Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California

Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.

Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."

But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.

Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to....

freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?

Ed said, of course, more likely.

Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."

For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.

Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

Ed said, oh, well then, less, of course. And the caller appeared to make a note of that.

"He was not pushy at all," Coghlan said. "And at the end he thanked me for giving him my opinions."

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

--Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Robyn Beck AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[moonscape]

i had a curious push poll, but it came in the form of a $5 survey. at first i didn't realize i was being push-polled since i was getting paid. expensive way to get votes! i'm in hillary's demographic, i should be voting for her but i'm not. i'll vote for her in the general election over any republican, but my primary vote goes to obama.

as the push-poll continued, when it said something nasty about obama, i'd say it made me more likely to vote for him. positive about clinton? less likely. so, i finish the poll, and 30 minutes later i have another email, re another poll. another $5. this time it was more aggressive. i refused to cooperate. of course, one always has to be 'more likely' or 'less likely' to vote for her, there is no 'neither more nor less' option.

these 'surveys' were a week or so ago. truly odious.

[moonscape]

the push-poll survey that came via email was through a survey company that was obviously targeting certain zip codes. i'm in the sf bay area.

[Keith Henderson]

Politics. As. Usual.

Whether or not this was the doing of the Clinton-controlled Clinton machine, it will be seen as another in a growing list of dirty campaign tactics that have worked to her advantage. Of course, she will be insulated from any blame as usual ("Sometimes Bill gets carried away"). How many times, though, can she count on the voters to swallow a rehearsed denial?

Thanks for the report, as usual.

[Brendan Connell]

That kind of thing is very disgusting.

[Polled out]

More shady business surrounding the Clinton camp.

Who actually thinks that she can beat McCain if she has been McCain-lite all of these years?

[Mike Abramowitz]

Article sounds legitimate to me but have you thought that if you wanted to poison the well with bad thoughts about any candidate, you could make calls of this nature in a counter-insurgency role, i.e., make you competition look bad by shading the questions.

This technique is utilized by all campaigns and this campaign is exceptionally competitive so how do you know who is calling you since they describe themselves as independent pollsters?

Just look at the way the paper and TV media is trying to make the news with regard to certain candidates rather than report the news which is what their charter would dictate - whether that media is liberal or conservative.

[k esslinger]

It's obvious the media bias here is towards Obama or at least the candidates the paper endorses. Again spinning a common practice that all the candidates use as some dirty trick of only the Hillary campaign. Why is it that the only message that is allowed to get through is the nutrionless messages of hope when what we need is help. The writer doesn't want to hear about what Hillary has done. Why not really talk about issues instead of criticizing what is a common tactic of even the LA TIMES. I've received countless calls from the LA Times subscription call center which was actually odious.

[Gene Webb]

The Clintons will never change. Enough said.

[Steve Wimer]

It's just a poll. Obama isn't going to win. Get real. Obama supporters take everything personally, whine, and use the race card. Obama, to his credit, does not. Hillary Clinton is the best choice. If you think "push polls" are a dirty tactic, just wait until the Republicans get started during the final election.

[Julie B.]

Hillary Clinton's sunk to a new LOW. I'm very disappointed in her. Politics as usual doesn't cut it, Never did.

Fortunately Barack Obama deserves the nomination on his own merit. I hope Obama-Edwards is the ticket -- would serve America well.

[Julie B.]

Just because REPUBLICANS DO IT does not make it right.

Calling people out for wrong doing will not be dismissed as whining.

Hillary used to complain about these tactics, now she and Bill have become Rovians themselves.

I was happy to vote for whatever Dem, but after this BS this election cycle? No way. Like so many others, I'm sick of the twisted politics.

Independent Moderate

[Sarah McDonald]

The Clintons sent out false information in every form in Iowa and New Hampshire just prior to the polls so Obama wouldn't have time to find out and defend before people voted. Iowa didn't fall for it, but she made fools out of New Hampshire women who were led to believe Obama was weak on women's rights when he has a 100% rating on pro-choice. Women rose up and voted Hillary.

If you want a President who has no honor or integrity, elect Hillary for 8 more years of hell.

[Joshua]

Has the LA Times endorsed Obama? Because I've been following many articles on the candidates via the internet for the past three months, and ever since the December debates I think, there has been nothing but Clinton degrading articles coming from here...why is that?

First the insinuation that the Clintons are pushing racism between latinos and blacks, and then the allusion to Obama is the Real Deal while the Clintons (yes, both of them) are dirty politicians, even when Obama's campaign were the people who pushed a four page document stating that the Clinton's just might be racists, and now this. . .

[On And On]

The media has endorsed Barack Obama.

But the PEOPLE endorse Hillary Clinton.

[Terri]

First of all, the tactic is NOT utilized by all the campaigns. Neither the Edwards nor the Obama campaign has used push polling. This is now a common practice with the Clintons.

Secondly, you expect Republicans to campaign this way against Democrats. I never thought I'd see the day a Democrat used Karl Rove-style tactics against their own party members. A credible candidate doesn't need to resort to dirty tricks to win.

[Roger C]

This just sounds like a complete bias from the LA Times which obviously supports Obama; but claims to be a honest report instead.What I read is a thinly veiled advertisement for a candidate wrapped up as news story, structured on rubbishing Clinton's character. The writer and the paper who publish this garbage would better serve its readers by reporting on the issues that effect them. Not some Push Poll Article of their own, designed to influence the reader in the same dirty tactics out lined in the story.
Voters deserve better than this, regardless who the candidtates are..... and so do the issues at hand.

[skeptic1]

Any verification of this event, other than one man's word, a man whose background would lead an objective observer to believe that he is more likely than not politically active and engaged, with possible biases himself? Do you simply poison the well without proof that the event occurred at all? If so, then I suppose that I should inform LAT that death threats are being called in to independent voters by the Obama camp. Proof of such???? Why would you need any? With the primary only two days away, and with the Obama bias of LAT apparent for nigh on a year, just go for it!! After all, it's not as if any journalistic standards yet exist which are even capable of being violated in this nation.

[brickbat]

This is exactly why Hillary will not win in November if McCain is the nominee. People are not going to choose the bitter partisan over the perceived grandfatherly 'independent'. It's a recipe for electoral disaster.

As to the claim that the Republicans will behave 'worse'...that may well be fighting the last war. I'm not sure McCain can get away with that - he is dependent, as a Republican in an anti-Bush year -- in maintaining his image as being sincere and pure.

Hillary vs McCain sets the Republican up as being the candidate of change, and the Democrat as being the same old stuff. It would turn logic on its head, but it would happen.

If McCain is the GOP nominee, only Obama has a chance of winning for the Democrats.

[Steve Rimew]

Steve Wimer's post would suggest that the Clinton camp is actually trying to do Obama a service by giving him this prior taste of GOP medicine. Very decent of them, I'm sure!

[Maureen R.]

I can only state that where there is continual smoke it must be coming from a fire.

Every single primary has been marred by Clinton dirty tricks.

I am a life long democrat who has finally learned why the Clintons drive the Republicans crazy.

Some people think its ok to win this way. I for one want a different kind of politics and that is OBAMA.

[phil]

Hilary Clinton is old politics including having to do anything to win, Obama is a refreshing breath of air when it comes to politics.
The best ad he could run is Caroline Kennedy's endorsement!

[tina]

Why do you report this and say nothing about the mailers being sent out by Obama? It's politics and they are both campaigning for the job of the President of the United States. According to the gentleman in the article, the pollster wasn't rude or tried to get him to change how he answered the questions. He asked truthful questions and waited for the answers. How does anyone know it was the Clinton campaign? Ever hear of pretend your the other guy and see how voters are thinking. Was there a call to the Obama campaign to question this story? Has everyone forgotten the sleazy ads before the Nevada caucaus.

[Jake]

The sad reality is----just as the Clintons are dishonest, so are their supporters with negative comments about ANY other candidate. THEIR energy is so DEPRESSING to the country. Any time negative comments are made----the country can GUARANTEE it's coming from the Clintons or a supporter. What's even MORE SAD? They're PROUD of it.

[Frank]

The Chicago Tribune owned LA Times has endorsed Obama so it can be expected that they would be writing non-stories such as this one. The LA Times is pimping for their owner's choice in Chicago. Remember, Obama is from the state that gave us ward politics, fixed elections for JFK and Senator Carol Mosely Braun. The standards for being a senator or politician in Illinois aren't very high.

[Mark]

The Clintons are notorious down-and-dirty politicians. Independents won't stand for it . How can we allow Hillary and Bill Clinton back in the WH for more years of disgraceful, divisive politics? Who are they going to sell the Lincoln bedroom to this time?

[WatchingCali]

Curious as to why it seems this guy Coghlan seems to be the only one to have received a call. Did the reporter Malcolm even try and see if anyone that he doesn't know got a call. If I call the LA Times and tell them a story will they print it on my word alone? This sounds like another Daley machine mole.

(AS you can see from these comments, he wasn't the only one.)

[jack]

Has anyone ever thought it could be coming from the OBAMA camp? What better way to smear your opponent than by doing a karl rove on them and make it appear obama is being hit by clinton.
The media has been doing anything they can to negate hillary. All one saw about the debate was Obama..Obama..Obama. Hardly ANY mention about him getting a slam about illegal immigration shoved back in his face. Not much said about how Hillary knocked his socks off on healthcare. Not much said about his comment about leaving strike forces in iraq but he was pulling all troops out. Now where was he going to leave these troops? In Pakistan?
As for race, the ones who began the race issue came from the Obama side..distorting what Bill and Hillary both said. If Hillary was involved with Rezco in the slightest way, it would be headlines from day one to the end.
I also read another Calif paper that stated OBAMA was the one who would give people the same healthcare Congress gets and that doesn't bode well for Hillary. WHAT GARBAGE! Hillary was the FIRST to come out with any healthcare plan and said THAT BEFORE ANYONE ELSE!
Maybe the LA Times and the rest of the media should REPORT and NOT campaign...like they accuse Bill for doing. By the way, why isn't ANY of what Bill has been saying been shown? Is it because there is nothing negative to try and twist? Or is it because he is really hitting the issues and people may have to question Obama on his stances?
I was not a Hillary lover but now after seeing the smear that the media has done...I hope she wins big. I also want a Pres who will say "I pass the bill","I veto the bill"..NOT JUST SAY PRESENT!

[Diana R]

Clintons have been playing dirty, win-at-all-cost politics all along. They did some nasty robot calls against Edwards in SC... They are willing to lie to people now, how much does anyone expect them to tell the truth if they're in office? Bush did the same thing to McCain -- look what happened. Yes, it works...and look what WE get!!!

[Liz D.]

They called my house a few days ago and my husband talked to them. He gave them all sorts of crazy answers just to mess with them.

[Joseph W. Mathews]

Well, here's her "35 years of experience". Same old sleaze. Thought we might be onto something Thursday night (i.e. an uplifting campaign), but, alas, that's a no go. Hoping that all Californians reject this kind of garbage and realize who's behind it.

Senator Obama's obviously gotten their attention and they're looking desperate. Should these kind of tactics prevail then we'll get four more years of the GOP and, if it's John McCain, I may not agree, but at least I know he's honest.

NCLB="No Clinton Left Behind"

[libby]

LOL!!! I always a laugh when Obama supporters come in these boards screaming "dirty tactics." That negative mailer going around in North Dakota, Idaho and Colorado from the Obama campaign is "positive change?" It has been panned, to the credit of the media, as false and misleading about Hillary's health plan.

Well when you have koolaide drinkers as your main supporters facts don't have a way of reaching their minds.

[Jason]

I can't believe people are even debating between Obama and Clinton. On one hand, we have a senator who voted for the authorization of force resolution which at the time EVERYONE knew meant was the authorization for war--common think back did you really think Bush was not marching to war. Realize when you defend Clinton voted for the resolution as a means to pressure Iraq, you are also defending the Bush administration. You can't have it both ways, if you thought that Bush was always going to go to war, and then you have to believe that Clinton also knew that right. Not only that, she never even read the National Intelligence Estimate, these are facts, they might be stubborn but facts nonetheless. So not only did she fail the "exam", she never opened the "book" to study for the "exam". And as if this was not enough, a couple of months back, she actually voted along with Bush on the Iran resolution. Again, she said this was to pressure Iran. So you failed once, maybe we forgive, failing twice, well that disqualifies you from consideration from being a senator let alone the presidency.

On the other hand, you have Obama who spoke out against the war when NOONE was brave enough to do so. Do you remember how EVERYONE who spoke up again the war was branded as a traitor? And keep in mind as well that he was an elected official at the time, he could have done the cravenly act and went along, but he spoke out. Hillary has tried to paint Obama as a man always driven to run for the presidency since he was in "kindergarten". So would it not have been the easy thing for Obama to go along--like Clinton did--and vote for a war that no one wanted to oppose?

Experience in failure is not what America needs; we have had 8 years of that. Additionally, ask yourself, do we really want 28 years (that’s right 28 years) of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidency? Are we not a democracy?? Let's see, a dynastic "monarchy" where families with known names keep winning the presidency. That would put us in league with: 1) Egypt (Where Hosni Mubarak is going to hand the presidency to his son) 2) Syria (where Al-assad handed off the presidency to Bashar 3) North Korea (where "dear leader" handed off the leadership to his son Kim Ill Jong 4) Cuba (where Fidel Castro is handing off his presidency to his brother Raul 5) Saudi Arabia (Where King Fahd handed off his rule to his half brother Abdulla

I can go on and on with this. The point is that we are the United States of America; there is a reason why we have the 22nd amendment which limits the terms a president can serve. That is why our greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson) never served more than 2 terms. Only FDR served more than 2 terms, and that was during WWII, an existential threat to our nation where we needed a continuity of leadership desperately. And trust me; Bill and Hillary are no FDR.

My point is that we are a better country than to vote for someone based on a last name. Do we really want to go back to the divisiveness of the 90s? Do we want to go back to the endless investigations? And how long do you think it would be before we lose both houses of congress once America gets tired of the Clintons running the country ragged. We have a chance to elect a president who inspires 18,000 young and older Americans to attend a rally in the middle of the week. We need a president that gives us a fresh start and a clean break from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton years.

[Michael Chermesino]

We dont need to be taught the definition of the word is again! And we dont need a president that says, as Hillary said 9/13/01 that you are either with the terrorists or with us. Sounds like the other side of the Bush coin to me. WAKE UP AMERICA VOTE WITH YOUR BRAIN or stay home

[Dan G]

I expect Sen. Clinton to deny any connection to the push poll much like Gov. Huckabee did a few weeks ago. I might believe that, but what does it say if wealthy special interests do huge political favors for a candidate? Are these the people we want to enjoy access to the next president?

[primarywater]

Excellent article! thanks Andrew - can we get this on the front page? Clintons NEVER change.

[James Arnold]

I am a Republican and I hate most democrats because they are self righteous whiners. The problem with The USA is not Republicans its the obnoxious citizens and illegal immigrants that live here. I am one as well.I vote. I don't think I will vote for McCain because he wants to continue the stupid Iraq war. Hillary will get my vote even though her laugh is hideous to listen to. The US suffers around the world because we are know it alls that try to ram our way of life to everyone. Its not the capitalism that is the problem its the arrogant rude behavior that seems to be the way it is here in LA and most of the USA. Who can sympathize with the WGA. Americans have to blame everything on global conglomerates.How friggin naive.I think most of us get our earnings from those evil global conglomerates.The Democrats are the biggest cheerleaders for this hypocrisy. Obama has charisma, but what have the Kennedys ever done for workers. They have brainwashed Massachusetts keeping that ass Ted in office.Unfortunately my rants won't accomplish a damn thing so thats my perspective on Super Tuesday. The next prez will either be Obama or Clinton. I want to see how a woman will do in the White House. Maybe African Americans if they get Obama in, they will get over their anti white rage that has simmered for the last 400 years

[Billy]

I also received a push poll. I politely answered the questions, and then told the pollster at the end that I was voting for Obama and didn't appreciate his call. Then, I emailed everyone in my address book to tell them about it.

I have several Republican friends who will be voting for Obama too.

I'm sick of the Clinton's and sick of the dirty tricks.

[Matt N]

This type of push polling and "politics as usual" from the Clinton campaign are the very reason why voters (including most independents and some Republicans) are flocking to Obama. They are sick and tired of this crap, from both parties.

Obama is more about changing the political status quo in America than he is about exercising a partisan agenda. His is a message of hope and unity for a country that has lost faith in government. This is what Clinton supporters fail to understand when they argue their candidate should win because she is "more experienced". Experienced at what?

Clinton may still win on Super Tuesday, but it will only be by the grace of her early substantial lead and the narrow timing. One more week and she'd be toast.

[Elise in NH]

Hillary won the NH primary with last-minute distraction techniques (tears in the diner, "finding her voice" in late mid-life (huh?), and sending out smearing, patently untrue mailings about Obama's record on choice.

Why can't she just run on her record --- if she has as much "experience" as she suggests, shouldn't that work just fine? Why resort to poor ethics, Hill? Let's not out-Rove Karl Rove here...

Obama wins on experience (he has more total years in elected office than she), on worldliness, on judgment, and on honesty.

Elise in NH

[Jerry Tsai]

If you are at all thinking about voting for Senator Obama, then GO OUT AND VOTE FOR HIM! Otherwise we will just get more underhanded politicking-- we all have had enough!

[Robin]

one remembers the lament of the American historian Henry Adams, grandson of a President: "Politics is nothing but the systematic organization of hatreds." Politics in America has been this way for decades now and is thirsty for a new path... away from Rovian style politics of spin and Socratian word play.. Hillary Clinton represents more of the same... she is not a good choice for America, not because she is woman, but because her time has passed and besides she is not the 'right' woman...

This writer feels that Barack Obama has tapped into the good of Americans he reaches and is the right person to be the next President of the United States. His opponents are even calming down and plagerizing his message! - he has that effect, even on those who don't agree with him... He is raising the level of the conversation - how great is that! He is running an inspiring campaign... Barack's website is inspirational. this is so refreshing as it lowers the level of angst in the population and instead inspires and raises them up... It stands to reason by tapping into the good in society, that society grows and flourishes...

Barack is here for a reason... He is a man for our times and have no doubt would be an inspiring and great President. It is a most difficult task he takes on, but if anyone can change the way America views itself and the world views America, it is Barack Obama.

[tiredofit]

No way of knowing who did it, but it is somethign that makes Obama look good and Clinton look bad. Everyone talks about the Clinton Machine, if it were a Clinton tactic why would they do something that would most likely benefit Obama? This type of thing has happened a few times and every time Obama has benefitted from it. Time to start digging deeper into the origination point of these tactics. People could be surprised to find out that the one that claims to be running a positive campaign is actually running the most negative. Leading up to Iowa race was not an issue, but going into SC the Obama camp effectively raised the race issue and turned votes that were for Hillary in his favor. Then there is the question how many Democrat primaries allow Republicans and independants to vote? How many of these numbers are voting for Obama so they can make him the Dem nominee only to give their vote to the Republican nominee in the general election. This type of thing would be a "Rove" tactic.

[smokey]

The media has endorsed Barack Obama.

But the PEOPLE endorse Hillary Clinton.

THAT says it all !!

[CarlosnLA]

Obama plays the same dirty political games as every other politician !!!!! Get Real ! Enough of this Obama fairy tale HOPE, CHANGE UNORIGINALITY....Those phrases are sooooo OLD ! Now poor Barack is plagiarizing Si se puede ! ...Why can't he just wanna be himself? Whoever that is.....

[SV]

I became a member of the Green Party under the Bill Clinton's presidency, especially after NAFTA and the Telecommnications Act. I was a resident of New York at the time Hillary Clinton ran for senate. At that point I had lived there longer than she had, and remember thinking she defined "carpetbagger," Still, as it panned out, I voted for her rather than the conservative replacement for Guiliani after he dropped out of the race. I had become disillusioned with Democratic politicians aligning themselves with Republican policies, becoming the second wing of the same corrupt bird--talking the talk of making policy for the good of the American people but walking straight to the fundraisers and bank. For this election cycle, I had vowed to vote for the Democratic nominee for Presidency, knowing that four more years of any Republican will be the final blow for any fairness or true democracy that we are clinging to. I will break that vow if the Democrats nominate Clinton and her politics-as-usual. Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Richardson; all had my full support. Obama has it. Other like-minded independent progressives or Green Party members are willing to support an Obama candidacy. Very ew of us will cross party lines and vote for Clinton. There are many reasons for that. Too many to list here, and too redundant to mention again. She and her campaign strategists brought this upon themselves. I'd rather vote for my Green candidate or, dare I say, Senator McCain. When you vote for a Republican, at least you can be sure you're voting for a Republican. Democrats shouldn't be so confident they're getting a Democrat when voting for a Clinton. You would do well not to nominate her. But Ann Coulter thinks you should!

[Tony]

You can not assume it's coming from Clinton's Camp for sure. It could be from Obama's Camp or sponsored by Obama supporters, 'cause every smart guys like you know this kind of tactic would backfire, so they would just do so so you would instead vote for Obama? This is not uncommon in real life. Don't assume you are smarter than others.

[john c]

Although I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton's presidency and volunteered for months for his campaign in 1992, I'm no loner surprised about the level to which they will stoop. They will do ANYTHING to get elected. As David Geffen said long ago--they lie with such ease...

With things like this constantly percolating into the news, Clinton Fatigue is turning into something much worse (and potentially untreatable): CCFS -- Chronic Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. Let's hope we can stop it before we are all trapped in the malaise of CCFS.

[Felipe]

These Hillaristas have no respect for democracy or for the people

[Marie]

Folks this is a blog, not an article. Different measures apply. Clinton is known for these grey area tactics, and is clearly a grade-grubber hoping for your vote. Apply your critical thinking skills to her triangulations and realize that she will move back to the right where she came from once she is in office and faces the reality of a coordinated and united GOP. Her personal life is a mess, Bendixon (a Latino strategist from her campaign who is still working there) is the one who made the black-latino antagonism comment which wasn't broken in the LAT, but on a wire service report, so I don't get the bias comments at all.

Just use your good sense and vote your conscience. At the end of the day none of these candidates know you or give two cents about you as an individual. Vote for someone with integrity, character and judgment who is free of entanglements and capable of surrounding her/nimself with other strong critical thinkers of character and STAY INVOLVED.

[Bonnie Russell]

This isn't a news report, it's one man's claimed experience. Interesting that the LA Times went with it. Interesting in a political kind of way. Remember the good old days when reporters checked stuff out?

In other news, USAjudges.com is so voters can make more informed choices.

Although some people believe things are humming along nicely at various judicial commissions; but such is not the case. Fortunately the public is now getting a real education as to why their vote is truly important.

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/03/State/Lust__lies_and_disord.shtml

[PushAwayPoll]

Actually, the Clinton campaign is also the same group making race-comments as well as comparing mailers from Obama like "nazis marching through Skokie".

These people are over the top to begin with - a "push poll" seems almost beneath them.

But it's one of the many reasons I don't have a landline. Noone can find me unless I want them too - most people my age (35) and younger are the same way. The politicians and pollsters don't even know we exist....

[Felipe]

I said these Hillaristas have no respect for democracy

[flarrfan]

Someone said:
"This just sounds like a complete bias from the LA Times which obviously supports Obama; but claims to be a honest report instead.What I read is a thinly veiled advertisement for a candidate wrapped up as news story, structured on rubbishing Clinton's character."

The media don't "rubbish" the Clintons' character, they simply report facts...the facts we all know, or should remember, from the "bimbo eruptions" of 1992 to the pardons of 2001(and most everything in-between, public or private) to the 2008 campaign tactics long before any push-poll allegation, say all we need to know about the Clintons' character. Hey Bubba, I have a mine in Kazakhstan your buddy might be interested in...how's your library foundation going? And for SHrillary, when are you releasing your White House papers?

[Antonn]

La Times is pro Obama, this paper is unfair to Hillary. Latinos will vote for HILLARY CLINTON AND SHE WILL PREVAIL AND WIN ON FEB 5

[Robert Carom]

Clintons are a part of the past politics of Government, ..great or not so great...Obama is for those going forward!

[Hal in Chas]

Speaking of Dirt... Hillary Clinton said at the Los Angeles debate "...It Took A Clinton To Clean-Up After A Bush."

If Hillary's statement is true, then it is reasonable to assume that its corollary is equally truthful: It Took A Bush (GeorgeW), to clean up after a Clinton (Bill).

Bill Clinton soiled the dressing which cloaked the prestige of the US Presidency. At least George W had no equivalent dangerous liaisons in the oval office.

One can only wonder what stains another Clinton Presidency would leave upon the US Presidency.

Hillary's ridicule of the dynasty question at the Los Angeles debate should elevated this topic to serious discussion.

Speaking of Tricks... If this dynasty issue is not fully vetted for the sake of our Democracy we could see the Dynasty continue with Clinton in '08, Jeb Bush in '16, then Chelsea in '24 at age 39 or so.

Dirty politics always confuses the electorate and allows them to be tricked. The Clintons are masters at Dirt and Tricks.

[Jeanne]

In a state of high emotion, people tend to generalize and see all issues in black and white. When all issues, including the campaign tactics of all the candidates -- remember Obama allegedly broke his promise not to campaign in Florida and Clinton honored her pledge -- the net result is that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. And, Senator Ted Kennedy raised an important issue - had Lincoln, FDR, Truman and JFK -- not to mention many other of our great presidents -- had Hillary Clinton's unique set of experiences, which no one is the history of the country has ever had -- would they have been better presidents, made better decisions and avoided the mistakes they made? The answer has to be a resounding YES! And, I believe she will be a better president than all of them. She has vision, passion, integrity, compassion, experience and connections. Without all of those characteristics, the president cannot solve the problems of the nation and the world.

[john virata]

What is truly odious is the way the media has tried to skew in favor of one politician over the other, especially broacast media. I was watching a repeat of the CNN democratic debates and Hillary always got the last word before they went to a commercial break, and during the Republican debates, Ron Paul was always cut off by Anderson Cooper when Paul wanted to make a point, yet the others got to go off on their rants.

It really gets to you when Wolf Blitzer tried to bait Hillary, and really truly sad that a "news" source such as CNN would try to get away from the issues by baiting the candidates in such a way.

And another, thing, why was it so important for the LA Times to make presidential endorsements during this election when it hasn't made a presidential endorsement since the 1970s? Why is it so important this election cycle to break the silence on presidential endorsements? What is at stake for the LA TIMES in this case?

[Antonn]

La Times is pro Obama, this paper is unfair to Hillary. Latinos will vote for HILLARY CLINTON AND SHE WILL PREVAIL AND WIN ON FEB 5

[Cathy]

Push polls are the invention of Karl Rove. "Nuf said.

[Jim Stanley]

This story lacks credibility
The LA Times endorsed Obama.
Of course they are going to be bias with respect to Hillary

We know the Clintons and they are good for America.
VOTE CLINTON 08

(I know conspiracy theories are really powerful and fun and all. I've probably participated too in my day. and I know you won't believe me. But nobody tells us what to write. It's up to us to use our own judgment after many years in the news business and observing and participating in politics. If you were a regular reader and not just items on your candidate, you would know that we are an equal opportunity offender. But since you like Hillary, you need some explanation for the one item you've read here and conspiracy works great cause you don't need any evidence. That's fine. The Editorial Board endorsed Obama and McCain. There really is no connection with this blog. But thanks for reading anyway.)

[Antonn]

Grow up and smell the coffee, HILLARY WILL WIN

[Jim Stanley]

Obama is playing is own dirty tricks too, but the LA Times will not report it.

[John Colton]

Why does Hillary need to use these lieing tactics to win? Didn't she do something similar in NH - sending out false fliers the day before the election

[laurie walsh]

For all of you that are negative towards OBAMA.I respect your opinoin but,you can't stop whats happening ,no nay sayer is going to defy the NEW GENERATION.Just because all of your "canidates" are old and used up don't get upset.Barack will be an advocate for you too when he is President!!!!

[Allen McQuarrie]

This type of polling obscures facts, undermines the election process and does not accurately reflect the real issues in a campaign. The candidate, whoever it is, who uses push polls should be identified and explained so Americans can make informed voter decisions.

[Absurd Bias!]

LA TIMES, shame on you. Why cant a national newspaper be a credible source of IMPARTIAL information? Give me a break..

[Kevin Martinez]

For God's sake people - wake and smell the politics. This type of poling has been going on since Kennedy and "polling" where first being thought of as "change." You can find this in every election. As for the news director being caught off - gaud - well we know what that shows - a sad state of the media to create news not report on it. This is bad reporting to suggest its a new approach. Do some research for once.

[Jolly in NYC]

Sounds just like Clinton business as usual. It makes no sense to subvert democracy in the name of politics. I hope America is smart enough not to fall for it. I, for one, am certainly ready for change. Obama '08.

[mythicaljack]

The same campaign that brought race to the for front in S. Carolina wouldn't push poll would they?

[Mike]

Another democrat here that would rather vote for McCain than reward this type of behavior so that the ego driven Clintons can call the White House home again.

It's ironic that Hillary was on the board of Walmart, and the only demographic she's been winning with is Walmart Dems.

[Dennis Ray]

As someone who has never voted Republican in a Presidential election and a former professor of Political Science at California State University at Los Angeles, I would vote for John McCain over Hillary Clinton because, despite disagreeing with McCain on many issues. I'm 99.9% sure of what I'd get with him -- a principled, honest individual of great integrity and political courage. With Hillary, it would be a 50-50 thing. Maybe she'd withdraw from the disastrous Iraq war but just as likely she'd get us into a war against Iran. She has the same mindset that got us into Iraq and Vietnam. For sure, she would perpetuate the gridlock and petty partisanship of Washington. Most likely she'd be the focal point of scandals real and imagined by Republicans. Can American really afford another 4-8 years of ignoring our grave problems? But Hillary would guarantee that the Democrats will get 49% or less of the Presidential vote in November.

[Jennifer]

Does anyone have proof of this? Who is this Ed guy? Come on people. The media is so biased against Hillary. When I was still undecided, the fact that the media has bombarded her, been biased against her and done just about anything to make her look bad makes me question why are they so afraid of her? Because she will be a great leader and get our country back on track.
Go Hillary!

[kid gruesome]

Word to Julie B.

I find it hilarious how many comments are of the "does the LA times endorse Obama?!?!" nature. Can they not report something that happened, just because it shows your beloved business-as-usual candidate for what she is?

Hilary has been a (for all intents and purposes) republican senator. Now she apparently is campaigning like a republican. And yet you expect her to be a liberal president?

To everyone who supports Hilary: it is people like you that worry me even more than the terrorpublicans.

"The people" don't support her! As a group, the Democrats don't even support her. If she wins the primary, it will UNDOUBTEDLY be john kerry all over again.

Sadly that seems to be what most democrats want - either to fail, or to elect an pathetically unprincipled and ineffectual candidate. Or, as in the case of the last 2 elections, both.

This tuesday i'm voting for Barack Obama. This November i'm voting for Ralph Nader. Not because I believe either one will be our all-purpose savior, like so many wish to believe about hilary, ron paul, etc etc ad nauseum. Just because I do not want to see another republican administration, whether it calls itself one or not.

[bill w]

The actual article was of only MILD interest and of absolutely no utility in choosing a leader.....And, to call such "interview" tactics "dirty tricks" is itself juvenile. Period. The End. Now, to be illuminating then read today's LATimes article about the nuclear industry's contamination of Obama and to a less extent Clinton. Read that if you believe a candidate's actions count more than some minor underling's innocuous school boy ploy.

[Dave]

The Clintons are ruthless. Their scorched earth tactics and dirty tricks didn't bother many Democrats when they were being used against Republicans. But now that they are using these kinds of Machiavellian tactics against one of their own, and indeed, one of the most significant Democratic political figures to come along in decades, many of the people and many of the party elders have decided that they have had just about enough of the Clintons.

These tactics are working for them with a minority of voters, but they are backfiring among more experienced voters, and have been instrumental in getting senior party members such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to break neutrality during the primaries and ask voters to turn the page on the politics of the past. The Clintons are their own worst enemies.

[ab]

Why seemingly intelligent people want to vote for someone who has not proven himself to take on the immense problems of the country and the world because he talks pretty is incomprehensible. Obama may make a great president someday but not now. If you really looked at his record he's not ready and his record is uninspired. His campaign has engaged in severe tactics and truth bending as well. As far as truthfulness goes,look at Rezco, Exelon and the "vote" for the Iraq war.Everyone knows what that vote was about, it was to give the president the clout to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Obama knows that too but it doesn't stop him from using it against her. The man has a couple years in the senate as his resume, as far as I'm concerned the LA Times has lost its credibility with this endorsement.

[OA]

So? What's the big deal? I've been push-polled in local elections, propositions, and products. I thought it was standard stuff.

[Dave Patterson]

Very unlikely that the Clinton's would do this. They have never been caught nor have they done any dirty tricks that would take down crucial reforms. However, Obama has numerous times and he's still green. Let's take the old Karl Rove tactic here...

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=health_care_debate_mandates_as

or take the memo that Obama's camp was caught red handed with trying to find ways to make the Clintons seem racist.

This man is ambitious and is obviously willing to take down universal health care to win. I have a six year old daughter who spent nearly a year in the hospital. We cannot afford to vote for Mr. Obama because my daughter is uninsurable. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Obama staking his ambition on my daughter's life and numerous other families in our predicament. It is unforgivable.

[Brenda]

Between Hillary, Bill and their campaign staff of well-known mudslingers & stuntmen, her campaign has really gotten out of hand. Denial is their response and we know this is an untruth. Bill has been calling in his political debts for political repayment. We cannot support this, as it will only blossom as all these people move into the White House.

[john Smart]

more whining from the obama camp.... blah blah blah tbhe obamites are a bunch of cry babies.

[Pacific John]

This looks like a fake call - there is no way any campaign could afford a phone bank at 20 min/call.

Remember, yesterday, Harold Myerson, also associated with the LAT, took the bait on a similar, but cruder call.

[nadeem tahir]

Obama is not slick and full of dirty tricks accusing the clintons of hating blacks so he could corner all the black votes. Once she wins I hope she tells them to get lost and take the old goat ted kennedy with them then they can get together with Marion barry and do crack cocaine for old times sake. And they can asl OOpraagh to join the party. Makes me want to throw up.

[jeffrey]

This conversation is just a wee bit silly. Every national candidate in every election uses this technique, and it has almost nothing to with whether your name is Clinton or not. (I do not condone it, though.)

Obama supporters should relish the opportunity for him to have this new experience, because this is NOTHING compared to what is to come in the general election.

Probably the most interesting fact about this story is learning what an insightful opportunist Ed Coghlan is. Nice job, Ed!

[selam yerga]

The 35 years of experience may not give you the foresight of detecting the most disastrous adventure of our lifetime - Iraq, but it has for sure given the Clintons how to play dirty and demonize their oponents. So far, we gave them a pass because they were playing it against the Republicans who were also replying in kind making it difficult for us to sort their role in this divisive game of politics their cherish.

Now their dirty games are bare for all to see. I never imagined Bill Clinton would denigrate a decisive win by a rising star black politician by linking it to another win by other black politician that did not end in nomination - and blame him back for bringing race issues. So, if the Clintons are matched against the Republicans and engage in their usual dirty game, how many Democrats are going to believe them when they cry wolf this time around? Do we want even to witness that?

[Scott]

No surprise. This is exactly what so many are sick and tired of. Go Obama!

Hillary is just more of the same old ways of Washington.

[TheBlob]

This isn't exactly news. The Clinton's have always been integrity-challenged. I wouldn't have expected anything different.

[Judith]

The Clintons assume that they can outwit everyone with dirty tricks. It used to work but Americans are tired of being played as suckers. I'm almost beginning to enjoy seeing what trashy new scams they can come up with next.

[Selam]

In this election, we all believe that we need to repair our image in the hearts and minds of the world population as beacon's of democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, etc.

How does Bill Clintons pay check of $30 million for praising Kazhaks dictator figure in our goal? Check the NYTimes, January 31 article. All this exposure in just a primary! From a guy who trumpetes as a fighter for the poor in the open, but appeaser of dictators across the globe - Kazakhstan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda behind the scene. He has already caused headache around the world and created the sentiment that Americans talk democracy, but support dictators. Bush did it as part of fighting terrorists, but the Clintons did it for money! We need leaders that will bring us respect with the world population, not the Clintons who will make us enemies by hugging and legitimizing dictators that opress their population - for money! BTW in the usual Clinton fashion, they tried to deny it until they were confronted by facts.

I thought it was one thing to lie about promiscuity and supported the Clintons against 'the right wing conspiracy', but another concerning national security. Fool me one time, ....

We desperately need a fresh and dignified person to represent us in November election and who will automatically bring us a clean slate with world population. I think we all know who he is!

[Chalres Heimler]

Why is it assumed that it's the Clinton campaign behind this push-poll.? There's no evidence to support that.
It could be anybody who doesn't want to see a Clinton win PLANTING a story in the media. Obama, McCain, Swiftboat types or any campaign that would be advantaged by another negative story about Clinton tactics could be behind the poll.
Reporters should did a little deeper, please.

[LaurenR]

Think again! The Republicans dirty tricks..or Obama's troops, he has so many hyped up young people and 527's that will do anything to "help" ..They are the more likely people doing this..

[MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN]

HILLARY GIVES REPUBLICANS DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

"GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES" ... IS THAT THE WAY DEMOCRATS TALK? ...THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF LOOSE-LIPPED LUNACY ...

[SJ Clifford]

In all fairness, last week my household received a phone call asking if I'm voting for Obama. Then yesterday my husband opened our Los Altos door and was asked by two young people if we are voting for Obama. I find political activism a positive and am happy America is waking up.

[Jim W]

So then, could we call this piece a "push article?" Just curious...

[Tom]

LA Times is using the ugly dirty news media tacktick for the political figure they endorsed. There is no credibility in LA Times on the campaigne of 2008. Who is Andrew Malcolm? He is the one like those people in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who actually spread lies and smear the truth. Pity on LA Times.

[Paula]

I am sorry that this could or may have happened. Hillary would not condone this nor would Obama. But I am asking for California voters to please vote for Hillary. If Obama wins the battle, we lose the war. We do not need another Republican in office. Please vote for Hillary. Thanks.

[BILL CLINTON]

This is not dirty tricks. It is a dirty world and politics is a dirty sport. If you don't want to play, then don't vote.

THIS IS NOT DIRTY TRICKS. IT IS SIMPLY A DIRTY WORLD AND POLITICS IS A DIRTY SPORT. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PLAY, THEN DON'T VOTE.

[K McManus]

The choice is whether we want the general election to be about the potential of this century or the bickering of the last.

If Clinton(s) is(are) nominated, the discussion will be about Marc Rich's pardon and the $500K it netted the Clintons (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html), the Lewinsky scandal, closed-door meetings about health care, etc. Clinton will be labeled a "flip-flopper" (as Kerry was very successfully) for voting for the war and then opposing it.

If Obama gets the nomination, we will hear some more sniping about his experience (apparently being a community organizer is unimportant, while serving on the board of Walmart is). Outside of that, we could actually hear the issues being debated - Iraq, health care, etc. And the Democrats will win on the issues.

[Lori]

I am a lifelong Dem who wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the last Democratic candidate on the planet. I can't believe that I ever supported her husband, but those rose-colored glasses are finally gone. I have wanted to see a woman elected as president all my life, but her "politics as usual" campaign tactics are setting back the cause by decades. Here's to an Obama/Edwards ticket in the fall.

[JNVD]

The Clinton campaign (just as Bill Clinton did during his time in office) will do or say anything to obtain or maintain power. If the Clinton time in office was so wonderful, how did George Bush become President. You can blame the R's and the Supreme Court at the time but Bill Clinton's behavior had so thoroughly disgusted the electorate that Bush's close "win" was made possible.

The only legacy created by Bill Clinton and his wife (who claims she benefits from her eight years in his White House) was George Bush.

They've always lied, triangulated, and parsed to sweet talk their supporters and this incident of push-polling is more of the same. How can anyone seriously consider electing these creeps to another term as President?

[GS]

I saw the same thing in Nevada. Not push polls, but negative calls about Obama coming from the Clinton camp. I am registered Democrat who will never vote for the Clintons again.

[RepublicanforObama]

Although I think Clintons have an excellent track record and would probably do a wonderful job in the Oval Office, my vote goes to Obama because he represents a new wave of change similar to what Bill brought in 92. And quite frankly, if McCain is the Rep. nominee, Obama would stand a better chance at winning due to the substantial age difference and his favorable voting track record which actually is almost identical to Hillary.

Any by the way, I'm a registered Republican tired of our present leadership.

[Joseph N.]

Obama's got will.i.am making music videos for him, and Hillary's got people funding push polls for her. Is there a better snapshot for this race?

[William]

How come no body complains when Obama told Clinton supporters to go to the wrong precincts or tell Florida voters showing up at the voting centers that there was NO voting that day (I live in Florida so I know what happened that day. Lots of Obama dirty tricks. Clinton won Florida 50%-33%). Obama also always initiated personal attacks and character assassinations and them immediately played victim. Many people do not KNOW him just watch TV. Press wants to have a close race so people would watch news. This is the reason they have been promoting Obama and bashing Clintons shamelessly to a very unacceptable degree. The Florida result is just people's angry reaction to this unfair reporting.

[CP]

Sigh. This is NOT a push poll. It is a message-testing poll, which all candidates do. Push polls call tens of thousands of people, are typically recorded not live, last all of 30 seconds, spit out a very negative message about the opposing candidate, and certainly don't ask multiple questions about your demographic information - that would be a total waste of time (and thus $) if the point of the call were simply to spread negative information. There is no way on earth that a campaign would pay for live 20-minute calls if they weren't legitimately seeking to gather information. You can read more about the distinction in various places. Try pollster.com, for example, where they have numerous posts about this.

[Mike]

This seems like a cheap shot...why doesn 't the times ever write a negative story about the Obama campaign?

[vic]

Hear! Hear! Maureen. I totally concur. I have no doubt that Senator Clinton could be a good president but I also have no doubt that Senator Obama can be a great president.

It seems like the Clintons haven't adjusted to the internet age as well as Senator Obama. I think that negative campaigning has lost much effectiveness in the past 7 years because there are so many more people getting information from online communities. After our shared national tragedy of 9/11, we were desperate for answers and the online movement has exploded with growth. While colorful and wide ranging, the communities usually do reinforce the most accurate representation of the facts. Having all that information so readily available made us a lot more cynical about old school politics and rightly so!

[suzie from atlanta, GA]

And the latest mailing from Obama on the Clinton Health Plan is not dirty? He lies about her plan because his is only for those who can afford to pay for health care at retail rates. RIGHT NOW we have FICA deducted from our pay checks. So what is the big deal if health care is deducted? It's a painless way to pay for health care at wholesale rates that the Congress gets. How can they refuse to pass that? Can they say that WE are not allowed to have what THEY have?
How about the Race thing? Cherry picked parts of speeches, timed to look as though the Kennedy endorsement was sudden, when in fact, Durbin had been NEGOTATING with Kennedy for that endorsement for SIX MONTHS, according to the Chicago Sun Times. WHAT? Exactly WHAT did Obama give away?
And now this. I have to say I was stunned with the LA Times endorsement of Obama. He is such a bumper sticker, with so many plans that are not well thought out, and his comments on using NUKES against Pakistan are scary.
He has no actual record, he has voted exactly like McCain and Clinton on Iraq, regardless of his ONE speech given before he was in the Senate.
If he is so opposed to the war, where has he been in the SENATE debates? He actually MISSED an important vote on funding, and voted FOR Bush's new Joint Cheif while Clinton voted against. He has rubber stamped all of Bush's bills, voting WITH Bush 53% of the time. So what is all this hype about? Why is he being treated differently than any other candidate?
Jesse Jackson asked "is he black enough" because Obama was MIA on New Orleans and the Jena 6. To answer, he brought in Oprah. Until then, he was no where with the Black voters. Is that the way to get votes? A Talk Show Queen vouches for you, like she does a book? Does Oprah pick our President? Are people really that dumb?
Clinton says she will give specifics on her plans when she speaks, because she wants to be held accountable. Obama does none of that, because he is speaking in generalities, and will figure it out when he gets there. .
I have HOPE that Obama will NOT be the nominee, because the GOP will rip him up, and there is nothing more they can say or do when it comes to the Clintons.
Wake up people. Obama is not ready, nor is he worthy. TO THIS DATE he has never mentioned the Jena 6 or NOLA. It is only one reason why the Black Congressional Caucus is supporting Clinton, why those who marched with MLK are supporting Clinton, why the Farm Workers are supporting Clinton. Obama has the Kennedy's? Big deal.

[SJ]

We really don't know who is responsible for this nor is the tactic necessarily unethical. Why wouldn't a campaign be allowed to test negative information on a candidate to see what resonated with the public? Is there an accusation that the information being pushed is untrue? Furthermore, the media have shown quite an anti-Clinton bias and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this is the product of an anti-Clinton agenda on the part of the reporter.

Let's not be gullible one way or another.

[Mitch C.]

"Ed said, of course, more likely."

Of course! There'd be no way that Ed, being a former journalist or the author of this article being a journalist, might think that ANYBODY could believe the government introducing what amounts to price controls in the mortgage industry or bailing out irresponsible borrowers might be a bad idea!

Of course!

[Hank Essay]

Push polls? Like Oh My God, that is so not fair...Next thing you know someone will send an unfair mailer out that looks just like the Harry and Louise couple who sank the Clinton Health Care Plan.

Oh wait....

[Iva]

The level of denial and rationalization on the part of Clinton supporters is interesting. Supporting Hillary must be a matter of faith or not wanting to know what is true. What, by the way, has Hillary actually done? What has she accomplished. She was the first woman to serve on the board of Wal-Mart, one of the most anti-worker companies in the U.S. How did her service for Wal-Mart helping working people? She's been a first lady and failed with a national health care package. She's endured Bill Clinton escapades. She has more in common with Tony Soprano's wife than a President.

[Jeff]

This is great. Evidence is nice, but if you don't have any evidence then just smear them with baseless allegations. And really, who deserves it more than the opponent of the candidate you've just endorsed.

Well done LA Times! The level of your journalistic integrity is really on a roll. Soon you'll be neck and neck with the Washington Times in the fight for who's more credible.

[pt bridgeport]

Edwards voter here, moved over to Obama.

It strikes me as potentially significant that there's positive mention of McCain here, and none of Romney. The push-poll could easily be coming from McCain operatives who want either (1) to stir up bad blood among Dems or (2) test lines against Obama in case he wins the primaries (they already know the tired lines they'll use against Clinton) or (3) hope for a backlash against Hillary if she gets blamed for the push-polling.

And under any of the three scenarios, McCain gets a little under the radar boost with independents for the general. That independents, not straight Democrats, are being targeted makes McCain as a source seem even more likely. Surely Clinton would be going after both, and not mentioning McCain at all.

[Foodle]

This may not be push-polling. The article only cites a single instance of these Clinton-biased polling questions. You can't tell from a single instance whether it is push-polling or message-testing polling.

When doing message-testing polling, political campaigns ask a small, random sample of the voters for their reactions to possible campaign rhetoric and talking points. The aim is to find out before engaging in a wide media effort which campaign messages, words, and slogans work best to persuade the voters. The aim is not to persuade a significant portion of the electorate through the polling itself, but rather through a subsequent, open media buy.

On the other hand, persuading the electorate is precisely the point of push-polling. While push-pollsters may ask the same or similar questions as are asked by message-testing pollsters, the push-poll is not targeted at just a small, random sample. Instead, the push-pollsters seek to essentially ask everyone their biased questions in an effort to persuade a significant portion of the electorate. Rather than being the precursor to an open media buy, the push-poll is the media buy -- albeit not open, but hidden and disguised as a legitimate random sample poll.

The only way to distinguish between message-testing polls and push-polls is to collect evidence on the number of people being asked the biased questions. Very few news reporters bother to do this legwork or to distinguish between message-testing polls and push-polls.

[Chris P.]

The bottom line here is that the Clinton campaign is unwilling to repudiate b.s. tactics, and this fails to reflect honorably upon the candidate. Period. The various Clinton supporters who are decrying the "bias" of this article or who are attempting other forms of rationalization need to do a gut check.

[Eric Roth]

Thank you for posting this article that illuminates another invasion of people's homes for sole benefit of the caller. Worse, there is the outright deception of pretending to be a pollster rather than an open advocate.

Many candidates have a history of conducting these poisonous push polls, but this tactic seems more damaging to Clinton to me. WHy?

Clinton has a penchant for secrecy, and like her husband, can be abrasive and divisive. Read the excellent New Yorker profile on her and Obama this week. It makes, in a very respectful and detailed way, the persuasive argument that Obama engages in meaningful dialogue to persuade people. Clinton, in contrast, just wants to win. She might be a tougher negotiator with Iran, but Obama will be a far more successful and popular president who will bring people together. Obama believes you can pick up a few Independents, a few Republicans, and win with a smile. THat sounds like a better tactic and politics.

We already have an administration fond of secrecy and deception. Let's try to elect a candidate who at least seems like he believes in openness, good government, dialogue, and an authentic search for bipartisan solutions. Vote Obama -Edwards!

[Michael]

Funny how this story reflects how the rest of the media pushes Obama down everyone's throats. What Hillary's campaign has done here is deplorable, of course, but hearing that Obama is the messiah every ten minutes or on every other channel leads me to believe that the media and pundits are already trying to buy this election for him. Frankly, I'm sick of both candidates. I might just waste my vote on Mike Gravel.

[MelanieN]

I got one of those phone calls last week. A "poll" with lots of positive questions about Hillary and lots of negative questions about Obama. I am a registered Democrat and live in San Diego. I caught the drift early and kept accusing the guy of push-polling but he kept denying it. He was anything but polished - could barely read the questions and couldn't even pronounce words like "rhetoric".

[Mike B]

A note to those posters arguing that everyone uses push polls. Senator Obama's campaign does not use push polls. I believe such a rationale that "all politics is dirty" is a too-convenient excuse for bad behavior on the part of a campaign. I have no idea if Senator Clinton's campaign has anything to do with this push poll or even knows about it. But for people posting here to rationalize the deceitful use of push polls as okay because everyone does it both is factually inaccurate and ethically insufficient. We can do better. And with everyone's help, we will. On February 5th, 9th, 12th, and throughout the primary and general election.

[Kevin]

How exactly is this dirty politics? Judging from the statements included in the article, everything said about the candidates was true. Presenting your own candidate in the best light and the others in a lesser light is suddenly malicious and underhanded? I don't get it.

[Mike B]

A note to those posters arguing that everyone uses push polls. Senator Obama's campaign does not use push polls. I believe such a rationale that "all politics is dirty" is a too-convenient excuse for bad behavior on the part of a campaign. I have no idea if Senator Clinton's campaign has anything to do with this push poll or even knows about it. But for people posting here to rationalize the deceitful use of push polls as okay because everyone does it both is factually inaccurate and ethically insufficient. We can do better. And with everyone's help, we will. On February 5th, 9th, 12th, and throughout the primary and general election.

[Independent Texas]

I don't know whether the poll-pushing story is true. Given the timing of Super Tuesday, more care should be taken by the media to verify the claims alleged. I have relied on the media for information, balanced analyses, etc. However, its coverage of this presidential election has made me questioned this reliance. I have found both the televised and written news both shrill, biased, and gossip-filled. This is most disturbing since gone are the days when folks can rely on the media for information.

[Lisa]

With Clinton using the tactics of smear that the other side uses, that are not honest about who is issuing these calls. How could the democrats argue that they are any better than the other guys. I have always wondered why people have said the Clintons are divisive, well now I know why.

[C.Butler]

This is general election politics. The gop targets one of two candidates in a way as to blame the other. Classic Karl Rove.

[Tom in Raleigh]

Ugly? Yes. Surprising? No. I understand that career politicians see dirty tricks as their primary currency, but you can hardly ask to be viewed as an agent of change if you're stuck using the same playbook of the last 20 years.

This is probably old news to a lot of people, but, if you haven't seen it, this short clip concerning Clinton's scripted question plants in her rallies is pretty revealing (and it's not even the worst of what team Clinton has been up to):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fr1dm2Qdls

[moff]

It's getting very old, these commenters popping up on every blog, accusing anyone who writes anything negative about Clinton of being unfairly biased.

Now, yes, it *may* be that all these mainstream media outlets are conspiring against her. But there are other possibilities. For example, it may be that she and her husband have a long history of these kinds of stunts, so it would stand to reason that they're going to be reported on for pulling them more often than other candidates.

Anyway, it's interesting, if nothing else, to see how closely Clinton's supporters mirror her own responses to this kind of thing: If she gets caught doing something that seems unethical, it's "politics as usual" (as if politics come from outer space, and we'll never have any say in how we practice them) or "how the game is played." But if she gets attacked on anything, it's a vast conspiracy against her. The notion that a U.S. Senator of a major state, a woman with a decades-long political history, is being somehow victimized by any major institution in this country is absurd.

[Joyce]

Isn't this just another incident in the pattern the Clinton campaign have employed to stop the "insurgent" who is getting in her way?

As a 60 year-old woman, I find Hillary an insult to women. We are not all co-dependent, power hungry, or dishonest.

Shame on her.

[prophet]

I´m not surprised of this. Just another dirty tactic from the Clintons.

[Ana]

Why is eveybody blaming the Clinton camp.....and what a coincidence this is breaking newsright before super tuesday. Looks like OBAMA's camp is out trying to trash hillary again.

OBAMA stop the dirty trickery

[Ana]

Why is eveybody blaming the Clinton camp.....and what a coincidence this is breaking newsright before super tuesday. Looks like OBAMA's camp is out trying to trash hillary again.

OBAMA stop the dirty trickery

[Ray]

"The media has endorsed Barack Obama.

But the PEOPLE endorse Hillary Clinton."

Is people an acronym that I am unfamiliar with, or have you just so kindly co-opted my electoral voice?

[DS]

How do we know that Obama isn't behind a negative push-poll against himself? -- so he can create an air of "dirty tricks" around the Clinton camp. I worry that when it comes to dirty politics...if Obama gets elected, we haven't seen ANYTHING yet! Obama seems to get a pass time and time again...because he has been masterful at pointing his finger at Hillary without anybody noticing he's pointing his finger at her...very slick indeed.

Long term pondering...... how will Hillary Clinton beat the straight talk express when she embodies the shear meaning of corporate and special interest funded spin machine. How do you go up against McCain when you still wont even apologize for your vote for war? At least McCain and Obama are honest...... this primary will prove alot about what americans care about in there leader....at least in my mind.... If we are apathetic about puting up a leader who shows time and time again poor character and no morals about what they are willing to do in order "to win"..... then we get what we deserve...... I am smart enough to know that our President is given an awesome power not only here but in the world..... I will vote Obama based on not only really great wisdom and judgement but also on character..... those are the most important assets (i feel) in a leader. Hillary is just a typical politician curving how she talks to each group she is talking to..... ( I have watched her speak to 3 different "groups" and was in awe of how much she changed her message..... I have watched Obama twice deliver the exact same message with two very different groups staring up at him).... she will lie or distort in an instant to get what SHE wants...... remember.... after 8 years of Billary.... we bought into Bush just to get away fr