Hillary Surges in NH Post-Debate Poll

[William769]

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wbz/wbz/2007/june/debateresults.pdf

[Tom Joad]

1. yeah, yeah, god help us.

[durrrty libby]

5. Well god is helping us by giving us Hillary. So your prayers

are answered. Amen

[William769]

6. Touche!

[durrrty libby]

10. ...

:hi: :loveya:

[Tom Joad]

8. I want peace, not four more years of support for pre-emptive war.

I think we will be able to defeat Hillary, she will not win the nomination. People are sick of war. People are sick of corporate puppets.
you and murdoch will be unhappy, but the rest of the world will breath easier.

[William769]

13. The only people going to be unhappy is you and a small crowd on DU.

[zulchzulu]

16. Sorry, but I don't want to lose the Presidency to the GOP in 2008

Besides, bask in the 4.8% MoE poll all you want. It's garbage.

[William769]

17. I will I don't see you offering anything.

ON EDIT: No one here on DU has yet to show we will lose with Hillary Clinton in the General, I realize you are trying a repuke meme, if you say it enough it will happen, but in this case it won't. Sorry Charlie.

[zulchzulu]

19. No greater mobilizing force for the GOP...

...than having not one, but two Clintons to run against. All they need is that and they will be out in overwhelming numbers.

Take off your blinders.

[William769]

20. Not to steal a line but

"Wheres the beef"? Surly you can do better than that.

[zulchzulu]

25. There's plenty...

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=GOP+clinton+unifying+force&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I won't do your homework for you. Check it out.

[William769]

29. So what Democratic nominee won't have a GOP unifying force?

[zulchzulu]

35. I've personally met quite a few Republicans who would support Obama

I'm talking about actually talking to people, not some confab anonymous poll crap snagged from a limp blog.

He has a lot of crossover appeal...it's been documented and discussed here on DU.

Listen, I wish Senator Clinton and all those who support her all the best...I just have been doing grassroots work for Obama because I think he's the best candidate to run and win in 2008.

Instead of pointing out a poll with a ridiculous MoE to try to convince people to support Senator Clinton, actually try to show why you support her.

I would suggest going to www.barackobama.com if you want to check out my preferred candidate with an open mind.

[ElizabethDC]

36. I've personally met two lifelong Democrats who would vote for Giuliani over Obama

I was pretty much shocked when they told me, but . . . there you have it.

[zulchzulu]

38. I'd like to talk to them to see where their logic is...

That certainly is confounding. I'd like to hear their reasons...if only for a laugh.

[ElizabethDC]

41. I was really shocked when they told me

one of them was my mother, actually - she can't stand Obama and I'm not quite sure why. She's such a Democrat that she once told me that she'd love me even if I was a serial killer, but if I ever voted Republican, she'd pretty much disown me (and I think she was only half-joking.) She actually knows a lot about Giuliani and thinks he's crazy and dangerous, which makes it all the more strange that she doesn't like Obama.

The other person was a friend of my mom who's a big Democratic contributer.

I don't know their reasoning - I was pretty much too shocked to ask. But I can look into the situation. :)

[Dawgs]

55. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

The only logical reason to vote for Giuliani over Obama, as a Democrat, is to be incredibly uninformed or racist.

He has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, he's always been against the war, and he has a message of hope.

Hillary, Edwards, and others would also be good choices.

Giuliani is a Bush clone and supporter.

[ElizabethDC]

61. You don't believe me?

Well, that's your choice, I suppose. They're two very well-informed people (both lawyers and very involved in politics). Even though they told me they'd vote for Giuliani over Obama, I honestly believe that, when it came down to it, they'd vote for the Democrat. But they both really, really don't like Obama (whose voting record in the Senate, by the way, is the same as Hillary's during the time that they've both been there - so that's an interesting argument to make).

[zanne]

53. I agree.

I've talked to plenty of people who like the idea of a Barack Obama presidency. I'd say it's about 1/2 and 1/2 Hillary and Obama. He's my guy--I'll be making phone calls at his headquarters tonight.

[ElizabethDC]

21. Well, they've had two Clintons to run against before

and the Clintons haven't lost yet.

[William769]

24. And apparently zulchzulu doesn't remember who Mrs. Clinton unseated either.

[zulchzulu]

27. Do you think desecrating the American flag should be a federal crime?

Mrs. Clinton does...

:spank: :wow:

[William769]

31. What does that have to do with the post you responded to?

BTW First you say the GOP will unify against her then you use an example that the GOP agree with, so which is it?

ON EDIT: Your grasping at straws now, and on that note I will say goodnight.

[ElizabethDC]

32. Entirely off topic . . . n/t

[zulchzulu]

37. It's about support for a candidate...right?

Are you of the opinion that desecrating the American flag should be a federal crime? Perhaps the question will be posed at some point in future debates...

[ElizabethDC]

39. We were talking about electibility

and now you're talking about flag burning? That's quite a leap.

Now, I'm not an expert on this vote of Sen. Clinton's but I'm told there was more to it than meets the eye - that she and some other Democrats supported a bill so that it wouldn't become a constitutional amendment or something like that. There are others on DU who can explain it better.

No, I don't believe that it should be a federal crime.

[zulchzulu]

43. About the flag thang...

That's pretty much a deal breaker with me on any candidate. I mentioned it (oddly, it seems) because that issue and stance really stands in the way for me to support Senator Clinton, at least during the primary season.

I've seen the "explanations" from Clinton supporters on the flag legislation and it still doesn't settle well for me...much like Edwards and his "apology" for his support for the war. Call me odd...I just don't go there.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. That's a pretty silly single-issue to decide on...

Clinton opposed a flag-burning amendment. She supported the bill as a compromise to stave off the amendment.

Kucinich voted for the amendment, though.

[zulchzulu]

52. Attacking the First Amendment is an absolute dealbreaker to me

If you attack that, you basically take a shit on the essence of democracy...usually for political calculation and jingoistic sickness.

Game over.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. I never understood

why absolutists get involved with politics - it's guaranteed to be unsatisfying.

[zulchzulu]

73. If dissent is to be dealt with a shrug, then there is something wrong

If you can't have dissent, what's the point?

[wyldwolf]

51. per the wording of that bill, yes.

If you trespass on MY property to do it. If you do it to intimidate. Yes and Yes.

[Nederland]

45. Mrs Clinton didn't unseat anybody (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Who did she unseat?

She ran for a vacant Senate seat.

[Dawgs]

56. Yeah, but Hillary is no Bill.

[The_Progressive]

40. Only Hillary can win

The others would have a struggle to place or show. The question remaining is would Barak be the VP or not?

[durrrty libby]

49. Welcome to DU

It is nice to see a newbie who is not a moran



:hi: :loveya:

[The_Progressive]

50. Thank you.

Nice to meet you too.

[Dawgs]

57. Well, they couldn't even spell Barack.

hmmm????

[durrrty libby]

59. And you can't spell dog. Haha...Seriously, most people

just call him Obama. Many non-DUers don't even know his first name yet

It is an easy mistake to make. Lighten up to the newbie, doggy.

[Dawgs]

60. Any DUer that doesn't know his first fame shouldn't comment on who they think will win.

No wonder they're a Hillary supporter.

[durrrty libby]

62. Your Doggy logic is flawed. I can spell Barack but I support Hillary

I'm trying to be nice to you but you are making it impossible


:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[The_Progressive]

67. Sorry about the mistake.

I'm sorry I didn't get his name right. I don't support him. Maybe in a few years. But right now he's too inexperienced for the mess Bush left behind. We need more than a smile and a soothing voice. We need someone who knows how to get things done. That wouldn't be Obama in my opinion.

[durrrty libby]

14. She will be the nominee and the world will sing Hallelujah

[jobycom]

34. Fortunately, Hillary was not for a pre-emptive war.

She, like Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Bill Clinton, and many other Democrats, were for requiring Bush to use diplomacy with Iraq and to end his talk of a unilateral, immediate invasion. Thus, they all supported a resolution requiring Bush to go to the UN, while Bush was claiming he could invade at any time he felt like doing so. Bush went to the UN, presented false evidence to make Iraq seem out of compliance with past resolutions, and invaded. Bush broke the rules of the IWR.

If the IWR had been obeyed--in other words, if the law that Kerry, both Clintons, Edwards, Clark, and the others supported and passed had been followed--there would have been no invasion. If the IWR had not been passed, the invasion would still have happened, and sooner.

There are legite reasons to oppose Hillary (though not nearly as many as some have been led to believe), and legite reasons to support other candidates. There are even legite reasons to oppose anyone who supported or voted for the IWR. But claiming that Hillary was for a "pre-emptive war is factless, and should be abandoned. A lot of people bought the right wing smears of Al Gore, too, and later regreted it. The same will happen with Hillary, if these smears defeat her. After she is gone, people will start to understand the number being done on her.

I'd love for once to see us all catch on and ignore the smears before it's too late.

[mckeown1128]

64. I don't remember Hillary condemning the...

pre-emptive war once it started or after Sadam was caught. I remember the opposite actually.

[jobycom]

69. Show me

Show me where she said "We should go to war against Hussein," or "the war was good."

[earthlover]

66. Clark spoke to Congress OPPOSING the IWR.....

Funny, too, I didn't hear Hillary complain much when Bush bombed Iraq that he had gone too far.....

[jobycom]

68. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This myth has to be destroyed.

Clark opposed the war, but supported the IWR. He spoke before the House Armed Services Committee in September of 02 calling for a resolution authorizing Bush to use force, or else promising to authorize Bush to use force. Quote: The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway. http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Then, on October 9, 2002, the day before the IWR passed the House and two days before it passed the Senate, Clark called for passage of the IWR. As reported by the AP: "Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war." He was speaking in support of a Democratic candidate for the House, Katrina Swett, and said he would advise her to vote for the Resolution before the House if she were in the House already. (Stephen Frothingham, “Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire 9 Oct. 2002.)

Even afterwards, on several occasions, Clark said he would have voted for the Resolution, but he did not support the war. Several other Senators in fact quoted Clark's opposition to the war as their reason for voting against the IWR, even though Clark had called for such a resolution.

[earthlover]

70. If you read his entire statement to Congress, it does not recommend that the IWR be approved

He was against the IWR, and that is why he spoke. He did not rule out that force might in the future be necessary but only after more diplomatic channels would be exhausted and only as a last resort. So he did not totally rule out force, but at the same time he was not advocating that the time was anywhere near right to invade, nor did he support the IWR in its present form. Obviously, his advice was not heeded by Congress or by the President.

Now...back to Hillary....part of your premise is that Hillary never signed off on the Iraq Invasion, that it would have happened with or without the IWR. Well, ok, for the sake of arguement, let's assume you are right. But here I still have an issue with Hillary.....could you point out ANYTHING Hillary said after Bush invaded that showed that she was disappointed in any way with Bush's invasion? Can you quote anything...anything....she said at that time that showed even the slightest annoyance towards the war at all? I won't hold my breath.....

[jobycom]

71. If you read it, it does. In fact, I posted the evidence, and you pretend it is not there

Clark was for the IWR, he was against the invasion. Like Hillary and Bill Clinton, like Kerry, like many others. Bush was going to invade. He had already declared he didn't need the IWR to invade. The invasion would have happened WITHOUT the IWR, and it would have happened sooner. THAT's why some chose to support it. Others opposed it because they saw through Bush. I have more respect for the latter group, but those who say that the IWR was a vote for war or just wrong, as Clark's statements prove. He was for the IWR, against the invasion.

As for the rest, since you ignore the evidence on Clark, you'll probably ignore this, too, but what the heck:

April 3, 2003, Hillary co-sponsors an amendment requiring explanations on rebuilding contracts.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235665
October 16, 2003, Hillary calls for accountability on Iraq spending: "The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the United States is literally sending planeloads of cash to Iraq with no system in place to track how it's being spent and whether it is being spent wisely," Senator Clinton said. "With so much U.S. taxpayer money being passed around in the form of cash payments we must make sure it is not being wasted." http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235067

These are all from her web site, so I'll let you investigate the rest at your leisure. You'll notice a trend--she is cautious about speaking against Bush or the invasion, she "supports the troops," and she is critical of Bush's handling and spending. http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

Now, show me where Clark opposed the IWR before it was passed. Or show me where Hillary supported the war (aside from "We support the troops and unite behind them as they head off to war" type statements.

Here's her statement against the invasion, November, 2005.

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban."

[earthlover]

74. you obviously read Clark's statement to Congress differently than I do....

...so there is no point in arguing. I stand by my belief that Clark had no intention of supporting the IWR and in fact urged Congress not to.

It took until 05 for Hillary to say anything about Iraq being a mistake. Again, my question...just to clarify.....can you show me anything Hillary said before 05 that indicated she thought the invasion of Iraq was a mistake? That Bush had lied? I rather doubt if you can. Are we to believe that just because Hillary can make excuses for her IWR vote saying it did not authorize Bush's War, we are supposed to believe Hillary opposed the war even though she never said anything publically to that effect? I don't buy that at all. She supported the war. If she didn't, she was silent in her opposition and showed zero leadership or even forthrightness. She took the easy way out politically in voting for the IWR....now I guess she is trying to have it both ways. Not so!

[jobycom]

75. I provided evidence, you ignore it.

First, I provided not only his speech to the HASC in September of 02, which you seem to want really badly to interpret in some way that goes against the words and spirit of the speech, but I provided another citation PROVING that Clark called for passage of the IWR the DAY BEFORE it was passed. If you have some evidence, ANY EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, that he told anyone not to vote for the IWR, POST IT. Or admit you are wrong.

As you said, I'm not holding my breath. I expect you will again restate how the evidence I posted is "just my opinion," and that you prefer to believe your position despite all evidence to the contrary.

I won't bother with your Hillary comments. You won't even read Clark's comments.

Once again, for giggles, in Clark's OWN WORDS: The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration.... (snip) The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

MAYBE the problem is that you misunderstand the IWR. Republicans began spinning the IWR as a "vote for war," and too many Democrats have been fooled by that meme, but that was not it's intention. Clark, like others, was FOR the IWR, and AGAINST the invasion.

[earthlover]

76. Clark supported the Levin amendment, not the IWR

You have failed to demonstrate that Clark said that Congress should vote for the IWR that passed . That's because Clark never said it! And your own quote of Clark's speech shows no support of that version.

Here is an excerpt from an article that explains that Clark indeed supported the Levin amendment, which was defeated the same day as the Lieberman IWR was passed:

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

Clark favored and pushed for the Levin Amendment, the only resolution offered that confined Bush to going to the United Nations to appeal to the U.N. the need for a possible use of force in Iraq. If the President couldn't get what he wanted from the United Nations, he was to return to the Congress prior to taking further action. In other words, the Levin Amendment was not a Carte Blanche to wage war. Instead it was a road map that pointed first to the U.N., and if unable to persuade them, Bush was to come back for a second authorization from Congress to use unilateral force.

The Levin Amendment was the Resolution that would have dramatically slowed our march into an elective war that we didn't need to fight aka, the Biggest Strategic Blunder in American History.
Sen. Chafee, the Rhode Island Senator, the lone Republican to have voted against the Lieberman IWR , and who was defeated in his 2006 re-election bid wrote a scathing Op-Ed in the NYT <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin>recently asking why Senators who were "sorry" about their "mistaken" vote hadn't bothered to vote for the Levin Amendment if they only "wanted" to give Bush the authority to work through the U.N.?
Just check out what EPIC was stating just a day before <http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 >the 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote!

Senators Clinton, Edwards (co-sponsor of the Lieberman Iraq War Resolution), Biden and Dodd are all in one way or another "sorry" for their vote. Yet they all voted against the Levin Amendment, but for Lieberman's Iraq War Resolution.
The majority of Senators who courageously voted against Lieberman's Iraq War Resolution are the same ones who voted "for" the Levin Amendment.
-------

And check out this great DU article that explains the Levin Amendment and how Hillary voted against it, yet for the IWR. Isn't it amazing? Hillary could have voted FOR BOTH. Yet, she voted AGAINST a resolution that did exactly what you said Hillary was really doing by voting for the IRW!!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

[earthlover]

79. more quotes from Clark in Congressional testimony....

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

Now....back to Hillary....could you explain why Hillary and Edwards voted AGAINST the Levin amendment the same day as they voted FOR the IWR?

Again, the Levin amendment would have required Bush to get further approval from Congress to go to war

They could have...like other members of Congress.....voted YES on both. That would have at least shown that their heart was in the right place.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

28. and more Dick Morris-style triangulation

this country needs a hard swing back to the left after bush. things need fixing-not a bunch of wishy washy corporatism.
hillary is the candidate we need.

[emilyg]

46. Thank you.

[rodeodance]

54. nicely said. thanks

[David Dunham]

2. She really did better than the others.

[adigal]

3. Oh, Canada - maybe she and Rudy can get together

and nuke Iran.

[Bullet1987]

4. There was 37% unsure too...

[Tom Joad]

11. She will probably rehire Bolton and Wolfowitz.

[ElizabethDC]

12. Absolutely. I'm sure that will be her first act as president.

:sarcasm:

[Tom Joad]

22. She won't get that far. Never.

[ElizabethDC]

26. So when do you think she was going to hire Bolton and Wolfowitz?

I'm guessing you weren't thinking she'd do that as Senator?

[durrrty libby]

58. I feel sad for you being such a moran

[StClone]

7. So that it I'm voting Straight Republican!

I hate Hillary and her little dog too! :sarcasm:

An interesting phenomenon concerning Hillary I see. Older (R) women that say they won't bother to vote against Hillary and middle-aged women and younger women of middle and lower income that are leaning her way. Dems will support her but many women that say they prefer her haven't turned out to vote in numbers historically. I think she'd win but its will be close.

[TeamJordan23]

9. I'm Skeptical: How Does Richardson Have 8%?

And did these people really think that Biden's performance was equal to that of Richardson??

[zulchzulu]

15. 424 respondents with a margin of error of 4.8% in the poll...

Pass the crack pipe...

A legitimate poll is 3% MoE or less with a much larger sampling size.

[ElizabethDC]

18. Well, it was only a statewide poll

most statewide polls tend to have relatively small sampling sizes.

The post-SC debate poll that Obama supporters love to bring up was only of 403 voters: "Among 403 adults who listened to the debate, 31% felt Sen. Barack Obama won, 24% felt Sen. Hillary Clinton won, and 14% felt former Sen. John Edwards won." Link: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_south_carolina.php

Methinks you just don't like the results.

[zulchzulu]

23. Tell me the genius behind a 4.8% MoE...I point that out no matter what the result...

Some Obama supporters here at DU have cited polls with 4+% MoE results and I let it be known that the poll is crap. One of the many things I do as a living is analyze poll data...I didn't just fall off a peach truck.

[ElizabethDC]

30. Well, isn't MoE related to sampling size?

And doesn't MoE tend to to be larger in statewide polls (as opposed to nation-wide polls)?

I mean, it's not an ideal poll (no poll is), but it's all we have to go by, and I don't think it's complete crap.

[zulchzulu]

42. It's very related to the sampling size and polling conditions

A MoE relates to the "confidence interval"...so if someone has a 50% rating with a MoE of 5%, the confidence interval is anywhere between 55% and 45%.

A larger sampling size in decent representational conditions (for instance, taken right after a debate and not a 2PM the next day over the phone calling residences) generally makes for a smaller MoE, hence a more accurate representation of the poll question or opinion...

:hi:

[Redneck Socialist]

33. My dad thought she did well, and...

he's been a republican since dinosaurs roamed the earth. It took shrubbie to make him stop voting straight 'pub'.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Bush has a surge. Hillary has a surge.

I don't know if the country can survive all these surges.

[calteacherguy]

65. She certainly took control of that debate. nt

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

72. Obama should drop out

He's splitting the left-wing vote, which is sad because he's a centrist.

[TeamJordan23]

77. If Centrists were against 'stupid wars', nominate me a centrist than

And this 'centrist' is the most electable of our candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

78. Obama is not a centrist.

There is a difference between someone who wants to try bipartisanship and centrism.
A big effin difference.