David Corn

We're turning another corner, soon, eventually.

Just a little more time, a few more troops.

Good Morning Vietnam!

Why wasn't the concept of "mission creep" addressed to Pretreaus?

Wait, I bet he would need about six more months to answer, nevermind.

McCain Erases Obama Lead


Apr 10, 1:39 PM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER


WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain has erased Sen. Barack Obama's 10-point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, leaving him essentially tied with both Democratic candidates in an Associated Press-Ipsos national poll released Thursday.

The survey showed the extended Democratic primary campaign creating divisions among supporters of Obama and rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and suggests a tight race for the presidency in November no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee.

McCain is benefiting from a bounce since he clinched the GOP nomination a month ago. The four-term Arizona senator has moved up in matchups with each of the Democratic candidates, particularly Obama.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.

Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain's 45 percent. Factoring in the poll's margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, Clinton and McCain are statistically tied.

The last month has been challenging for Obama. The Illinois senator suffered high-profile losses in Texas and Ohio that encouraged Clinton, who pushed on even harder against him. Obama's campaign also suffered a blow with scrutiny of incendiary sermons delivered by his longtime pastor. The candidate responded by delivering perhaps the biggest speech of his campaign to call for racial understanding.

Obama is also facing almost daily critiques from Clinton and McCain, questioning whether the freshman lawmaker has the experience to be a wartime leader.

Despite all the conflict surrounding Obama, the Democratic contest is unchanged from February with Obama at 46 percent and Clinton at 43 percent. But the heated primary is creating divisions among the electorate - many Clinton and Obama supporters say they would rather vote for McCain if their chosen Democrat doesn't win the nomination.

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women - from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

In the latest survey, Clinton holds a 48-45 percent lead over McCain while Obama and McCain are even at 45 percent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I am surprised that 45 out of every 100 American voters are that [edit].

Maybe the poll is biased?

Pollstrology.

Why are people so avid about polls this early in the game? In October, the pols may reflect something of consequence. Right now there is little to gain from them that will be substantive by the first Tuesday in November.

About this time in '68 Muskie was way ahead of Nixon.

Polls about a general election match up are currently hypothetical but the primary where HRC vs. BHO polls are more interesting alebit only as accurate as they can be proved when the voters go to the booth.

albeit?

Where is my spell-check?

Yesterday, speaking from the White House, the president boasted, “American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress” in Iraq. It got me thinking, haven’t we heard that phrase before in relation to Iraq?

* White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on October 27, 2003: “In the north and south [of Iraq], we have made significant progress.”

* President Bush on November 13, 2004: “Fighting together, our forces have made significant progress in the last several days.”

* President Bush on June 28, 2005: “In the past year, we have made significant progress.”

* Vice President Cheney on October 19, 2006: “[W]e’ve made significant progress.”

* President Bush on February 23, 2007: ” I think we have made significant progress in Iraq.”

Indeed, it’s a phrase the White House has used to describe events in Iraq several hundred times over the last five years. I can’t imagine why anyone would be skeptical about the claim now.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Spotted at lunch Wednesday at the pricey D.C. restaurant Il Mulino: Mark Penn, Burson-Marsteller chief and former chief strategist and major player in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

His luncheon companion? None other than Karen P. Hughes, longtime Bush aide, White House counselor and State Department public diplomacy czar. We're told mutual friends arranged this as a "get-to-know-you lunch" while she was in town for a State Department public diplomacy award.

But what would the two PR wizards have discussed? Obviously not politics. Maybe Hughes, who surely would have a number of potential Mideast clients -- despite having had some rocky days over there -- would come work for Penn's firm? Maybe a little chit-chat over their favorite PR strategies? NAFTA?

Wealthy Dem Swiftboaters are on the attack folks!

Brock, Soros, Begala, Dems plan $40M hit on McCain
yahoo news ^ | 4/10/08 | Ben Smith

"Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist....(who)last month quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA....

Wow! There goes Obamas big chance to turn red states blue~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama on small-town PA: Clinging religion, guns, xenophobia

Huffpo's Mayhill Fowler has more from Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
That's a pretty broad list of things to explain with job loss.

Obama closing in Pennsylvania

The Democratic race in Pennsylvania -- likely a must-win for Hillary Clinton and a chance for Barack Obama to land a knockout punch -- is tightening.

A new Zogby poll out today is the latest major survey this week to show Obama within single digits of Clinton, as his TV ad barrage and appearances in the state works on voters before the April 22 primary.

Clinton leads Obama 47 percent to 43 percent, just barely outside the margin of error, Zogby says. She is doing well in western Pennsylvania, around Pittsburgh, and in the central part of the state. Obama is doing well in eastern Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia.

As in other states, Clinton is getting more support from older voters. Zogby says the cut-off seems to be about age 35 -- those younger are likely to support Obama.

The survey was conducted Wednesday and Thursday and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

(boston.com)

(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Chait

The New York Times has a great article today about the battle between neoconservatives and realists to win John McCain's favor. The most interesting passage might be this:

"One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate."

That's quite an indictment, coming from his own supporters no less!

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Barack Obama with a 51% to 42% advantage over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination among Democratic voters nationwide.

This marks the fifth consecutive day Obama has held a statistically significant lead over Clinton, and the longest stretch of significant leads for him to date. Previously, he led Clinton for four consecutive days in late March. The last time Clinton had an advantage of any kind over Obama was in March 18-20 polling. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

The poll also shows Obama with his best showing versus Republican John McCain since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in early March. Forty-six percent of registered voters say they would vote for Obama if the presidential election were held today, while 43% would choose McCain. McCain held a slight edge in these presidential election trial heats through most of March into early April, but in the past seven days Obama has tied or slightly outpolled McCain.

Gallup poll has been consistently wrong since 2004~

Obama risks making bad name for himself

Chicago Sun Times ^ | April 11th, 2008 | STEVE HUNTLEY

The best indicator of Republican John McCain's surprisingly strong presidential prospects in what should be a slam-dunk Democratic year is not his solid general-election poll numbers but rather the increasingly shrill attacks from Democrats.

The latest was a grotesque slam from Barack Obama supporter Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. In a newspaper interview in his home state, Rockefeller let loose this stinker: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Never mind that laser-guided missiles hadn't been invented during the Vietnam war. Bombing is a part of warfare, and McCain was serving his country as have legions of other bomber airmen. Rockefeller smeared them all. One further point: McCain was a prisoner of war in Hanoi when U.S. planes bombed the city, on the orders of McCain's admiral father.

So wrong was this that Rockefeller not only quickly apologized, but his office also later made a point of saying that McCain had accepted his apology.

For his part, Obama said nothing, but his campaign issued a statement that he "does not agree" with Rockefeller's remarks.

It wasn't the first time Obama let his campaign do the talking when one of his supporters crossed the line. Last week, liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz, speaking at a political event before Obama, called McCain a "warmonger." It was another shameful slur on a war hero. Inconveniently for Schultz, the New York Times carried a story a few days ago that McCain's Marine Corps son had just served a tour of duty in Iraq.

The day after this ugly character assassination, Obama twice declined to repudiate Schultz's statement, according to the Los Angeles Times. His campaign finally had a spokesman say, "John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such."

Contrast that to McCain's handling of his own episode with a conservative talk show host shooting off his mouth. After learning that Bill Cunningham had, at a McCain rally, repeatedly referred to the Democratic candidate as "Barack Hussein Obama," McCain immediately stepped forward to condemn Cunningham's behavior. This took political courage because McCain already had problems with the right-wing talk show circuit, which considers him insufficiently conservative.

Obama has himself attacked McCain with a flagrant distortion, accusing him of wanting to bog America down in Iraq fighting for 100 years. The respected Annenberg Political Fact Check Web site said Obama had "twisted" McCain's words. Answering a question about how many years U.S. forces would be in Iraq, McCain said, "Make it a hundred. . . . We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Obama, who complains about "snippets" of anti-American talk misrepresenting the whole career of his spiritual mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has no problem quoting McCain out of context.

Be prepared for more of this. Wealthy Democrats plan to fund a $40 million, four-month attack barrage against McCain, reports Politico. It will be independent of whoever is the Democratic nominee, but is yet another sign of Democrats' worry about McCain.

The recent attacks could be written as standard political hardball in a hotly contested race. But, as McCain points out, Obama has promised a campaign of hope, free of the cynicism and divisive ugly politics of the past. True, good intentions tend to go by the wayside when you're battling for the most powerful job in the world. And the line between legitimate electioneering and reckless politics can be fuzzy. Still, all this does leave Obama looking a bit more like just another politician.

I urge all you libs to email Obama and urge him to stop the personal attacks on McCain and live up to his campaign of hope, free of the ugly politics of the past as he promised!

Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Clinton Holds Slight Edge Over Obama in PA

PA Democrats lean slightly against free trade; Just 7% of Dems feel nation is on the right track

UTICA, New York - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of New York leads party rival Barack Obama of Illinois by a narrow margin in the all-important Pennsylvania primary heading into the final stretch before Democrats there head to the polls April 22, a fresh Newsmax/Zogby telephone poll shows.

Clinton wins 47% support to Obama's 43% among likely Democratic primary voters, the survey shows. Another 2% are still holding out for someone else, while 8% said they are yet undecided.

LBH --- You could do the e-mail yourself.

Watch for DAVID CORN on the McLAUGHLIN GROUP this weekend.

Good job David. It was a far more affable conversation than when that fat tub 'o ego Tony Blankley is sitting between John and Pat.

Dish on right-wing Monica. Can she answer a question in less than three paragraphs? She wouldn;t be there unless John had respect for her.

But she does sound like she's on the radio and reading a script. I gotta admit though, her put together look, all the way down to the shoelaces, is a turn on.

McLaughlin is particularly good at analyzing the role; the impact; the importance of an event on national or international history.

...on a scale from 1 to 10 when 1 is infinitesimally small and 10 is absolute metaphysical truth...

After a presentation and conversation on a topic, he asks his quests to answer the question first and he goes last. What is fascinating about the method is that the viewer begins to accept there are right and wrong answers, and what is also apparent is that the truth of the matter is illusive, not unattainable but illusive.

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/04/sen-mccain-responds-to-real-mccain.html

Wal-Mart for President?

[...]

Now that this video is out, there's no way Clinton can deny being on Wal-Mart's payroll (the company gave her around $15,000 a year, $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock, and its lobbyists contributed tens of thousands to her presidential campaign). There's no way a champion of women's rights can deny being linked to a company that continues to defend itself against one major discriminatory suit after another. And there's no way a presidential candidate who is backed by a slew of unions can deny connections to anti-union fanatics like John "Blood-Sucking Parasites" Tate and a company that pays its employees salaries below the poverty line.

Unless of course Clinton omits it from her website, or the press inexplicably decides to leave it out of their otherwise exhaustive scrutiny of her career.

Back to the video... Sam Walton says, "But Hillary, I hope you can stay long enough to feast your eyes on this latest creation of Wal-Mart," to which Clinton jokes, "I want to shop, Sam!"

Clinton says this line from off-camera.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/82093/

*****

I wonder why HRC's Walmart connections have been all but ignored by the M$M.

Six Ways to Win The Iraq War Debate Against Your Really Dumb Friends

Recently I was arguing with one of my dumber friends about the Iraq war. He loves Bush, and thinks bigger bombs is the answer in Iraq. I wasn't gaining any ground in the argument until I used a simple analogy. I said, "Your solution is like shattering an expensive vase and then saying, 'We need to keep smashing it until it's fixed.'" I stumped him. He was silent. So here's a brief list of other analogies you can use on your dumb friends. And the truth is, I've seen similar ones work on some of the smartest political pundits.

1) The country of Iraq has essentially been demolished. The right-wingers keep saying the answer is continued large-scale military action. That's like if someone got into a car accident, went into a coma, and the doctors believed the patient could be healed by more car accidents. So they just keep putting him into cars and sending him off cliffs.

2) I've heard people say that being against Bush or Petraeus or the war in Iraq is equivalent to being against the troops. That's like if I knew someone who repeatedly sent brave puppies out into traffic. I called that person an asshole for abusing the puppies and abusing their power. Then you accused me of being anti-puppy.

3) The administration talks about the success of the surge because violence has decreased, but we're in fact paying the militias not to kill each other or our soldiers. It's like if you were treading water, two sharks approach and begin biting you, you give each one a small piece of fish to distract them. While they take a moment to eat the fish, you sit there treading water and yelling, "Problem solved!"

4) At the Petraeus hearings, he refused to give any sort of definition for "victory" in Iraq. That's like running a foot race, you've gone 30 miles, you're exhausted, and when you ask your coach driving along next to you how much farther, he just keeps saying "You'll know it when you get there." He keeps saying that until you collapse and die.

5) KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater and other companies have huge pull in our government (such as the vice presidency). So essentially they decide when the war is over. They also happen to be making millions upon millions of dollars from the war. So asking them to decide when the war is over, is like asking an ugly guy cast in a threesome porn movie to decide when the scene is over. Chances are the scene would go on for months, if not years. The entire crew would be standing around asking, "It's not over yet? When will we know when it's time to end it?" And the ugly guy would respond, "Um, it's a bad idea to set timetables. Just trust me on this."

6) Lastly, President Bush is like a colorblind child with a Rubik's Cube.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/82051/

capt. loved that last post.

When I heard Petraeus say a 25% cut from 160,000 to 140,000 I thought he may have mispoke under pressure. Then I heard both the General and Betty's son Ryan both say it again. And then I heard Bush say it in his speech. What I am waiting to hear is anyone in the media bring up the question about the 25% of 160,000 equaling only 20,000. M$M can't do story problems?

How deep does this insanity go? When did a war crime not meet the test for a high crime or misdemeanor?

7) When we run out of troops we should send Raccoons. Raccoons have undying loyalty. They are very clean. They are also very intelligent and can get in and out of tight situations. And they have absolutely no problem with walking in front of traffic and finding themselves dead on the side of the road.

Another story problem. A soldier signs up for duty and his recruiter tells him he has great news. Unlike the guys who signed up last year and face three 15 month stints in Iraq, he will only have to do four 12 month stints.

Last story problem How many days does Bush have left in the white house? First subtract the days he'll be on vacation in Crawford. Then subtract the days he'll be campaigning for McCain and a few dozen senators who don't have it figured out yet. Then another week of folk dancing for Africans who fight Aids with Abstinence. Even with a stopover in Albania and few Putinesque quickies the answer is the same as it was in January 2005. Two.

As in two damn many!

Anyone wonder where the posts we make that don't get there go and who else is reading them

"Anyone wonder where the posts we make that don't get there go and who else is reading them"

Nevernever land - and Peter Pan?

One day is too darn many indeed! (on the other)

U.S. Presidential Election Can Be Hacked

This year, the U.S. will pick a new president using electronic voting machines that can be hacked, security experts said Thursday at the RSA Conference in San Francisco.

As the November election approaches, the question before officials is not how to fix known bugs in their e-voting systems, but rather, how best to check them for fraud, said David Wagner, an associate professor with the University of California, Berkeley's computer science department.

Wagner was part of the team that audited California's voting systems during the state's review of electronic voting, and the problems his team found affect counties across the U.S. "The three systems we looked at are three of the most widely used around the nation," he said during an e-voting panel discussion at the show. "They're going to be using them in the 2008 elections; they're still going to have the same vulnerabilities we found."

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144431/us_presidential_election_can_be_hacked.html

"Anyone wonder where the posts we make that don't get there go and who else is reading them"

They go into the bit bucket and whoever it is that cleans the bit bucket can read them. Putz NSA?

Iraq Study Group, warned us:

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, 'all the troops in the world will not provide security.' Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world."

Obama knows how to make an impression.

He admitted that many of his policies “overlap” with those of Clinton. But he deftly drew her into a circle with Republicans McCain and Bush, claiming, “They all seem to criticize me in all the same way, which is interesting. Think about that.”

http://www.tribstar.com/opinion_columns/local_story_103000837.html