I believe that's what Pres Bush calls a mandate.

there's a real damn surprise

What you forget that blogs with a color in their name do not count.

No, they just have a +/- 14 percent margin of error.

Compare to 12/27/06 - 01/21/07:

Edwards - 30% Obama - 23% Kucinich - 9% Clinton - 8% Richardson - 5% Clark - 5% Biden - 1% Vilsack - 1% Kerry - 1% Dodd - 0% Other - 7% Unsure - 9%

I guess we know where the Edwards people migrated. I was one of them.

I think that's 4% for Alfred E. Neuman. He's been a quadrennial favorite of many.

Well, it's not as if there are no websites where the relative votes for Obama and Clinton would be reversed. Try The Left Coaster, for example.

"Compare to 12/27/06 - 01/21/07:"

Good point. Whatever became of that Edwards fellow anyway?

Do you Obama Fans need a reminder that this is an election for president not the Grammy's?

After seven years of George W. Bush, we need a president with the strength, experience, and vision to make change a reality. I'm supporting Hillary for the White House because I know that her 35 years of experience means she can end the war in Iraq, make the economy work for the middle class, and achieve truly universal health care.

EUGENE, OR

MyDD.com is a ferocious Hillary site if you Hillary fans need a place to find comfort. The vile against Obama is pretty awful. I decided it was time to go when one female blogger said that HRC was personally going to kick my ass.:-) While I had doubts that my personal safety was in jeopardy, I did get the message and haven't returned. It used to be a pretty balanced and informative site. So far this site hasn't reached that point, no threats about getting one's physical person pummelled by the opposing candidate.

This poll and the noted previous preference for Edwards are mirrored in the netroots (progressive blogosphere) at large. The roots of this phenomenon probably go back to 2003 and the lead-up to the nomination. The netroots was energized and mobilized around the Howard Dean campaign and his challenge to the Dem. party machine, and its alliance with the DLC. Out of the experience and the failure of Howard Dean, Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos_ and Jerome Armstrong(MyDD) wrote a book called "Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics". They have seen the DLC and its proponents like the Clintons, Lieberman, etc. as undermining the progressive agenda.

Given that and the Clinton history of "triangulation" and the support for the Iraq war, it is not surprising that the blogosphere would go, initially for Edwards and then tilt towards Obama, although the populism of Edwards was probably a more natural ally. Surprisingly Jerome Armstrong has become a fanatical Hillary supporter and turned his site into a rabid anti-Obama camp. But for the most part the blogosphere is not friendly to HRC for the above reasons historically. The conduct of her campaign and her choice of Mark Penn as campaign strategist, and Terry McAuliffe as advisor, along with other top choices have confirmed suspicions about HRC and her values and priorities. The progressive netroots do not see the 1990s Clinton presidency as a golden era for progressive values or political success, quite the opposite. So that may account for this particular tilt.

I know that her 35 years of experience means she can end the war in Iraq, make the economy work for the middle class, and achieve truly universal health care.

Something's wrong with this website. The canned laugh track didn't kick on when I moved the pointer over that comment.

Yet another "its time to bash Hillary and uplift Obama" symposium. Josh Kardon, are you still running Hillary's campaign? Shall the 25% give up and move to Obama? Is anyone left to salvage her in Oregon or was that post a few days ago on BO an empty request for help?

After this week's Willamette Week article on Obama, I am bitterly disappointed by our choices.

He won his Illinois State Senator position by having each of his competitors disqualified.

He took credit for the work of many of his colleagues in the Illinois Senate.

I stopped reading after that.

What am I supposed to do? Hold my nose and vote for him? Vote for Hillary? She's such a scion of character and value.

I guess Plato was right. No-one who wants the job is capabile of doing it.

I believe that's what Pres Bush calls a mandate.

I believe you're wrong. 49-51 is what Pres. Bush calls a "mandate."

Yep, less than ideal candidates all the way around. Isn't that the norm rather than the exception? I still plan to cast my ballot Hillary's way. Never much cared for being on board with the "cool kids" and I think Obama's mighty wave of foam & froth has crested.

I agree with you Brian, this "cool kids" revolution will only last for so long and if Obama is elected. After the 90 day honeymoon period, shit will hit the ceiling and all this Obama revolutionary wave of 20 year olds will get a reality check of the real world politics in Washington. There will be dis-illusionment, depression, self-assestment, class projects that have to be completed and real jobs that have to had and the hard truths of life and hardship will get them in sync with reality. Life will go on till the next elections, the next scandal and controversy. Pretty soon they will convert from die hard liberals to progressive conservatives and vote Republican in the mid term. Have we seen this story before? I think so - so I will vote for Hillary, despite the fact that her Oregon campaign is yet to contact her die hard supporters for help!

Peace!

Waiting to hear from Hillary Campaign!

After this week's Willamette Week article on Obama, I am bitterly disappointed by our choices.

He won his Illinois State Senator position by having each of his competitors disqualified.

He took credit for the work of many of his colleagues in the Illinois Senate.

I don't believe Obama's primary- and general election opponents in his race for US Senate were "disqualified". Self-destructed would be a more apt description. And the point is what exactly? Was he supposed to award them a mulligan as in a friendly golf match, or give a 10% vote handicap, or something? Ask for the election to be delayed until some tougher opponents could be drummed up?

As for the claim about taking credit for others' work in the state legislature, I have heard that claim as well from a few people, and quite the opposite from others.

Oh, good old Willamette Week: rumor and innuendo thinly disguised as investigative journalism.

Here are ten points that matter:

1. Obama has demonstrated his superior judgment on international issues. His views on the Iraq War and our relationship with Pakistan have turned out to be correct and his stated approach that he would sit down and talk with leaders of governments that we disagree with shows the kind of maturity and forward looking thinking that enabled former Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Reagan to make real progress in US relations with the former Soviet Union and China.

2. Obama's manner of communicating and his approach of reaching out to others will substantially reduce the toxicity of the dialog that now exists between the US government and the governments of a number of important countries throughout the world.

3. On the economy, Obama was the first candidate to propose tax rebates as a way to help deal with the deteriorating economic conditions in the US and the economic problems faced by Americans in this environment. This was subsequently proposed by the Bush administration and later approved by Congress. Ms Clinton's initial proposal was a government spending plan, which would have been far less effective due to the amount of time it would have taken to have any kind of effect. She added a tax rebate measure to her proposal only after it had already been proposed by Obama and by the Bush Administration.

4. Obama has demonstrated that he is the candidate more able to to work across party lines on issues such as health care and energy. His health care plan, which offers universal health care to those who want it, without a mandate, would be much more palatable to conservatives than the plan proposed by Ms Clinton, which mandates that everyone buy into it, and consequently Obama's plan is much more likely to be implemented. His more moderate views on energy issues are further examples of this.

5. Obama would be more likely to pick an administration with uniters, not dividers. I would expect that an Obama administration would likely include conservative Democrats (e.g., Webb), Independents (e.g., Bloomberg) and possibly even moderate Republicans (e.g., Hagel).

6. Obama understands that this country can have national security without sacrificing important civil liberties. He is the only Senator running for President who voted against giving amnesty to telecom companies in connection with the warrantless wiretapping programs of the Bush Administration.

7. Obama has shown transparency. He has disclosed his tax returns and all the earmarks he has requested in the Senate. To date, Ms Clinton has disclosed neither.

8. Obama's calm demeanor is an important asset. He has remained calm and steadfast throughout this campaign, despite the recent barrage of unfair attacks he has received, an example of how he would lead as President.

9. Obama is a very quick study. For example, in a relatively short amount of time he has been able to convert the debate format from one that was not well suited to his style to one in which he has begun to consistently out-point Ms Clinton.

10. It's easy for a Presidential candidate to state that they care about this country and the plight of the poor. But Obama has also walked the walk. After serving as President of the Harvard Law Review, it would have been easy for Obama to accept a six figure income at any major corporate law firm. He instead chose to work in a $12,000 a year job as a community organizer, helping to rebuild communities in Chicago.

I would think differently about the article if it had been written by some local Portland Yokel, but it was written by Todd Spivak, an IRE-award-winning journalist from the Houston Press. It's a reprint that also appeared in the Houston Press and the Dallas Observer.

From the article, this saddens me:

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets—to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district—to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

“A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career,” wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. “The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.”

This act has called into question everything I've heard about him.

I'm ashamed that I assumed that Barack's feel-good hopeful speeches actually reflected his intentions and character.

I don't want opinions like "He's going to be more able to work across party lines". I want facts.

If we look at his actual record, it doesn't have enough experience in it to make him a good president. Granted, it's better than what Bush had, and not that much less than Hillary, but still, it's nothing like what Edward's had going for him.

I feel like I've woken up from a spell, and I think compared to most people, I've woken a little earlier than everyone else.

And honestly, the tax rebate idea is dumb. Our consumer-based economy needs a correction, and giving everyone money to spend in the form of a tax rebate is just postponing the inevitable.

I don't want opinions like "He's going to be more able to work across party lines". I want facts.

My post is full of facts. My comments regarding Obama's judgment on international issues are facts. His position on economic issues, health care and telecom amnesty are facts. His policies regarding disclosure of tax returns and earmarks are facts. His work as a community organizer are facts.

If we look at his actual record, it doesn't have enough experience in it to make him a good president. Granted, it's better than what Bush had, and not that much less than Hillary, but still, it's nothing like what Edward's had going for him.

In regard to experience, Obama has more years of experience as an elected representative to state or national Senate posts than both Ms Clinton and Mr Edwards. Obama served for 8 years as an Illinois State Senator and will have served for an additional 4 years as US Senator by the time of this election in November. Ms Clinton will have served as US Senator for 8 years by the time of this election, with no experience as an elected representative prior to that. John Edwards served as US Senator for 6 years by the time of the 2004 election, with no experience as an elected representative prior to that.

Having said that, I will reiterate that it is judgment that ultimately matters. Obama has shown that he has the judgment to be President.

And honestly, the tax rebate idea is dumb. Our consumer-based economy needs a correction, and giving everyone money to spend in the form of a tax rebate is just postponing the inevitable.

There is not one reputable economist that would agree with you that the tax rebate proposal is not an important short-term benefit to the economy and to people struggling to pay their bills. Providing short-term tax rebates to people struggling to pay their bills is not prolonging the problem; it is enabling those people to effectively reduce their debt, while at the same time providing a short-term stimulus to the economy by putting some of that money back into the system. Because it is a short-term stimulus, it has no real impact on prolonging the inevitable. In contrast, the Federal Reserve policies of cutting interest rates and bailing out hedge funds and Wall Street investment banks are not short-term stimulus. They have medium to long-term ramifications, and as long as those policies continue, the correction you seek, and that I agree is necessary, will not happen. If you really want to slow down the consumer spending driven excesses in the US economy, the key is to change tax policy. At some point the government will need to modify the tax code to reduce taxes on savings and investment, while at the same time imposing taxes on consumption of non-necessities, especially luxury items.

After the 90 day honeymoon period, shit will hit the ceiling and all this Obama revolutionary wave of 20 year olds will get a reality check of the real world politics in Washington.

Hi there. 20-year old voter here.

My vote means just as much as yours. In fact, we changed the Constitution because it was generally agreed that my voice had just as much credibility as yours in the process of choosing a President.

If after 90 days I find out that I've been duped because of my ill-conceived, under-developed, oh-so-ignorant views on what makes a good president, how many days will it take you to not talk condescendingly about those who will soon embody the lifeblood of American politics? Or to respect that 20-year olds have the same legitimacy in voting as your wizened self?

Inquiring ignorant minds want to know.

Bridget -- Todd Spivak was runner up for a certificate award for an IRE story for a Houston paper. That doesn't really equate to a pulitzer you know. If you read his WW story you surely can't have missed his own axe to grind in there. That he is ambitious and keen to make his own name -- he tells you that himself. And he got to report on OBama before he was nationally known. Wow the crappy little job he despised -- may just turn out to be a stepping stone to fame and success after all.

I'm sure those other Illinois politicians did not like being jumped over by an upstart - a Harvard intellectual newcomer. Nothing surprising here is there? Really, how can any politician arrive at a national position without pissing off somebody? OK the earmarks - that doesn't say anything but business as usual-- but Obama says he wants to change the rules and his personal money -- well he has opened that up.

My own reaction was pretty much the opposite of yours -- OK well if this is the worst to say about Obama then it's not that bad. It seems a fair number of Obabama supporters are under a spell -- but you can still support Obama without turning him into a saint. Even Ghandi and MLK had their human failings They still were remarkable and did great things.

Thanks for the perspective. It's helpful.

After seven years of George Bush, we need a president with the strength, experience, and vision to make change a reality. I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that her 35 years of experience means she can end the war in Iraq, make the economy work for the middle class, and achieve truly universal health care.

Hillary is the only candidate with the strength and experience to bring about the change we need.

Eugenians for Hillary for President!

GO HILLARY!

9. Obama is a very quick study. For example, in a relatively short amount of time he has been able to convert the debate format from one that was not well suited to his style to one in which he has begun to consistently out-point Ms Clinton.

Uh, no and never happened. He stammers thru every debate and merely repeats HRC's answers.

10. It's easy for a Presidential candidate to state that they care about this country and the plight of the poor. But Obama has also walked the walk. After serving as President of the Harvard Law Review, it would have been easy for Obama to accept a six figure income at any major corporate law firm. He instead chose to work in a $12,000 a year job as a community organizer, helping to rebuild communities in Chicago.

As for helping the poor. Why don't you look into what he <u>never</u> did for the people of Cook County who froze in a winter without heat and no help from Obama at a time he should have stepped up to the plate for his constituents!

And here's a little gem on Obama's ethics or lack thereof from over a year ago before all this Hillary bashing began: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18845

Did some research in the last few days and would like to give you some names to google. If you can stomach reading both conservative and liberal articles, you might learn what these people have to do with our elections.

William Ayers, Ali Abunimah, Nadhmi Auchi, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga.

I'm not trying to convince you, only challenge you to educate yourself.