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

[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.