MyDD :: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama "Obama Buzz on its Deathbed"

Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama "Obama Buzz on its Deathbed"

by mdiogu, Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM EST

This is one of the most self serving front page diaries I have read from an unapologetic Obama Detractor. I appreciate your full disclosure that since 2005, you began criticizing him for doing nothing in the Senate. The last time I checked his constituents are happy with him. I guess you are one less person Obama needs to worry about.

What are you trying to imply by:

In my conversations with Obama donors and backers, the sense of a campaign adrift is quite pervasive.

Can you back this up with any authority. I am an Obama donor; I did not talk to you. Because of this article, I will donate $150.01 to Obama when I get home to night. Can you name the Donors you talked to? Or is it just a bunch BS from people who think that they are king makers that are angry at Obama for not coming to bow at your alter.

This type of FrontPage diary, make people not take the blog seriously because they believe that Bloggers make things up and call it facts.

How ridiculous can you get, Matt?

He could fix this, of course, and he might. I wouldn't put money on it, though.

What qualifications due you have other than being a FrontPager led to you to make this prediction? Can you please tell us so we can believe you?

Folks read and gag.

It's no secret that I'm no fan of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but this BB post is reserved for Obama. In 2005, I began criticizing him for doing nothing in the Senate. And now, with the hype finally and sort of over, it's become clear that he seems to have nothing new to offer except a Gen X and less competent version of the Clinton campaign. He's going to have one more boost of hype, after he beats Clinton in fundraising again this quarter. Hopefully he'll take advantage of that. I doubt he will, since he doesn't tend to do anything. But he might. Hopefully these polls are an alarm bell ringing in Obama HQ.

In my conversations with Obama donors and backers, the sense of a campaign adrift is quite pervasive. He could fix this, of course, and he might. I wouldn't put money on it, though.

This is sickening.

Poll

Votes: 70
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clionton, John Edwards, Sniveling Whinebag (all tags)

Permalink :: 122 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage (none / 0)

The polls and other factors support what Matt wrote. The effect that a buzz candidacy has is to get voters to look at a candidate and consider voting for them. We have seen this in every election cycle since 1968 in the Democratic Party but the closer we get to the actual voting the more voters will move toward known quantities.

Various polls have shown the factors that voters are looking for such as experience, qualifications, positions on issues, etc. Clinton is winning the battle on those fronts and Obama is slipping. Clinton leads in the major demographic groups some of them by wide margins.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:19 PM EST

What good is the buzz... (3.00 / 6)

In June 2007? Dean didn't really even take off on the national stage until late summer 2003, after posting an unexpectedly good Q2 number.

I don't get this kind of analysis. The most important things for Obama to do in the first half of the year: 1)raise money 2)build campaign infrastructure 3)cultivate grassroots energy

It sure seems like Obama is doing all these things quite well. Money raising is fine, the campaign is being built, and the grassroots energy is at a good simmering level...or is just my imagination that thousands of people are still showing up to his rallies?

As an example, Jerome makes comments like this today:

And if Gore doesn't decide to run, the benefactor will be Edwards.

and then backs it up with nothing. Really? Gore's support goes to Edwards? Got any polling or other evidence to back that up?

And then there's stuff like this comment from Chris:

2005, I began criticizing him for doing nothing in the Senate.

Yeah, nothing, like passage of the most significant legislation in recent times on the #1 issue of the 21st century...weapons proliferation. And myriad other items...as you can find here.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

But hey, that's all a bunch of nothing.

And those Rasmussen trends?

Illinois Senator Barack Obama is at 25% this week--the fifth time in six weeks he has been at 25% or 26%.

Boy, he's really on a downtrend! Yeah, there were a handful of polls that got Obama to 30 in mid-April, but that was just a brief post Q1 numbers spike. Other than that, Obama has been a solid 25-26% in Rasmussen for most of the campaign so far.

It's amazing how much of the armchair analysis around here assumes that polls and buzz 6 months before the primary are a huge deal. I mean, I know we've got nothing to talk about this summer, but get real. You know when you want to peak? Early February 2008.

by rashomon on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's doing fine (3.00 / 2)

You know when you want to peak? Early February 2008.

Exactly.

by horizonr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What good is the buzz... (none / 0)

DD has absolutely been going negative on everyone but Edwards for months now.

The Senator has been Iowa's favorite grandson since the last election, but John Edwards is just not big anywhere else. His chances would have been better in 012' or 016' had he not left the Senate so quickly.

I agree with you and a top political writer from Time, who recently say that Obama has become the new Democrat Left's leader to the anti-war, blogger and activist crowd since Clinton no longer represents them.

But I bet Gore will take them all down.

Dedicated to a Clean and Lean Dean Powered Machine!

by hazmaq on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Totally Wrong... (2.75 / 4)

We know that this polling is early, we know this. We know that HRC is on name recognition, we know this.

Now, Matt, it is very disingenous to describe Obama's campaign on its death bed, when almost in the same breath you state he is going to outraise HRC in Q2? I don't think that sounds like deathbed to me, but maybe more people are engaged than these polls indicate? Plus, Obama, is doing what he need to do, raise money, get people to know his posisitons, build a campaign infrastructure, and he is doing this just fine. He is not HRC, people know her and will generally, default to her, that is what campaigning is about "raising awareness of who you are". That is what Obama is doing, just fine.

This is why these blogs get not credence. When you state information, your information, you need to back it up. Have you shadowed the campaign? Been to the HQ in downtown Chi? Looked at what type of campaign he is running? I don't think so. All I read is a bunch of hearsay, from invisible persons, who can be anybody.

Disappointed in you. I thought you to be not only reasoned but fair in your remarks. I expect posters to open crap up to flame, incense, but not a known blogger who is somewhat known and recognize for his work.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matt... I am your father... (3.00 / 1)

Disappointed in you.

I'm sure Matt will not recover from this serious blow to his ego. Send his parents an e-mail, maybe you two can discuss how he had all the promise to be a surgeon or big time lawyer and instead blew it by "blogging".

I thought you to be not only reasoned but fair in your remarks.

Obviously, you're relatively new around this particular series of tubes.

I expect posters to open crap up to flame, incense, but not a known blogger who is somewhat known and recognize for his work.

I like Matt's use of incense (I am a sucker for frankincense though), though I do feel that his cologne usage is unbecoming of a "poster".

Please Matt, cut back on the fragrances, for the good of humanity.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt... I am your father... (none / 0)

IS this to be funny?

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fragrance is not a joke! (none / 0)

The real question we should be asking is: what is Matt trying to cover up with his use of strong scents?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage (3.00 / 1)

Not a single ad has been run, and the ground game has just begun. Personally, I don't think Edwards is doing any better, and I'm not ready to declare either candidate done with.

People are going to use these polls to arrive at a lot of conclusions, but I can't possibly see how they mean anything at all until the first caucus in Iowa.

by mihan on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:20:22 PM EST

yup (3.00 / 1)

I agree fully. I love it when someone decides to be important and announce the direction in which the country is trending. Polls go up and polls go down, lets remember John Kerry, shall we? My point is, it is entirely premature to post something like this, and the only reason why I can think someone might want to say this is because they want it to be true.

I think that Kucinich is surging and that he will smite HRC with fireballs from his eyes - and I have good sources in the Clinton campaign that tell me they are developing a fireball-defense system in anticipation of his attack.

File that under phony posturing and bullshit predictions.

by alipi on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:24:00 PM EST

I don't agree (none / 0)

The frontpagers should be free to discuss their opinions as they like. What else is mydd about? Why should Presidential candidates be off limits?

ps. I don't think the whining reflects well on the candidates' supporters. And I am supporting Obama.

John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.

by John DE on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:27:36 PM EST

Re: I don't agree (3.00 / 1)

The blog is supposed to be about the community, not the frontpagers. That's what I thought, anyway.

by mihan on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (3.00 / 2)

I don't think mydd really strives for a "community" type atmosphere. It's more a place for hacks to gather and hash out political debates/tactics/policies.

by adamterando on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (none / 0)

Partisan hackery...I like it. There is a need for a bit of that, but its starting to wear on me a bit. Aside from the Obama/Edwards/Clinton duals, the frontpagers, aside from maybe Singer, have slipped quite a bit. Bowers is focused on breaking down polls and Stoller has disappeared into Kucinich/Gravel territory.

I suppose I could stop coming here, but where is the fun in that?

by mihan on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (none / 0)

That's what I expected. I was surprised that they were taken serious in the past. This place is never a serious place for so-called 'community building', it's just a place for Partisan hackery, and I like it.

by bryandem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (none / 0)

I literally do not know what that comment means. Can you explain it?

John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.

by John DE on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rssrai wrote: (3.00 / 2)

"With all the negatives that Hillary has I cannot understand why people would want her. People are like sheep they can be led by the MSM very easily. Looks like Hillary is the candidate the repugs would most like to run against. That must be why she get the most good press coverage."

Another bullshit commentary by rssrai. The mainstream media hasn't been leading supporters to Hillary Clinton. Hillary is trashed, hashed and rehashed daily and nightly on MSM and you know it. What you might have to accept is that Hillary Clinton has very strong and loyal support right across the country. She is leading in almost all demographic groups.

Maybe these "sheep" you refer to actually take the time to inform themselves about Hillary and all she has accomplished on their behalf.

Here's a link. I hope John Edwards is reading it too, after his comment that she isn't a leader. Read it and weep John.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/politics/grap hics/typology/political_voter_types/flas h.swf?profileName=coward

by samueldem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:33:44 PM EST

poll (none / 0)

That's NOT a new poll, and it's already been diarized. Chris is going to take off your diary on that poll. Get Real!

by bryandem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it is the Mason-Dixon poll, (3.00 / 1)

then it indicates that Obama cut into Hillary's lead, down by only 6 pts, I believe.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll (none / 0)

Well, it would be refreshing to see Obama come out against Lieberman. I'm no fan of Hillary's, but even she did more than Obama to help Lamont against Lieberman.

by justinh on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll (3.00 / 1)

Hillary didnt have to do anything against Lamont after the primary to stay in the good graces of the DLCers. Her husband did that for her by giving the weakest of endorsements to Lamont on Larry King and then goes on to say that it would not be any different if lieberman got relected. Hillary just did enough to hedge her bets early on.

Agreed on Obama though. He has been embarassing in his unwillingness to say nothing about Lieberman. This is he same guy who tut tuts lefties for not thinking outside the box(which I actually think is a fair comment sometimes). But then, it appears silly when he refuses to do the same to the DLC types.

by Pravin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: poll (3.00 / 2)

You and samueldem call me partisan.

Believing in something is a good thing, and that's what the root of partisanship is. It's about having a message about the way the world should be (even if it isn't now) and how to go about making that happen.

The Democratic party is doomed in the long term unless we can develop a message that defines who we are.

The Republican party can be defined in three small words.

No new taxes.

The Democratic party has been adrift since the early 70's and the resurgence of the anti-government right drawing upon the neo-liberal economics of Milton Friedman and the gang. What we need is a message.

John Edward's Two America's stump speech from 2004 is the message that we need now. And yes it's partisan in the sense that it doesn't ride the fence. It very clearly states that there are massive problems in America, and that in order for them to be fixed the people who've been allowed to rape this country for the past 20 years are going to have to be told no. And confronted with consequences for further anti-social behavior.

That's the kind of partisan that America needs, and all this mealy mouthed bullshit about bi-partisanship is code for keeping the current system in power.

It's not often mentioned, but one of the truely irritating aspects of the Obama campaign is the way in which the Senator's Ivy League education is presumed to make him competent to be president. There's an elitist entitlement mythoology here that doesn't sit right with me.

I want democracy not aristocracy.

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as the message isn't empty promises... (none / 0)

I agree with you about the need for a message and ideally for me as a Democrat who admired the soundness of a lot of what uncle Milty had to say, we should campaign on having a government that is run by a good manager: someone intent on making sound investments for the future, raising up the bottom line and not hurting the economy with too many new taxes. Richardson is probably the strongest of the Democrats on this message.

I'm very worried about Universal Healthcare. Obviously, that's what our party demands but history has shown that it's dreadfully expensive and gets more costly and more detrimental to the economy. If government has to balloon even more without making cuts elsewhere, that means more taxes and less growth. I'm hoping that Hillary is going to be smart about healthcare. She's taken it very slowly and has made cutting costs more of a priority than last time. That gives me hope, but I am very very worried that we as a party are rolling down the novice's path running on a platform of "free this and that, and oh btw huge government and no cuts." If the Democrats lose sight of the consequences of unchecked fiscal expenditures and fail to be realistic about policies that we can afford, I personally may go independent and vote Bloomberg.

Democrats have to be smart on the economy. The message may not be as catchy and as blunt as "no new taxes" but the reaction against the GOP right now is our opportunity to show America that we have plans for the future that will work.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"No Military Action on Iran!" Clinton (none / 0)

On February 14, 2007, Clinton warned President Bush:

"In dealing with the threats posed by the Iranian regime, which has gained its expanding influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Administration's policies, President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."

Clinton's whole speech can be read here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speec h/view/?id=1328

by BigBoyBlue on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rssrai wrote: (none / 0)

This notion that Democrats are a bunch of boobs, sheep, idiots, is the most arrogant aspect of many posts here. Some people can't simply understand that not everybody believes as they do. They would rather suspend the Democratic process and force-feed these "dumb schmucks" with their personal preference. It is a disgusting side effect of these crybabies not getting what they want.

Stomp on the ground with both feet and make yourself heard, but let others make up their own frigging minds.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rssrai wrote: (none / 0)

Explain her views on the Iraq war. How she kept avoiding giving us a clear idea of how much of the NIE she actually was briefed on since it is 100% obvious that she never read it. Since she feels that she has done all she could have done on the issue, does this not say that she has not learned from her mistakes ala Edwards? And didn't 8 years as Bill's confidant in the White House give her a first hand experience with the games that neocons play regarding Iraq? DId she not pay attention to Scott Ritter?

I was againt Edwards in 2004 because he showed little ability to learn from his mistakes back then. Now he is finally showing us improvement in foreign affairs and at least attempting to lead by exhorting others.

Hillary has played it safe all these years, maybe a little too safe when she was needed in 2004 to help beat Bush. But she was busy giving interviews in the runup to the 2004 elections saying how she would not change her vote even if she knew then what she knew in 2003, when it was obvious to even a total moron that the war was a bad idea.

What exactly in Hillary's conduct can you tell us she can act wiser in 2008 regarding the middle east? Has she gotten new advisers? No. Has her experience with world affairs vastly increased? Not really. 16 in 2008 versus 10 years in 2002 at the time of the iraq war vote. Has Hillary shown any real ability to know where she messed up? No, as she keeps maintaining that there was no way to have known bettter in 2002.

As far as the other liberal issues she espouses, who cares? Some of you guys act like Obama, Edwards are worse than Hillary on other issues.

The Iraq war is a big enough issue to disqualify the wrong candidate. It represents a canddiates ideology, experience, judgement, and ability to learn from mistakes. Almost every Dem candidate fails on some of these factors, but Hillary fails on all of them.

by Pravin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yawn (3.00 / 5)

Matt is disappointed because Obama didn't turn out to be the black RFK revolutionary that he had been hoping for, and Edwards, while he has been hitting all the predistributionist notes, has lost a lot of credibility because of extensive coverage of the haircut and hedge fund work.

After some tumult when Obama pulled even with Hillary in mid-April thanks to an oozing news cycle, the race has been extremely stable at approximately 35-25 for a long time. Occasionally a poll will really rupture towards one or the other, e.g., Gallup's latest poll showing 30-29-17 Obama/Clinton/Gore and 37-36 HRC-Obama without Gore -- Edwards is the one who has deflated.

I do think that people have gotten over the initial Obama rush, but that was to be expected. I think the news cycles immediately following q2 numbers will matter much more, however.

by jforshaw on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:40:08 PM EST

Re: yawn (none / 0)

So Obama's strategy is still buzz, buzz and more buzz. It has worked really well so far, I assume. Yawn.

by bryandem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh...no. (3.00 / 2)

Obama's strategy is to raise a whole bunch of money and build a strong national campaign for when thing heat up in the fall. And tamp down the ridiculous expectations in the meantime.

by rashomon on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (3.00 / 0)

by horizonr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh...no. (none / 0)

Looks to me a strategy copied from Dean playbook, and it really worked well.

Despite the insane amount of money raised, Dean blew it in no time and was almost on credit line after NH primary.

by bryandem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, yes. (3.00 / 0)

Dean's strategy was the correct one...the problem was the candidate failed to pull it off. Note that Kerry's campaign was near bankruptcy in December 2007...the only reason he won the nomination was because he gave himself a $6M loan to keep things going until he won Iowa/NH. Had Dean won in Iowa, the money thing would not have been a problem.

by rashomon on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, yes. (3.00 / 0)

True. And the only resemblance that Obama is using from Dean is heavy on the internet for fundraising. And he has used the internet to connect to people, groups, as never seen before. See what happened Saturday? Over 10,000 ppl showed up to walk across this country, via Obama's website. That is impressive.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh...no. (3.00 / 2)

You'd still be a sniveling minority if it wasn't for the balls of guys like Dean, Gore and Feingold.

Dedicated to a Clean and Lean Dean Powered Machine!

by hazmaq on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right. That's exactly what I said. (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yawn (none / 0)

I don't think the Q2 numbers will mean as much as some are hoping. They are not translating into votes just as they did not do so in 2004 for Dean and just as they did not do so going back to 1964 for Barry Goldwater. The problem area for Obama is he fails in the demographic groups that are necessary to win in the primaries and Clinton leads him 4 to 1 in some polls on leadership and experience. Those are the areas he needs to address not whether he can get more contributions than Clinton.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree, with this exception, (3.00 / 0)

who is donating to this campaign? Has he doubled the initial 100K of new donors? That is a great question, because people do not donate to politicians for nothing. And new donors? Those are the ones the democrats NEED. No matter what is said, he is getting people involved, charged, and donating. That alone is what the democratic party need, NEW BLOOD.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree, with this exception, (none / 0)

I agree with Icegberg..The amount of money Obama raises might not mean a thing, but the amount of Donors and "new donors" he has will be Huge...

I really think this is where Obama needs to concentrate...In my opinion, once you donate to a candidate,the chances are huge that you will definately cast your ballot for this specific candidate..Specially if you're a "repeat donor".

In my opinion, everyone should watch the amount of "new donors"...If he raises another 100k donors, then it's over for Hillary...Can you imagine 100k new donors on top of the 140k donors who donated in q1??

Hillary didnt even reach 90k donors and her cash is coming from "big donors" not small donors who will play a huge part in q3 and q4.

Obama should set up more small $25 kick off rallies and mix it up a bit wih huge rallies that are free then work the field to register those folks.

by JaeHood on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree, with this exception, (none / 0)

He is doing this. Even for the walk on saturday, ppl were registering folks to vote. So, he is doing this.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yawn (none / 0)

how does one predistribute?

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack Obama as Che Guevara (none / 0)

Matt is disappointed because Obama didn't turn out to be the
black RFK revolutionary that he had been hoping for....

In an elegant twist of knowing humor that cuts in several directions, the Obama
campaign is now selling t-shirts, modelled on the iconic Che Guevara tees, that
feature Obama's face instead.

by horizonr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On a happy note: (3.00 / 1)

My blog on this site about Obama's 8000 donations in 24 hours, made the front page of his site "In the News"...

Yeah, yeah, I am patting myself on the back...

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/10/mo re_than_8000_donations_for_f_1.php

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:11:16 PM EST

"Obama Buzz on its Deathbed" (none / 0)

You know, I think every time an Obama supporter says "Because of your post, I'm going to donate "X" dollars they need to provide us with their name so we can verify it on the FEC reports. Because you know what, I think you're full of bullshit.

Because of your post, I'm going to max out to Mitt Romney.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:16:55 PM EST

I tend to think the same thing (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maxing to Mitt... (none / 0)

LOL...I have read everything...

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maxing to Mitt... (none / 0)

What can I say? His son is hot and I might be able to go to a baseball game or have BBQ with him. ;-)

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Buzz on its Deathbed" (none / 0)

Because of your post, I'm going to max out to Mitt Romney.

Don't bother, because of baseball he'll have all the money he needs...

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (3.00 / 2)

BRAVO! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Senator Obama is all buzzed out! It's June and everyone knows that June is the month that everyone focused on a campaign that is 7 months away.

Reality check, most people on this site LOVE Edwards, he is tanking in the National Polling so they spin it that Senator Obama is the one tanking.

I wish they would get better talking points.

If Edwards losing, well when he losing Iowa to Senator Obama (who is rumored to be opening 35 more offices in Iowa soon) it is done.

Senator Obama is the ONLY one who can (and will beat) Clinton. He has the more, the BIG MO and the change factor going for him. Both Clinton and Edwards are trying hard to steal his message.

It won't work!

Republicans try as they might can't help but like this man. One of Senator McCain's main men already said he would NOT trash Senator Obama in the General Election (if that ain't a kick in the head to Republican hard cores, I don't know what is) because he is the agent of unity.

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:17:00 PM EST

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (3.00 / 1)

Senator Obama is the ONLY one who can (and will beat) Clinton.

Awesome. Now can you tell me next week's lottery numbers?

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

I could, but wouldn't knowing the answers take the fun out of it? That is why I don't play the lotto.

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Sorry, I don't gamble. :)

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

You know, that is what bothers me - Obama and Edwards guys trashing each other. Why not wait until these two become the main frontrunners? But oh well.

By the way , to the original diary writer, why not express your outrage in the comments section of the diary you were referencing to? Why open up another diary?

by Pravin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Probably Because the critique was in Breaking Blue which allows no comments. This was the only way to respond.

by maddogg on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Yeah I realized that later when I was browsing the rest of MYDD. The diary writer played a part in my mistake by referring to it as a front page diary.

by Pravin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

If he were the "big buzz" candidate, should Obama not be leading at least in a couple of states? Instead, he does not have the lead in a single state.

Apparently, Matt Stoller knows some inside the Obama organization and talks with more authority than his "breathless" fans here.

BTW, this was NOT a frontpage diary, as implied by the diarist here. It was a "Breaking Blue" note. That is not synonymous with a frontpage diary.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

I think you should be careful about who you think knows, whom. just a suggestion....

Also, can you tell me why the Clintonistas were upset with the NY Times for running that article on Senator Obama and his love for basketball?

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Also, can you tell me why the Clintonistas were upset with the NY Times for running that article on Senator Obama and his love for basketball?

Because White Women Can't Jump?

by dblhelix on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (3.00 / 0)

Aw, don't get like that. You know he is the buzz candidate, he took the "newness" away from Clinton by jumping in this, a fact. And you know he had to raise a large amount of money, get his name out there, build an infrastructure because Clinton already had much of this. And polls, geez, why are ppl hung up on polls this early? The only polls to really track is November on and we know this. Finally, if Obama is such a non-issue, why did over 10,000 ppl walk on Saturday? Why is he raising a lot of money? I know, money don't mean anything. But we all took our "brain pills" today and know that it is 50% of a campaign. It shows if you are appealling, viable, etc. So, we know that is means a lot. So, let's not dispell this. Because, my thing is that Obama is tapping into a market of people who are giving to a campaign for the first time in their lives. Bringing people to the democratic party. The question for me will be how many "new donors"? I care more about that than the dollar figure. Because we are talking about voters here. So, Obama is doing what he needs to do. Building an infrastructure, getting people involved, raising huge monies, and getting himself and his position out there. November should be a very interesting month.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

But, should Obama not be leading in at least a couple of states in their average polling? Even a couple of non-early ones, just to show that in some of the states he comes in pretty strong, is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to the national picture?

As for fundraising, sure, I think it is a great thing for the Democratic party that BOTH Clinton and Obama are breaking all previous records from either party by a mile. I also think it is a good thing to bring new voters to the party. Both candidates are doing that (Obama with youth, Clinton with women who never voted before.) I just think Obama needs to get debate coaching right away. The debates are hurting him a lot, as he comes across as just another politician in those. Clinton uses a lot of humor, in contrast Obama and Edwards look dry. I also believe Obama getting the "Reagan of the left" label, going after a Colin Powell endorsement and generally courting Republicans is not good for his appeal to hard-core Democrats, which are more partisan than he may think.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Obama is far from dry.

And he was alot better in debate 2. But he will/must be on in the fall debates. That is when EVERYONE will be watching. Whether one want to believe it or not, many democrats do want an alternative to Hillary Clinton. For a candidate with 51% unfavorables, as reported by Rassmussen, you have to look at this realistically. It is up to Obama to seal the deal with the public. And as for him talking to Powell, so what. He need to talk to a person who actually had MILTARY ON THE GROUND EXPERIENCE, along with state. There are not many running around Washington, DC with this. And yes, Powell has issues with how Iraq was handled, but as does Hillary for not reading the NIE Report and voting for this war. So, there is plenty of blame to go around for this one. Lastly, I will take polls seriously in November, right now most of these state polls are on name recognition and we both know this.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

Sorry, he can't "seal the deal" by getting Powell involved. He needs to convince hard-core Democrats, and right now he is doing his best to turn them away.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

2 meetings with Obama? Who cares!!! Obama has to seal the deal on his OWN, period. I don't credit 2 meetings with Powell a big deal. I am a hardcore democrat, one who like to talk to EVERYBODY to know what page everyone is on. Hardcore dems, and we know, will vote on the person's record, what they will bring to the table, and their positions. Now, if Powell was a paid campaign advisor, I would have huge issues with that, but he is not. This is just like Murdoch hosting a senate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, big deal who cares. I know I did not. Now if Hillary is seeking constant advice from Murdoch on policy issues, big problem.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

I don't disagree with you here in principle, but the timing of all this "Republican for Obama" stuff is not great, IMO. Powell is just part of that. Right now Obama SHOULD concentrate on getting the hard-core Democrats excited about him. Try to win over Independents and stray Republicans after the primaries. That is how it is traditionally done. It is interesting that Obama does not go with that typically used method. We will see how it works out. I believe he may be shooting himself in the foot with some Democrats with this, but only time will tell, of course.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage Bull Shit on Obama (none / 0)

I don't know if you noticed in my post on Republicans for Obama but it is an outside and unaffiliated group. Obama for America is not working to win over Independents and Republicans, it just so happens that people like a leader.

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Message? (none / 0)

Isn't part of Matt's point that Obama's message is sill based on cliches and conventional rhetoric? Is he saying anything of substance on the campaign trail?

by justinh on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:35:14 PM EST

Re: Message? (none / 0)

He is saying plenty on the stump, and had it all in WRITING for ppl to pass out for his Walk for Change on Saturday.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Message? (none / 0)

The question is, then, are his substantive statements markedy different from the rest of the Democratic field in order to distinguish his campaign?

The cliches--a "different kind of politics," the fight "against cynicism," "working together," etc--only go so far, as they have whenever candidates have broken them out in the past (Perot, McCain, Lieberman, etc.)

by justinh on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Message? (none / 0)

I can't believe you're saying Obama has no substance. This is after he's rolled out his health care plan, Iraq plan, energy plan, foreign policy, urban initiatives etc. etc. You're six months late to the game, at least.

The media wants to cover Obama as an inexperienced hype candidate without substantive policies, but you don't have to fall for that nonsense.

by Korha on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know! (none / 0)

I mean, how many people forget his noble work to gain energy independence by subsidizing coal! How could you not support a man who wants to increase carbon emissions?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Message? (none / 0)

I'll take any Obama cliche, anyday, over Edwards being spoonfed words out of Stan Greenbergs book "The Two Americas".
Which just happened to come out and get previewed on Tim Russert's show a few weeks before the 2004 Iowa primary...where Edward's wowed the Iowa crowds with 'his' new two-America's stump speech.

Dedicated to a Clean and Lean Dean Powered Machine!

by hazmaq on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The buzz is dead (none / 0)

For two reasons I think.

1) The media doesn't tend to focus easily on multiple peronalities. They tend to go overboard on one person. Back in February that was Obama. Now its Fred Thompson.

2) When Obama was getting all that press early in the year it was more biographical, which is good for him. Now the coverage is settling more on the nuts and bolts of the campaign and on issues.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:47:22 PM EST

Re: The buzz is dead (3.00 / 0)

not true...

Obama, Thompson enjoy early buzz in this Washington

http://www.columbian.com/news/state/APSt ories/AP06092007news151367.cfm

Also, Bill Kristol wrote a article several months ago, basically saying the Presidency would be between...

Senator Obama (whom he called Senator Bobby Kennedy) and former Senator Fred Thompson (whom he called President Reagan).

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (3.00 / 1)

BILL KRISTOL? Oh boy.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (none / 0)

Sorry, if I don't HATE like you do.

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (3.00 / 2)

All I hear are REPUBLICANS. Don't you see the disconnect? Wasn't it you who also claimed that one of McCain's strategist is giving Obama some love? Has nothing to do with "HATE." Hard-core Democrats are not likely to be impressed by what Bill Kristol, McCain's advisor or George W. Bush's spokesman have to say about Obama. (I made that last one up, but that is probably next in this "Republicans for Obama" onslaught you brag about.)

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All 65 of the Repubs for Obama? (3.00 / 1)

They have chapters in 11 different states ya know. Those 65 people are going to be a force to be reckoned with.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (none / 0)

Well, actually I should say Independents also, who will be the group that decide the Election. Granted, Clinton has the hard core Democrats. Senator Obama is only bringing in new converts and Independents who feel left out of both parties.

The reason the Country is in the mess we are in today is because no one wants to work together. There is a diconnect with the average voter in our Country. There are hardcore liberals and hardcore conservatives. Then there is the group that Senator Obama speaks to, everyone else.

If you think that Democrats ONLY will decide the Democratic race for the nomination, you are mistaken.

Bill Kristol was just a reference, I didn't say he was all "pie in the sky" about Senator Obama, I was making a reference to his column.

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (none / 0)

It is an interesting strategy. I just believe it is wrongheaded and ultimately damaging to Obama's chances. Democrats are MUCH more partisan than Obama appears to think, especially now with the Iraq war and George W. Bush messing up the country. And, yes, you need hard-core Democrats to come out in huge numbers.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (none / 0)

Democrats are much more partisan than Obama appears
to think, especially now with the Iraq war....

If Democrats are much more partisan because of the war, as you suggest,
this is to Obama's advantage, I would think.

...you need hard-core Democrats to come out in huge numbers.

I'm never clear what, exactly, you mean by "hard-core Democrats."

Do you mean...

...self-identified "progressives"?
...people who identify with the party machine/DNC?
...registered Democrats who tend to vote the party line?

It seems to me that these discrete groups -- who are not necessarily always
the same people -- embody differing levels of openness to a Democratic candidate
like Obama, who knows what he's "supposed to" say but doesn't always say it or
says it in unexpected ways.

by horizonr on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The buzz is dead (3.00 / 0)

Oh and Hillary didnt pander to the conservatives with her Iraq war vote and statements from 2002-2004?

by Pravin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish (none / 0)

What I don't understand is why did Matt Stoler put his comments in "Breaking Blue" instead of the front page?

Now we have to comment on his breaking blue analysis in this or anther diary, and his commentary will no longer exist in 2 weeks time.

by maddogg on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:10:06 PM EST

Re: I wish (none / 0)

Could it be because yesterday I complained about, and got blasted for, the fact that most of the #1 dairies and top articles were always pro-Edwards related pieces, for months and months now?

Dedicated to a Clean and Lean Dean Powered Machine!

by hazmaq on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage (3.00 / 0)

Hey props to icebergslim for making the BarackObama.com frontpage with his mydd post "More than 8,000 donations for "Face to Face with Barack Obama" in 24 hours" way cool!

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:37:27 PM EST

Re: Another Mydd Frontpage (none / 0)

aw, shucks, i am cyber blushing...

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The MSM (none / 0)

has chosen our President beginning with Kennedy when they discovered charisma and controversy equaled money.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:43:24 PM EST

Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (3.00 / 1)

Man, that Matt is going straight to H-E-Double Hockey Stick! How dare he challenge a man who is worshiped as if he walked on water? How dare he challenge the feelings that so many have with tthoughts and speculation?!?! Doesn't Matt know that Obama is actually the embodiment of everything that is good and holy in the world?

I'm waiting for the day, hopefully in the not too distant future, when the left purge itself of any critics of our noble leaders. I have a bad itch, and only the blood of a non-believer can scratch it!

A little bit of torture and maybe death is sure to show Matt, and all the other non-believers, the light!

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:47:50 PM EST

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

LOL.

by bryandem on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (3.00 / 1)

Don't be a prick. No one is saying here that he walks on water. We are saying that Matt's post on Breaking Blue (which is supposed to be news) does not have a factual basis.

Matt talks about Obama's downward trend in Rasmussen. We all understand that the one poll he references with Obama at 36 was an outlier. He has been polling at 25 for about a month and a half. I didn't realize that staying the same means that he has "steadily dropped."

Additionally, he has come out with plans and specifics on a lot of issues and I think that his plans are as good as what I've seen from the other candidates. I think that he differs in one aspect from the other candidates, he'll be able to get things done.

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (3.00 / 1)

Well, I know that you're impartial (given your name), but this whole conversation is rather, uh, silly.

Obama may have "plans", and don't we all (I plan on living to be 1,000, and I plan to grow another 3 feet or so). Too bad his plans include destroying the planet. Obama will tank because, as Al Gore has noted, he's bought and paid for by Coal Lobbyists. How many Dems will vote for someone who is for increased Carbon Emissions? My head may be shaped like a lollipop, but I aint no sucka.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

So, with the coal thing, Gore is unlikely to endorse Obama, right?

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

put it like this, he is more revered that Hillary Clinton right now. I do see him endorsing Obama or Edwards over Clinton. And what he has to say "now" will mean more than four years ago.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

How so? The strong negative comments Gore made about this liquified coal thing would make him look like a hypocrit if he endorsed Obama. Edwards, maybe.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

If I lived in Philly and you represented the Future Majority, I'd move to Jersey, maybe even Camden.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Turn that racket down, ya punk kid! (none / 0)

I'm blushing because of the power you assign to me. Anyway, Camden could use a few more grumpy old men, so I'm happy that I could do my part!

Go back to Jersey!

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 08:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

Don't forget baby Moses.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least Baby Mohhamud isn't crying... (none / 0)

But that's just because he doesn't get mad, he gets even. Watch your back, Matt!

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller makes baby Jesus cry... (none / 0)

Some aren't defending Obama.
We're about DD deliberately headlining an excessive number of pro-Edwards pieces and selecting anti-everyone else.

If they endorse Edwards, for transparency and fairness they should post that.

Dedicated to a Clean and Lean Dean Powered Machine!

by hazmaq on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matt endorsed Edwards? (none / 0)

Or was that Chris? Maybe it was Jerome Armstrong (all of them).

Maybe Edwards is a better communicator with the netroots? (Actually, I doubt many people in the netroots, either here or elsewhere, have a lot of love for Edwards after bloggergate, but I could be wrong)

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 08:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Stoller drive-by (3.00 / 0)

My BS detector went off right around here:

It's no secret that I'm no fan of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards

Please Matt, admit to yourself that you shill for Edwards and your disdain for Obama and Clinton is almost irrational. Who are you fooling?

The sad thing is that Matt Stoller has lost a lot of respect from many mydd readers, someone we used to respect. Kinda side and pitiful how low he chooses to go.

PS.
Matt, you constantly criticize Dem insiders on the hill who anonymously attack Dean and the party. If you really have the balls to do so, name the Obama donors and supporters who now "seem" to be "drifting away". Name them.

by rosebowl on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:51:22 PM EST

seriously. nt (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's tough (none / 0)

Obama's support has stabalized around 20%, this support is fairly solid I think.

For someone who nobody knew three years ago Obama's done very well, and reaching 20% in a three-way race against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards is highly impressive no matter how you want to slice it.

It's tough to know where to go from here, though. Obama's presidential campaign was always "an improbable quest," and it was always a long shot that he could manage to grab the nomination.

Shrug If it doesn't work out Obama can always run again later after being Governor of Illinois for a couple years.

by Korha on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:04:07 PM EST

Re: It's tough (none / 0)

Or he my go for the VP position.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just released poll from LA Times/Bloomberg (none / 0)

Yup! Clinton is in the lead! However, Senator Obama is the ONLY Democratic beating all the front runners, that would be:

Romney
McCain
Rudy

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt on/2007/06/new_la_timesblo.html

by Lorraine on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:07:12 PM EST

Re: Just released poll from LA Times/Bloomberg (none / 0)

Wow. I like the terms "solid" when it comes to Clinton's lead and "distant" when it comes to Obama's place behind. I wonder what the actual numbers are going to be, once released.

And, since they are wondering about Edwards "top-tier status", his poll numbers must not be too good in that poll.

by georgep on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just released poll from LA Times/Bloomberg (none / 0)

Aw, c'mon George, you know these polls are early. I don't even know why folks are polling this early anyway.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just released poll from LA Times/Bloomberg (none / 0)

If you read the post it actually appears as it will not be unwelcome that the LA Times doesn't count him as a first tier candidate now, but thinks maybe they should.

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]