THERE IS NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA EXCEPT THE MEDIAS HELP AT HIDING HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WAR AND BUSH. Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

Hey guy, I don't find these hit pieces compelling Why not make it pages and pages??

That said, I think the polling reflects what is happening across the country and the strength of Obama among Oregon Dems and among Indies and Rs.

Are you working for the clinton campaign? Obama is the best chance democrats have to win this election. Clinton will not inspire people to get out and vote. The only thing clinton has is name recogniton. Her husband is obviously a great asset. Obama has more legislative experience than clinton. His campaghn is funded by ordinary people while clinton has taken more money from the insurance and drug companies than all candidates on either side. Who will serve the american people better? someone whose experince is rooted in the lives of real people or someone who has defended, protected and has been currupted by a broken system. Clinton claims to have lent her campaign $5million but is unwilling to declare her her taxes untill she has sucured the the nomination. She claims she had a hand during her husbands presidency but they will not release information from the national archives untill 2012 when would've already served one term if she becomes president. I am an independent. I voted twice for Bill Clinton and i have great respect for all his accomplishments. But he's not running in this race, his wife is. The clintons just want to make history, they have shown they will do what ever it takes to win even at the expence of the democratic party. They have not even been able to manage their campaign... Hillary Clinton? Gimme a break. If she wins this thing I will vote for John McCain or Ralph Nader if he decides to run. If you wanna win in November, Turn the page.

Well, not everyone is an Obama supporter so please expect that strong supporters of Hillary Clinton are going to respond and respond with facts. Obama's legislative experience is less than Hillary in the Senate and limited to the state of IL. Hillary was in the White House with Bill Clinton for 8 years and ran a huge campaign changing the healthcare system in this country in 1994. She lost, but I believe it was a huge learning experience for her. Obama is young and inexperienced. Lets accept that fact. Hillary is a stronger candidate.

I have a strong opinion about this

The facts: Bush-Clinton, Clinton- Bush, Bush- Clinton? NOT!!

I think that's the facts these poll numbers represent. They represent a yearning for liberation from the Bush/Clinton dynastic tyranny. Twenty years is more than enough of this!

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law,(20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you. 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.

<hr/>

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included: the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act,(became law), The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, The 2007 Government Ethics Bill,(became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill,(In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits. I challenge Clinton supporters to name a single legislative accomplishment that demonstrates her superior experience."

Well, not everyone is an Obama supporter so please expect that strong supporters of Hillary Clinton are going to respond and respond with facts. Obama's legislative experience is less than Hillary in the Senate and limited to the state of IL. Hillary was in the White House with Bill Clinton for 8 years and ran a huge campaign changing the healthcare system in this country in 1994. She lost, but I believe it was a huge learning experience for her. Obama is young and inexperienced. Lets accept that fact. Hillary is a stronger candidate.

Um, Hillary has TWO more years of legislative experience. And when I hear people include 1992-2000 in Hillary's record of experience, I think:

Would the same thing apply to every first lady? Can we apply this logic to Barbara or Laura?

My wife's an RN. Does that mean that I have the experience necessary to be one also??

Good Point RuMo, I second that.

OBAMA 08

With another flip-flop by McCain - this time on torture - it is difficult to see how the wheels won't eventually come off his Straight Talk Express. The only hope he has is for Hillary to get the nomination.

Foreign Policy in Focus has an interesting article on Obama and Clinton with reference to foreign policy. Well worth considering.

Obama 08 Indeed! On to McCain. He can't even get his own party's support. This should be fun.

Obama is the only viable alternative to another 4 years of GOP rule.

Consortium News has an interesting article that suggests another reason why we don't want another Clinton in the White House. Scroll down to the section "Missed Opportunity" and

"(Bill) Clinton’s gross miscalculation kept the American people in their extended childhood state, woefully uninformed about what their own government had done over the previous half century.

"Also, by failing to assist investigators looking into abuses by his immediate predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – from secret dealing with Iran and Iraq to protection of drug traffickers associated with wars in Nicaragua and Afghanistan – President Clinton left open the back door of the White House for the eventual restoration of the Bush Dynasty and the catastrophe that has followed.

"While it would be unfair to fault Hillary Clinton for the mistakes of her husband, the only precise information the public has about what she would do on Day One is her husband’s unchallenged statement that her first act in office would be to send him and George H.W. Bush on an international fence-mending tour. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush.”]

"That would suggest that she intends to follow a similar course as her husband did in forgiving the Bushes their sins in exchange for some faux “bipartisanship.” Pro-Hillary Democrats who are now bashing Obama for his so-called “Kumbayah” reconciliation might ask what campfire song the Clintons and the Bushes would be singing."

There's no way that Senator Clinton has only co-sponsored 20 bills in six years. And there's no way that Senator Obama was the principal author of 890 bills.

I think the answer is in the verbage.

Senator Clinton...has managed to author and pass into law,(20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

AND

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Perhaps the keywords are "pass into law". Unfortunately, Tracy doesn't offer the same list for Obama that she does for Clinton. Certainly that's not truthful reporting! (Maybe Tracy's trying to fit in??) This won't change my vote; Obama all the way.

(Bill) Clinton’s gross miscalculation kept the American people in their extended childhood state, woefully uninformed about what their own government had done over the previous half century.

As time goes by it appears that more and more people who might have once been impressed by Bill Clinton are beginning to see him as another naked emperor and that his presidency was probably over-rated, which was very easy to do when compared with Dubya's. We will be much better off if he has nothing more to do with the White House. Hillary might be better than John McCain, but that doesn't say much. It's like comparing Slick Willy with Dubya.

Go figure, Sen. Obama has better favorable/unfavorable numbers than Sen. Clinton in a state Obama has visited only twice in his life. Today's Oregonian has a story about an academic analysis that provides at least a partial explanation: MSM coverage that has closely approximated the worship/vitriol of the blogosphere - fawning coverage of Obama and, at times, misogynistic coverage of Clinton.

I, too, am pretty excited by the possibility Obama brings, but I'm not foolish enough to think that I know the man just because of the coverage. I prefer Clinton because she is the best qualified for the job and because she is a lifelong progressive, and I have decided not to be swayed by press coverage. The press corps also decided in 2000 that they liked Bush better than Gore. I'm not suggesting for a second that Obama=Bush, but I am suggesting that it gets very difficult to separate relentless press coverage involving a shared MSM narrative from voters' perceptions of the candidates. Go ask Francesconi about that one.

Is this fair? Not in my opinion, but life ain't fair and politics tends to be less fair than the rest of life (see 2000, again). It will be really interesting to see if Clinton, in the face of now-enormous odds against her, can change the press narative, overcome a very significant financial disadvantage, and win some big states. If she can, she can certainly take whatever McCain and the RNC throw at her. If not, we'll all be working like crazy for Obama. I wouldn't bet against her.

Finally, except for the partisans on both sides (you know who you are), I would argue there's no reason for Oregon Democrats to make up their minds at this moment. Let's see if the lady can handle the extraordinary adversity she now faces.

When Hillary finds her way on the war she'll make a good senator for the state of New York.

Aren't the comments here pretty much a departure from the original posting, which read....

A poll of likely Oregon general election voters conducted on February 13 shows Senator Obama leading Senator McCain 49% to 40% and Senator McCain leading Senator Clinton 45% to 42%.

Obama is viewed favorably by 66% of likely Oregon voters and unfavorably by 31%.

McCain is viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 42%.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.

Does this influence who you will support in the May primary election?

This is not asking for your opinion of the candidates, or a list of bills they have introduced, or their voting records. Instead, it asks a completely different question: will your primary vote depend upon the particular opinion poll being cited? And on that topic, one has to wonder whether the cited "favorability" poll is any more reliable than some of the radically off-the-mark polls conducted prior to various primaries to date.

As for my own choice, I can see merits to both Obama and Clinton, and so can nearly every other Democrat with whom I have talked, but in the end I have to make a choice, and I've made it...but not by obsessively checking out "favorability" polls and other tools promoted by those who would like to see herd behavior by voters.

This is an interesting post. The original post was done sometime on 2/17. At 7:07 AM the first comment appears in response to poll numbers, and it is a hit job against Obama. At 7:08 AM the second comment appears, and it is also a hit job against Obama.

Someone was up early on a Sunday morning! Or, perhaps they were not in this time zone.

From a process point of view it is very interesting that the post is about poll numbers, and the response is an attack on one candidates credentials.

Frankly, I am disgusted by this. If the supporters of one candidate think that the best response to poor poll numbers is to attack the other candidate in the same party, then they care nothing for the Party, or for that matter for the Country.

We need a strong candidate to face the Republicans come November. For one Democrat, or their supporters, to attack another Democrat because that candidate is in fact stronger against the Republican - is suicidal.

And to have the attacks come in what appears to be a 90 second time span shows me this is organized, planned, and deliberate.

Ah polls, they give me such headache... so I have decided to add my own poll on my blog site. Lets just settle this once for all. Please vote NOW. Two days left for it.. I have all 3 of them on there, Hillary, Obama, and McCain. Your choice! Click on the link below and vote. Right now Obama leading Hillary 3 to 2 on 5 votes. I will post results on this blog once the poll closes... or you can simply visit and keep checking!

Vote your choice!

Go Figure sez:

Today's Oregonian has a story about an academic analysis that provides at least a partial explanation: MSM coverage that has closely approximated the worship/vitriol of the blogosphere - fawning coverage of Obama and, at times, misogynistic coverage of Clinton.

and further sez:

I have decided not to be swayed by press coverage...it gets very difficult to separate relentless press coverage involving a shared MSM narrative from voters' perceptions of the candidates.

The "analytical" character of the study mentioned in that Oregonian article is up for debate. I rather read it as yet another bit of anecdote-collecting being passed off as analysis.

Also, the same section of the Oregonian featured yet ONE MORE story raising the chilling question of whether Obama supporters as just cult followers. Talk about screwball pseudo-analysis and repetition of silly stuff from the punditocracy. If you want self-referential pseudo-analysis, look no further than the syndicated columnists. Of late, they've taken to quoting each other about the "Obama cult" and "drinking the Kool-Aid". Expect this sort of insulting nonsense--and I mean insulting to the voters as well as to Obama--up until election day in November if Obama is nominated.

My opinion: journalists covering politics, and pundits, tend to love wonks. Hillary Clinton is a wonk's wonk. Barack Obama is not. The political chattering class knows not what to make of Obama's popularity, so they've come up with this "cult" nonsense.

I prefer Clinton because she is the best qualified for the job and because she is a lifelong progressive,...

Thanks for letting us know Hillary is a lifelong progressive. I never could figure out why she was a Goldwater girl and was invited to be on Wal-Mart's board. Now I know. All that talk about individualism and how to make more profits off low-paid labor. The only thing I can't understand is why all of my progressive friends disagreed with Hillary signing Bush's blank check to wage war on Iraq and continued funding of it. Any ideas?

I would argue there's no reason for Oregon Democrats to make up their minds at this moment.

Why not? Given all the information that has been available for months, if people feel they have convincing evidence why not come to a decision now? After all, the sooner they decide on a candidate the sooner they can begin to work on defeating McCain.

I have to say, it's been pretty hard to be a Clinton supporter in this campaign - especially a Clinton supporter from Oregon, in part because I'm a daily reader of blueoregon and see little to no support for Clinton. The reaction I get from friends is pretty funny too, most want to know what's wrong with me. One told me the other night that Hillary Clinton is a "bitch." I still haven't been able to formulate how exactly all of this has made me feel but it's certainly left me with sick feeling in my gut. I don't dislike Obama at all and will be happy when he's elected, which he probably will be. Can we lay off the "you suck 'cause you're not on my team" crap just a little? Clinton is the first viable female candidate ever to run for president, you can't really fault someone for being excited about that. I honestly don't see how either candidate can lose to McCain at this point - he won't have any excited fundementalists for gotv like bush did, he's pretty much screwed. Either D candidate will have have loads of gotv and that's what will make the difference.

I agree with you Katy. I get the same reaction from friends who are 10 years younger than me. But many of my generation and lets say I was part of the young wave when Bill Clinton was elected support Hillary. It is an interesting change, but I have learnt from the last 20 years of political waves and changes in this country, that change alone is not the reason to vote for the "fresh off the boat". Oratory skills aside, I think Obama could a few things from Hillary by being her VP. In 8 years Obama would be the best choice. But there are other new waves coming. I wrote about Bobby Jindal in my blog. He is the next Obama, but he is playing smart. He decided to run for governor of Louisana first.

Peace

Vote your choice here!

Its about judgment. You saw it on the Iraq war, you see it in the way they are running their campaigns.

Obama has shown wisdom, foresight, and sound judgment that would keep us out of foolish wars in the future. His campaign has been top notch. His campaign has been about hope, empowering people, and inspiring us to a better future.

Hillary has shown that she could very well make the same stupid hawkish blunders that Bush has. Why reward that? I have two young boys, no way I would vote to put her in as our CIC.

And her campaign? Embarrasing and downright dishonest. That shows me that a Hillary Administration would be scandal prone. I'm not going there. People are smart enough to figure that out. A Hillary nomination would put McCain in the White House and our troops in Iraq for up to 100 years. Sitting ducks to get provoked into a wider conflict.

I'm voting Obama.

Obama has shown wisdom, foresight, and sound judgment that would keep us out of foolish wars in the future. His campaign has been top notch. His campaign has been about hope, empowering people, and inspiring us to a better future.

Hillary has shown that she could very well make the same stupid hawkish blunders that Bush has. Why reward that? I have two young boys, no way I would vote to put her in as our CIC.

On Friday, Bill Moyers Journal hosted Susan Jacoby to discuss her book "The Age of Unreason" during which she made an important point. We don't need a commander-in-chief but an educator-in-chief along the lines of Lincoln and FDR. Obama has a much better chance of filling that role than Hillary.

As for the experience issue, neither can go it alone. Both will need advisors. Obama has the much better team. See my link above to an article on the Foreign Policy in Focus web site. And, of course, Hillary will have Slick Willy at her side when he isn't elsewhere looking out for Number One.

I have to disagree - I think either candidate will beat McCain because Democrats will work harder this time around than the Rs will because they aren't passionate about their candidate.

I also think the right has known for years Clinton was planning to run for President and so have set her up for failure, and my fellow liberals have sadly bought into it. I'm proud to see she's proven she's up for a fight. I'm also so happy to have had two recent conversations; one with my Grandmother who was beside herself she had the opportunity to vote for woman for President before she died, something she never thought she would be able to do - and the other with my 12 year old niece who actually told me she knew a "girl" could technically be President but didn't really think a "girl could really ever President until now." Sigh.

The Big Media doesn't seem to be revealing yet as much about the role of the Obama campaign's national finance chair, Penny Pritzker, in the 2001 Superior Bank S&L collapse as they did about the role of the Clintons' former business partner in an Arkansas S&L collapse during the 1992 presidential campaign. So that might be one reason why the presidential polls seem to still be moving in Obama's direction. See the Nov. 8, 2002 article that appeared in In These Times, titled "Breaking The Bank," for more info about the failure of the Superior Bank (which cost U.S. taxpayers 440 million, due to the bank's financially reckless policy of engaging in subprime mortgage lending and predatory lending)on whose board the Obama campaign's national finance chair sat, on the following link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/671/

Also,the law firm of the Obama campaign's lawyer, Robert Bauer, represented the special corporate interests of the Oregon Forrest Industries Council in early 2002 when "a coalition of environmental conservation groups led by the Pacific River Council filed a lawsuit against the Oregon State Forester," according to the Perkins Cole law firm's website at http://www.perkinscole.com In addition, the law firm of the Obama campaign's lawyer also represented the special corporate interests of Starbucks and a dozen other retailers in 2003 "in a class action for alleged false advertising and consumer fraud," according to the Perkins Cole law firm website.

Obama/Schweitzer 08

Interesting information on the Obama/Pritzker link. Although I have decided in favor of Obama, I never had any illusions about his being as virtuous in his associates as we might like; however, I'm still inclined to believe he will prove to have less negatives and more positives than Hillary. I also still believe my first choice would have been the right one - Dennis Kucinich. But, as some people say, "Politics is the art of compromise."

The issue of the supers will soon have an impact on fundraising for the congressional and senatorial races I predict, if it hasn't already. I have seen comments at a number of media sites to that effect.

When Schumer gets on the tube and says, "we" -the party, don't have to follow the will of the voter (not the party) in order to satisfy the Clinton ambitions, then turns around and sends me and millions of Dems a fundraising e-mail, am I motivated to dig deep and fork over the dollars to this oligarch and the DSCC so he can be a powerbroker?.. not on your life. And I'm not alone. If I give to a candidate, it's not going through the DSCC.

I got a call from the DNC, asking for money the other day. Then Howard Dean says that supers aren't accountable to the voters or to reflect voter choice. I said, forget about it, I didn't sign on to support the Oligarchic Party, I thought I was supporting the Democratic Party, but that seems to have been a lie. Perhaps if there is going to be any change in those attitudes that's how it needs to happen, withhold money from the organization, and from those office holders who have that kind of arrogance.

Although I have decided in favor of Obama, I never had any illusions about his being as virtuous in his associates as we might like; however, I'm still inclined to believe he will prove to have less negatives and more positives than Hillary.

Hillary negatives for openers: on International Law and on Iraq

Obama will make as many mistakes as Hillary will if not more, he is not incorrigible. He will have plenty of advisors who will misguide him. He has not been around the block, and lets face it his first term will be a learning experience. Lets not be so presumptous about his wisdom and leadership. We are setting lofty expectations for this man and expectations reduce joy.

Hillary has played in the world field, she is a name that the rest of the world recognizes and has respect for. She has world presence, Obama does not. She will play extremely well in the international arena and I think she will very decisive, no BS sort of President.

I have a very strong opinion about this!

Of course this is the critical consideration. Obama's and Clinton's policy points are very close, and after they do the give-and-take with Congress what either of them can accomplish will be practically the same. The only question is "Who can win?" Hillary can't; Obama can. That's the only issue at stake.

lin q. brings up the same point I thought when reading the "analysis" in the Oregonian today about the supposed Obama cult of personality--what a crock. It's a classic Rovian-style hit piece to spin your opponent's strength as a weakness. Obama has charisma, dash, and inspires millions so suddenly he's a cult leader??? Hmmm...whoever could be pushing THIS story? (First guess, NYT?)

"Jamais Vu" - I call bullsh#$t. It's a scare tactic and it doesn't sit well with me. Either one can win against McCain. He won't have the crazies out for gotv because the Rs are so divided against him. And they're embarrassed about Bush and just won't be motivated, especially not for McCain. It's okay just to say you like Obama, you don't need to try to win us over with the tired old "she can't beat McCain" theory. It just doesn't work. No matter which candidate wins the primary - and I predict it will be Obama and I'm excited about that - that candidate will beat McCain. It's a silly argument. Instead you should tell us why you like Obama. Dems are not going to lose this time around :)

...and I want to say Bill Bodden is totally correct when he says that politics is the art of compromise, it's a line I've used myself for years. If we each could elect the perfect President we would elect ourselves.

Uh, Katy...this whole stream is about a poll suggesting Clinton can't beat McCain. I don't mind being singled out, but you'd have a better argument if you could provide a compelling reason why these polls that show Obama-beats-McCain-beats-Clinton are wrong. I'd love to hear it.

To me, Clinton and Obama look completely tied when it comes to experience and policy goals(including what they'll actually DO about Iraq, as opposed to who did what in the past), so the question of who's most electable is the main thing I'm looking at. I don't think I'm alone. If you have a strong preference for Clinton, show me she can beat McCain, cause right now I just don't believe it.

See my opinion blog for the latest poll results. Though far from being scientific and ofcourse there is no way for me to track whether multiple votes were casted by the same visitor -- chances are slim though. Obama is leading Hillary by a wide margin. Most visitors are from Oregon. If you haven't voted, please visit and...Rock the Vote!

If it is a contest between Hillary and McCain it probably won't make much difference which one becomes president in the area of foreign policy. Both are pro-war and just as indifferent to international law and human rights as is George W. Bush. The only significant difference might be in their choice of justices for the Supreme Court. Hillary's might not be as bad as McCain's. On the other hand, McCain has become such a pathological flip-flopper he might revert to a former sensible mode and choose someone who is in the middle of the road.

Jamais Vu, It's actually supposed to be about polls only in Oregon. I'm suggesting Oregon is different than the rest of the country.

Clinton looking for votes at Lockeed Martin co.(picture in saturdays Oregonian) in Ohio about says it all in my book. What did she say to them? I can guess that it was along the lines that she will continue to keep the world in turmoil, and this phony war on terror rolling, so that they can continue to enjoy their employment. What a coincidence that the front page article was about using dead marines to sell MRAPs. I have something that is guaranteed to save the lives of marines. It is morality and comon sense and leadership that won't send kids on fools erands.

Besides Rasmussen, Survey USA has been doing match-up polling comparing McCain vs. Obama and Clinton.

Here's what they have today for Wisconsin:

McCain49% vs. Clinton 42%- McCain plus 7 McCain 40% vs. Obama 50%- Obama plus 10

a 17 pt. difference. Clinton turns a blue state red.

Latest poll for tomorrow in WI, from PPP, Obama by 13 pts.

Hillary has a fight on her hands. Thanks to the press, the pundits and polls everyone has decided Obama is going to win the "best in show". I am still rooting for her despite my non-scientific and mostly democratic voter poll results.

Peace

I have an opinion

A bit off the thread, but is anyone here familiar with these items floating around in the blogosphere?

(1) Obama allegedly plagiarizing a speech by Deval Patrick (governor of Massachusetts), prominent today (Monday) on a lot of sites such asthis one.

(2) On the weird, conspiratorial side of things, allegations of faked fainting spells by women at a series of events where Obama appeared, staged to give him the opportunity to look like a normal concerned human instead of a cynically calculating politician. Various versions of the video and accompanying spin on YouTube as well, and countless other places.

Just saw a report on Sen. Clinton's Akron speech in front of 300 Lockheed Martin employees. The only applause she recieved was when she told those folks she would get the troops out of Iraq. Tell me it isn't the war stupid.

Hillary has a fight on her hands. Thanks to the press, the pundits and polls everyone has decided Obama is going to win the "best in show". I am still rooting for her despite my non-scientific and mostly democratic voter poll results.

Why? Did you check the links about Hillary's negatives above? Do you have counter arguments to those articles? Or are you just voting for her because she is a woman? That would be as absurd as voting against her because she is a woman.

I suppose one should expect the Clinton camp to throw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama while their prospects continue to dim... "plagiarism, fainting spells... etc." In the meantime is HRC really making a case for herself while she tries to unsuccessfully trash the opponent? The "experience" thing isn't selling.

And the idea that there are a whole lot of states that "don't matter" isn't selling either. I'm assuming Oregon is one of those small states that "don't matter."

Using the grand Giuliani strategy she makes her last stand in Texas and Ohio.

Except... Texas is now a tie with two weeks to go and Obama has come from far behind and is now even. Just released CNN poll: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/

And WI is going to give even more momentum to Obama- Just in: Obama by double digits:

<hr/>

PPP Poll: Obama Expands Lead in Wisconsin A new Public Policy Polling survey in Wisconsin finds Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 53% to 40%.

Key findings: "Obama is leading with every meaningful constituency except senior citizens. Whites and women, weak points for him in some states, are not in Wisconsin. He leads 50-43 with both of those groups, and has his typical large leads among African Americans (76-21) and men (57-36)."

<hr/>

And the reports are coming in that the supers are not terribly delighted about being her ace in the hole at the convention.

t.a. barnhart said: "...because i won't forget 2000 and Nader's lies about Gore"

Gore ran as a corporatist, imperialist, saber-rattling hawk. His record on environmental issues during the Clinton Administration was despicable. Nader didn't have to lie. Stop worshiping false idols.

Why? Did you check the links about Hillary's negatives above? Do you have counter arguments to those articles? Or are you just voting for her because she is a woman? That would be as absurd as voting against her because she is a woman.

Bill, I am voting for her because she is a smart and strong individual who has stood her ground through a number of tumultous problems with grace and honor. SHe has the leadership skills and knowledge and ability to lead this country for the next 8 years better than the other two. She is a hard working "person" who has been around the block and not being swept away in a wave of change. She has the brains my friend, better brains than both Obama and McCain combined and much more seasoned and experience than Obama. Her bite is far much stronger than Obama's bark :) !!! And, for the record I am neither a woman or white. In my opinion this presidential election should have nothing to do with gender or race or we will have made the same mistake as 2001 when we elected GWB II.

I have a really strong opinion about this!

I am voting for her because she is a smart and strong individual who has stood her ground through a number of tumultous problems with grace and honor. SHe has the leadership skills and knowledge and ability to lead this country for the next 8 years better than the other two. She is a hard working "person" who has been around the block and not being swept away in a wave of change. She has the brains my friend, better brains than both Obama and McCain combined and much more seasoned and experience than Obama. Her bite is far much stronger than Obama's bark...

The qualities you ascribe to Hillary could also have been ascribed to Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, Margaret Thatcher, Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussein, Suharto and many others, but they all had their shortcomings in the moral and ethical spheres and left terrible legacies. Check the links above about Hillary's negatives on Iraq and international law and human rights and let me know how you figure she stacks up. I do agree with you that she has more brains than McCain.

Using the grand Giuliani strategy she makes her last stand in Texas and Ohio.

Except... Texas is now a tie with two weeks to go and Obama has come from far behind and is now even.

Well, a single poll is just that--a single poll. Interestingly, however, there is now spin coming from some Clinton supporters that Texas' rules for assigning Democratic delegates (which apparently give added weight to districts that have previously voted Democratic) will favor Obama owing to "black districts" having greater weight than "Latino districts". I don't know what to make of this, but again, I find myself thinking it sort of comes down to trying to shift the goal posts and rewrite the rules.

Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman and in many ways an attractive candidate, which makes me wonder why her campaign is resorting to this sort of silly spin instead of trying to make a more compelling case for why people should vote for her.

Bill, By bringing in names like Saddam Hussien, Hitler and Suharto you are comparing Hillary to people who have committed genocide. I think that is truly an unfair comparison. I am also not sure what specific kind of legacy Thatcher left but she and Reagan both left similar legacies. Are you suggesting that Hillary is corrupt and has committed crimes? That will be going too far. Click here to read a psychological profile I pulled up psychological profile on Obama. Maybe that will be enlightening you and other Obama supporters.

Peace.

By bringing in names like Saddam Hussien, Hitler and Suharto you are comparing Hillary to people who have committed genocide.

My point in bringing up the names I used was to demonstrate that intelligence and the ability to lead are not enough by themselves. There is a need for moral and ethical principles. Margaret Thatcher's legacy will very likely have something in common with Ronald Reagan's; that is, they encouraged an acceptance of greed in their national cultures. As for Hillary, I didn't say anything about her on this issue but asked you how you thought she stacked up after your read the links I suggested.

As for the psychological profile you recommended it is pathetic.

"I only recently found out that Obama's middle name was Hussain (sic)." So what? Hussein (note the spelling) in the Muslim world is probably as common as Smith, Jones, Johnson and Williams in nations with an Anglo-Saxon heritage.

"According to reports I have read, he has denied he his muslim, a religion from his father. I really oppose people who do that." He denied being a Muslim because he is a Christian. His father left Obama and his mother when Obama was two years old.

"I feel we should be proud of our heritage and what our parents represent." We should be proud of our heritage only if it is something to be proud of. Should people be proud of their heritage if their ancestors were slave owners, segregationists and members of the Ku Klux Klan? Should Baby Boomers in Germany be proud of their parents who were members of the Sturmschutz (SS) and the Sturmabteilung (SA) and their inglorious history in concentration camps?

If Clinton had done the speech thing as Obama did blueoregon and it's readers would have been all over it.

I'm sorry but it doesn't seem like anything the Clinton campaign had to "manufacture."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

Don't Plagiarize Me, Bro!!!

Bill B, I think you are stretching the argument too far by bringing Nazi's and Klu Klux Klan into the discussion. Neither Hillary, Obama or for the fact of matter myself or yourself probably have history of this nature. Obama has hidden his muslim background, including his middle name since 2004, since he got elected to the Senate. That is according to reports is a fact. Why was he hiding it? And right now there is intense discussion on Larry King Live on the plagiarism accusations. I hope folks can hear what David Frum is saying. For a man of words, it does not suit well to take words verbatim from others. I believe there is Youtube link in a previous comment. My issue with Obama remains. I think his inexperience is going to hurt the country and he will get into tough situations.

Peace.

Obama has hidden his muslim background, including his middle name since 2004, since he got elected to the Senate.

Okay, opinionated, these senators have been in the senate much longer than Obama - Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Dick Durbin, Tom Coburn, John Warner, Thad Cochran, Saxby Chambliss. Without checking their web sites, what are their middle names?

Consider this my last interchange with you. I've wasted more than enough time responding to you.

Hidden Muslim background?

Geez Louise. Islamophobia right here on Blue Oregon.

Obama's father was from Kenya. There's a Muslim minority in Kenya, presumably including his father. I haven't read Obama's memoir, but presumably this matter is mentioned there.

Geez Louise, Opinionated, just get out to work for Huckabee and be done with it already, then you won't have to try to rationale screwball comments about "hidden Muslim background" with purportedly progressive politics.

Hillary is a carpetbagger who is a second term junior senator from a state she didn't even live in. Were it not for her marriage to Bill, we wouldn't even be talking about her.

What is the big deal?

Are you less likely to vote for Hillary Diane Rodham, the former First Lady or John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) after knowing their middle names?

What about people who have middle names which are family names (like sons given Mom's maiden name)?

Sounds like propaganda to me.

Kurt Chapman, I think you just won the jerk of thread award.

"Hidden his Muslim background".. ho, ho,ho.. well I guess that says it all doesn't it!

Hey, Opinionated, the boogie man is going to get you! Actually Obama is really Osama.. and he's a jihadi Manchurian Candidate.. and he is going to take over America, and convert us all to radical Muslims. Oh, I'm sure Hillary is pleased to have you on her side.:-)

Bill R, Your humorous comment just broke the heated streak of comments. Thanks! Yes, Hillary should be pleased to find such a passionate supporter. I wonder if any of her staffers are reading this. We shall see what tomorrow holds. Good night!

Peace!

Actually Katy, I plagarized it from a woman caller on Preogressive Rasio (Ed Shultz) who is from Illinois and is an ardent Obama supporter.

Peace Out

Obama-mania, Hillary-mania, empty campaigns, plagiarism, polls, middle names, last names, all this ruckus and debate..my head is spinning. Time to relax and calm down before the next wave tonight!

Peace out!

More of the same:

Poll Tracker

*
  IA-Pres
  Feb 19 SurveyUSA
  McCain (R) 52%, Clinton (D) 41%
*
  IA-Pres
  Feb 19 SurveyUSA
  Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 41%

Thanks tj! Perhaps I can pay it forward before actually picking the trophy up! :-)

Obama and clinton will surely lose to Mccain Go Republicans!!!