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

[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.

[Ellen Braley]

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 from their scandals..... look where it got us....lol..... wow that was a bad call on our part.

[karran motana]

I suggest that Californians read another newspaper if they want to get a real debate on the issues and not an editorial from a bias reporter.
If we cut throught the noise we will find what is important.
HEALTHCARE,WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ AND I SAY TO YOU IF YOU BELIEVE THAT AMERICA CAN TOTALLY WITDRAW FROM IRAQ THEN YOU ARE TOTOLLY DISILLUSIONED. YOU BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF IT,BROKE IT. AND BOUGHT IT FOR A LONG TIME TO COME.

[Oliver, Los Angeles]

Obama is like every other politician, tells people what they want to hear. People want to hear change, so he says it over and over and over.

But if he really wanted to change things, he would describe in detail how he plans to bring about CHANGE. He says, he will bring people together.

How will he bring together people who are pro abortion and anti abortion, pro war and anti war, pro gay marriage and anti gay marriage, etc. The answer is, he won't, why, because he can't. But he misleads people into thinking he can.

The TRUTH is we live in a divided country, and in order to get things done you have to compromise. But when you do that, the people who supported you feel like you compromised your values, and they attack you.

Example -you compromise with anti abortion people and the pro abortion people attack you. This is Politics, this is reality, and to suggest any different is a "FAIRYTALE" .

So wake up and stop letting the Pied Piper lead you astray, by telling you what you want to hear.

[Anon]

This kind of tactic makes me dislike her more.
OBAMA '8 I am a lifelong Democrat, BUT if she wins the nomination, I will vote for the Green Party candidate.

[Barbara Goldman]

What do you expect from the scumbag Clinton campaign, the same one taht was race baiting in South Carolina. They are as bad as the Bushes. DON"T VOTE CLINTON!

[Jenna]

Some proof that Hillary is behind these polls would be nice, but I guess that is too much to ask. It isn't enough that the times runs nothing but pro-Obama pieces daily. Now you are running unfounded allegations against her too. Really, you should let him do some of his own heavy lifting.

[Keith]

"I am standing by Hillary as the strongest, most able canditate. If people think Obama has not used dirty trickster comments and methods, they haven't been paying attention.
I was impressed to see them on stage together at the Dem. debate on CNN. Something just rings right about them teaming up to be an unbeatable team. I hope it happens."

Obama's not going to be the VP, why would he even accept if offered? He'll probably want to run again next time around and if VP he'll be shut out. By staying outside of the Clinton administration he'll be able to position himself better and if her presidency is a flop, he won't be attached to it.

[Hako]

Were you people born yesterday? Neither Hillary or Barack is aware of every
thing that their supporters are doing. They are running from airport to airport and auditorium to auditorium. Hillary may have no direct knowledge of any "push-poll". Barack may or may not have been aware of the mailers. Once an organization decides to support a candidate they are not obligated to get an "okay" for every mailing or telephone poll they generate.

[scheist]

Cynthia, no ticket that starts with Clinton is "unbeatable." If you truly think this, you either haven't left your house in the last 15 years or have such an echo chamber circle of friends that you've become politically tone deaf.

[LB]

I agree with the post by Mike A. nobody knows whose dirty trick this is - could be Obama's campaign or a group for Obama trying to cash in on the "Oh why is everyone picking on Obama" band wagon. Do you think Obama's camp is not using every "old" and "new" trick in the book to win - to close the gap?

I read a lot of people's comments on various news sites and blogs and it shocks me how naive people are when it comes to campaigns. They want so much to believe the person they are supporting would never do anything wrong or lie or try to "spin" their opponent’s words to win an election.

Take Obama's health care mailers where he uses the “politics of fear” to attempt to draw a distinction between his plan and Clinton’s plan. This is something he has been critical of – the “politics of fear”.

The Kennedy endorsement should have been a clue that Obama is no different than any other candidate currently in the race. The Kennedy family is more of a political dynasty than the Bushes or Clintons could ever hope to be and are better at old politics and dirty tricks than any of them.

Obama is not a saint and his hands are not clean. If you base your vote on that he will disappoint you. People need to wake-up and learn how think critically about what they see in the media and read in the papers.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

[Jason]

I got a push poll from the Clinton camp on the 24th of January. It sounded exactly as described and I caught on pretty quickly. It started out like a normal poll; asking demographics and basic questions about where I stood politically. Then, after asking who I thought I was going to vote for in the primary (Obama) it started asking very specific questions. Interestingly, the majority of them were about Bill Clinton. Did I think the country was better off with him as President? Was I more or less likely to vote for Hillary because of Bill? Is my opinion of Bill more or less favorable so far in the campaign?

Then it started to get really pushy regarding Obama. The questioner said; "The Wall Street Journal wrote that the economy was much stronger under the fiscal policies of Bill Clinton. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for Hillary?" Followed up with; "Recently Obama came out in praise of Ronald Regan and the Republican ideas of the past 15 years, saying that the Republican party was the party of Ideas. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for Obama?" There were 2 other questions they asked along these lines. At that point I inquired if the poll was being conducted for the Clinton campaign and the person told me it was a "double-blind" poll meaning they didn't know who the poll was for and they didn't know who I was.

There is no doubt who was behind this poll. And SJ, you are the one being gullible. I am telling you this is not made up. Draw your own conclusions and live in denial if you want, but this happened and it's not some "anti-Clinton" conspiracy.

[Jen]

LB-Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I wish more people would be critical thinkers and not just vot for someone because he's a good speaker and charismatic.

[PM]

For the last 10 years we have watched the GOP unleash every dirty trick possible to out flank the DEMs. They have done a great job at it because they are good at it and the DEMs usually put up an extremely poor defense. The Clinton camp has learned well and now uses these same disgusting tactics. This country needs to rise above this sort of politics and reject those that engage in it. This is one of the foremost reasons I am support ing Obama. He understands that we can be a better country and he is equipped to lead by example.

[Terry LA]

Speaking as a long-time Democratic voter, I'm tired of the SOS. I have seen nothing good from Hillary, and her conservative credentials are far stronger than her liberal ones nowadays. I don't understand where living in the White House gives her experience in anything, or being the Governors' wife for that matter. Her posture on the war is the same as his, she will not bring the troops home from Iraq. IMO she is just McCain with (slightly) better boobs. If she is the nominee, every Republican and conservative independent will vote against her by voting for him. She doesn't stand a chance in hell of being elected.
I strongly support Obama, even sent the campaign money and asked my family to do the same. His speeches and ideas are inspirational and make me want to believe in something again. America needs a ray of hope after all this darkness and fear, not just to continue the same crap under a different name. Give us a candidate who makes us feel good to vote for him. No more SOS, I've had enough.

[Shaun Dakin]

Push Polls and Robo Calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.

Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org.

Here is a quote from a member this morning:

I value my privacy. I pay for my phones,lines, etc. I regard
unwanted phone calls (particularly robo calls) as an invasion of that privacy.

Regards,

Shaun Dakin
CEO and Founder
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry
http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org

[Ben]

unfortunately this is how best we know the Clinton Machine: dirty tricks.
Looks how the Clinton change their face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM

Let's keep everything honest to win this race for the United Stated of American with Obama.

Peace

[Ed]

The media endorse Hillary Clinton.

But HALF of the people endorse Barack Obama.