Just when I thought I might actually vote for HRC if necessary...

[speedoo]

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=292

Seems like she's doing some phony polling intended to throw some mud at Edwards and Obama.

If this is truly her campaign, she has permanently lost my vote. And respect.

[AtomicKitten]

1. don't wear yourself out with these knee-jerk declarations

it's a long-ass time til Nov 2008 and anything could happen

[speedoo]

2. Excuse me?

It's hardly a "knee-jerk declaration". I consider that comment an insult.

And I know whan the election is, and my guess is that I have been through more elections than you have, and I have always voted for democrats.

So spare me your condescending lectures, ok?

[AtomicKitten]

10. thank goodness unsubstantiated lore is available for consumption

by those looking for an excuse to declare withholding their vote and their respect as it turns out :eyes:

On edit: Cast my first vote in 1972, old-timer, FWIW to this conversation which is probably nothing.

[speedoo]

15. If it's unsubstaniated, I am sure HRC will address that.

Unfortunately her campaign did not return phone calls, according to the article.

Did you bother to read it before attacking me?

Your arrogance (see your "excuse to declare" comment) is amazing.

[AtomicKitten]

17. perhaps you should wait for validation before kicking her to the curb?

It's not arrogance on my part, just a sense of fairness.

You see, I'm not big on bloodying up our candidates with currently having to deal with the outcome of a bloody primary battle here in California that gave Schwarzenegger another term.

There is a possibility that HRC may be the Democratic nominee, so I think it's only fair to not go off on lore and wait until this accusation de jour is substantiated, or not. But that's me.

You on the other hand have declared you won't vote for her, a conclusion I suspect you started with and worked backwards.

[speedoo]

18. And perhaps you should have worded your initial post that way.

If her campaign had not ignored, apparantly, request for comment, your fairness comment would be more appropriate.

[AtomicKitten]

19. point taken

I plead my case. Here's my excuse: When I used to write a political column I had "X" amount of words, no exceptions (well, except when my dog died my editor let me write a blurb), no mercy, so I learned to pack a punch in what I write. It's my style that was pounded into my head and not meant to be snarky although I realize it comes off that way. Sorry for that.

Peace.

On edit: Have you taken a good look at the GOP line-up? Holy shit, it is they that scare the crap out of me. Any of our Democrats would be a vast improvement over that lot.

[speedoo]

20. No problem.

We're in this together, especially since you appear to want Gore to run as badly as I do.

I think I have you beat, by the way. 1964. :)

[AtomicKitten]

21. word up, old-timer ;)

he's the one!

[durrrty libby]

26. People sure are fucking touchy around here. Don't blink in their

general direction or you will be accused of a felony

[AtomicKitten]

27. well that is one way of looking at it

A rather exaggerated view of reality, but that's okay. It makes the story better. But between you and me it is the lame introduction of a BS non sequitur on another thread for the sheer purpose of trashing a candidate that invokes your comment. This thread, just drama over an unsubstantiated tidbit of internet lore.

Advocating for fairness isn't nearly as dramatic in the retelling as insinuating the accusation of a metaphorical crime, but I don't begrudge you that twist in the story; it makes your comment more compelling. Trying to convince people that the GOP line-up is infinitely worse than any of our candidates is a full time job around here.

[kimmerspixelated]

3. I'm with you.

Hillary started out as a rethuglican, way back when, that and so many other reasons, I just cannot get behind her. I believe she is a good senator,so far, or maybe even a mediocre one, either way- she should NOT be PREZ! I think she would be supporting more corporations/government and all their crap and we just don't need it at this point.

[JoePhilly]

23. Who will you vote for, Romney? Rudy?

Which GOP guy gets your vote?

[kimmerspixelated]

29. Is this sarcasm?

I'd not vote at all, rather than vote rethuglican!

[rinsd]

4. Wow a single guy claiming a push poll with zero evidence.

With another anonymous claim from another blog backing it up?

[ElizabethDC]

9. And politico points this out

(yeah, yeah, I know it's the Politico - but they make valid points once in a while).

"It's worth noting that these aren't classic "push-polls." Burying negative information about opponents toward the end of a 40-minute poll is hardly the most effective way to disseminate it. Instead, they're trying to see how people react to the information."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/A_glimpse_at_a_Penn_poll.html

[mnhtnbb]

5. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Hillary boasted she'd beat Republicans

at their own game--and this kind of push polling is precisely a Repub game.

[blm]

28. Then why didn't her team use these skills against Bush's policies the last 7 years?

During the Tora Bora failure, the 2002 election cycle, the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the call to fire Rumsfeld, the lies from the swifts, the Downing Street Memos, the Roberts confirmation, the Alito filibuster and the Iraq withdrawal debates and votes they could not speak up publicly on any of those battles for the PARTY because they needed to keep their powder dry to use against Democratic rivals for the nomination in 2007?

[Dr.Phool]

6. She has union-busting, mega-corporate lobbyist Mark Penn for a reason.

And don't forget who brought Penn into the Clinton White House in the first place. Her old buddy Dick Morris.

[Colobo]

7. Interesting.

[Rick Myers]

8. I'm not a big HRC fan, but...

She was on with Ed Shultz today and she's as articulate as anyone. Quick answers to questions, even funny! But I'm not supporting any specific player until much closer to the convention.

[ElizabethDC]

12. Thanks for pointing that out

I didn't know that she had been on, but thankfully, he has a link to the interview on his website. Thanks!

[PATRICK]

11. More importantly

it shows there will be a real showdown in Iowa. it is quiet now UNTIL HRC gets her solid backing from such polling and priming of caucus delegates. of course, most media today will let that not so mysterious huge operation go on unnoticed. But it displays the ruthless hardocre planning that earned Kerry his upset in 2004. Edwards is building on his own grass roots previous success in Iowa as the runner up, beating out the Dean enthusiasts by personal campaign efforts. This time, one would hope he had learned from Kerry as well.

The big time campaign organizers will not sit back and abandon Iowa, especially with months to go for any truly dangerous slipping from HRC's highwater marks today. The nature of the caucus rewards the attendees who are best marshalled, prepared and enthused. The Clinton campaign will find those people and prime them wherever they are. This is going to be a fight because neither candidate can afford to take chances and Obama may be taking himself out of the equation for various reasons, both legitimate and regretable.
When Hillary plans to try and match personal appeals and appearances it will be on a platform well planned for with a target delegation of caucus attendees well scouted. She has merely to avoid a major gaffe or collapse and Edwards to hit the wall on overwhelming the state. So far.

As for making predictions, Edwards is no neophyte this time and time is not yet running totally against him. He is making a much broader issue and appearance hit with his own pros in place. The HRC machine is doubtless even more hardnosed than Kerry's. And both camps much look beyond Iowa quickly where it is still a struggle especially if Obama quickly again becomes a factor. It would be interesting if Obama gets into one of those bargaining for Veep positions with the crowd advising Hillary blanching at loading the ticket with "firsts" and an inexperienced Veep at that. That factor is interesting if it is not lost on Obama. Then, of course. Because if HRC's own wall has just been hit things may change quite a bit in the time remaining if such tactics start backfiring instead of being woorth the price.

[Gato Moteado]

13. so that means you'd vote for the repuke if hilly gets the nomination?

nt

[Colobo]

14. Maybe s/he won't vote.

[speedoo]

16. No. it means I won't vote for her, as things stand now.

Since I live in NY, I don't expect that my withheld vote would result in any republican carrying my state in 2008. If I believed one would, I would hold my nose and give her my vote.

I might vote for her as Senator again, but she will not get my vote for President.

[JoePhilly]

24. So I guess since I live in NC, I should sleep in on voting day ...

NC will very likely vote for some GOP nut. Probably ANY ONE of them.

So, I'll get off my ass, and vote for a democratic Chees Sandwich if I have to. Dems need to VOTE! All of us, every time. After we control the branches of government, THEN we can start looking for BETTER Dems!!!

A protest vote, or a non-vote ... is a silent vote for the GOP.

[Bravo Zulu]

25. My sentiments exactly

Vote early and vote often

[polichick]

22. Are polls like this new?

I thought they were par for the course, for those who can afford to do them.

[snowbear]

32. You're probably right..

I'll bet some polls are bought and paid for..

And not just political polls, but radio and cable tv rating services such as Arbitron.. All it takes is..

[illinoisprogressive]

30. and people wonder why I absolutely refuse to give her my vote no matter what

[mckeown1128]

31. Smells Rovian...

:eyes: but should be expected considering the candidate

[windy252]

33. While I'm not a huge Hillary fan myself,

we ought to consider that the right may also be behind these push-polls. I wouldn't put it past them.