a racist who doesn't need to be running the country. And even if he wasn't, his policies are horrible.
          • hippieslaugh, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2"Girl with an English degree" would like to point out that those "misspellings" look an awful lot like typos.
        • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -2/+2BTW, just FWIW, that old chestnut about how more white people receive SSI than black people is fun to pull out at parties, but it isn't ever calculated per capita. About 60% of welfare recipients are white and about 30% are black, but the population of the United States is only about 12% black. So 12% of the population is receiving 30% of the welfare checks.
      • Frosty122, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Look I love obama, I support and volunteer for his campaign regularly, but if you don't like him it doesn't make you a racist. However RRjackson, just because your vocabulary is really small, doesn't mean you can use the word "Negro", at least in this context.
    • Deanblackoak, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Even on Digg, racism rears it's ugly head.
  • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -11/+2The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, March 21, 2008; Page A17

    The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide
    your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be
    considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama,
    in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual
    adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

    An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is:
    which"controversial" remarks?

    Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as
    a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America
    was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" --
    because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he
    missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge
    that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl
    Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black
    people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

    Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next
    question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of
    condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in
    the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

    But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that
    church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor
    who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church
    proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as
    a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted,
    brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

    His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b)
    white guilt.

    (a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other
    "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative
    action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black
    men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has
    uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout
    them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

    "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What
    exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the
    fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry
    Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is
    revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish
    state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

    Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference
    between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time
    and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

    (b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages
    in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the
    history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the
    history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do
    precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of
    white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah
    Wright, of course.

    This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate
    speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson
    politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard
    Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon:
    It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual
    pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

    But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future
    transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor.
    Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness
    of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is
    a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic
    divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral
    satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies
    were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants
    who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young
    people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run
    by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the
    racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

    letters@charleskrauthammer.com
    • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3RRJackson.. you're quoting FAUX race baiting shill Krauthammer... c'mon...
    • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3The only people who take Farthammer seriously are Neo Cons and Racists like you. Oh wait, I guess they are the same thing...


      Just sayin'
      • RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Yeah, 'cause the Washington Post is such a fringe publication...if only there was an article in some more mainstream publication like Islam Today or The Socialist Worker's Daily.
    • iainc, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Oh, it's RR "copy pasta" Jackson again. Dugg down; usual drill.
  • meese, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3Once this story catches on, Hillary will keep dropping:

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_in_Tuzla ...
    • xadious, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Good video, although the Digg link probably could have used a catchier title. Hopefully more people see the vid though, especially the media.
  • easy4lif, on 03/23/2008, -2/+4obama and clinton have NO chance of winning at this point, they've both divided the dem party down the line and now people are starting to say they won't vote for the winning dem if their candidate isn't the winner. better put:

    would diggers that are Obama fans be willing to vote for Clinton come November?
    would diggers that are Clinton fans be willing to vote for Obama come this fall?

    I'm willing to bet on both counts the answer is HELL NO! Congrats on ***** yourselves over.

    Makes me glad I'm independent!
    • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Although I can say equivocally that I would not crossover to the Clinton Camp, there are Obamaites that would, and vice-a-versa.
    • xadious, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2err, yes they will. Once this contest gets done and dusted, McCain will get exposed as someone who just wants to continue the Bush policies. He shouldn't be that tough to beat, especially with some of the things he's said that are on video, even long time republicans are disenchanted with the GOP. Don't let this primary contest fool you into thinking people will just get in a hump and refuse to support the winning dem candidate.

      Although, imo, McCain would stand a better chance at winning against Hillary as opposed to Obama. Hillary is just a horrible candidate.
  • JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5I have a question for the Clintonites:

    Did she or, did she not tell a lie regarding her trip under sniper fire to Bosnia? (Here's a hint..there's VIDEO proof that she did)

    Let us all be entertained by the incoming spin machine.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2I have a question for the Obamaites:

      Did he or did he not lie when he said that his church was not controversial?

      Let us all be entertained by the incoming spin machine.

      (see how EASY it is)
      • JavanSClark, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1no, he didn't lie and say his church wasn't controversial, as a matter of fact he fully admits controversial things are said in his church.

        (you're right that was EASY)
  • ScienceDoc, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Don't forget, Gallup is owned by neocons. It has been shown over and over that their polls are not unbiased.
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Funny, I don't recall seeing on digg when Clinton jumped ahead. Must have missed when that story hit the front page.
  • Scheissen, on 03/23/2008, -5/+3More obamaspam.
    • iainc, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4Digg filters. Oh and you, Scheitsen, *love* Obama spam. It gives your life meaning and you something to do in your parents' basement.
  • amightywind, on 03/23/2008, -5/+24000 over 5 years! Consider that the average number of traffic fatalities in the US is 40000 annually! These young folks are safer in the military at war! On the Iraq war the liberal democrats are like the Princess and the Pea. First they complained about WMD's, then the army found them. Then we were too mean to war prisoners. Now they have it so well they don't want to go back to the hell holes they call home. Then their weren't enough troops to control the violence. So we created the surge. They they criticized General Petraeus for lying about progress, until even the NY Times acknowledged the improvement. Then they squealed about the lack political progress, until the recent political reconciliation. Now we are about to hit a round low number in casualties, low without precedent in the history of warfare for the scale of the victory, but it it too much for the liberals. My Republican friends, just ignore them.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3"First they complained about WMD's, then the army found them."

      No WMDs were found, that's right wing myth.


      "Then they squealed about the lack political progress, until the recent political reconciliation."

      Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      When Republicans don't like the facts, they just make ***** up...
    • Deanblackoak, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Once again: You are an idiot.
  • dyltronic, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5exhale.

    now let's reclaim the lead over mccain.
  • balixtron, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0Barack is great !
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.