Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California

Hillary_jvgxkcnc

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 () | Archives (257)

The comments to this entry are closed.

There's been a Clinton or Bush on the polls for way too many years... Do you really want more of the same... Like someone else said, IF Clinton wins the nomination, then I will vote for her, otherwise I truely believe OBAMA is our only real choice for an attempt at pulling things back together... OBAMA will get my vote...

OK, we are CA techies: when you get one of these calls -- RECORD it and put it on YouTube with HRC's photo! Let's let everyone in on the desperate attempts to distort.

And I am sorry some of the comments here show that you have been unable to access the good old-fashoined WWW to read the details of Senator Obama's positions.

The rabid Obama supporters see the poll numbers and they are pushing this story because they are getting desperate.
As for this blog, you guys have done everything you can do to try to destroy Clinton's candidacy. Shame on you.

Yawn.

More of the same from Clinton. Negativity. Subversion. Win at all costs.

It's demoralizing. This is why so many of us *who are Democrats* are increasingly demoralized by both her and her husband.

I'm looking for a president to LEAD, not to WIN. These need not be mutually exclusive concepts. Up until the loss in Iowa, I would have been fine if Clinton won. After all of this "old story" political maneuvering in the last three weeks, I'm now firmly turned off by her. I respect her, but it's just time to tell a new story.

If Clinton is the nominee, the party will succeed in two things: 1) driving me firmly into the "Independent" category, and 2) losing my vote in November. I don't think I'm alone in this by a long shot. Contrast this with Obama, who actually broadens the party base and brings in swarms of young voters.

Is the future important to democrats?

Progressive politics have a rare opportunity with Barack Obama, one that will fundamentally change the trajectory of our country's policies for decades. Obama brings new people to the conversation. He inspires people to believe in themselves. He fosters good will and *begins* with little baggage and a track record of reaching across the lines that divide us.

This is not naive. It is simply not the calloused "old story" of politics we've all become used to. There is a difference. If people wont' work with you, how can you get anything done, Mrs. Clinton?

Let us not forget: Bill Clinton held the White House and the democrats had BOTH houses of Congress from 1993-1995, and they failed to reform healthcare in 1994. "Winning" at any cost is a losing strategy.

Let's have a new story.

Some people think that Ed is making this up in order to support Obama. I had the same thought in the back of my mind while reading the piece as well. But after I finished and thought more about it I came to the conclusion it is most probably true. A mole would have made up questions that were far more slanted toward Clinton and damaging to the reputations of the other three than what is presented in the article.

It seems like a push poll to me, done for the benefit of the Clinton campaign or by the campaign itself. I hold the campaign responsible equally, in either case. They must thoroughly denounce it if they did not actually inspire it.

We live in New Mexico and received an anti-Obama, pro-Hillary push poll last weekend. The caller clearly had a southern, African American accent, and would say things like "Obama say (sic) he gonna (sic)..." followed by some misconstruing of Obama's platform. That would be followed up with a "poll" about whether that new information would make us more or less likely to vote for Obama. The accent may just be a coincidence, but this smacks of what the Republicans have been known to do to play to racial bigotry in the South.

there is no way you can say this is part of the Clinton campaign.

James Carville is to our side what Karl Rove is to the other side. If the Clinton camp thinks it can "unify" the country the way we deride Bush for wanting - but failing - to do, they're believing in fairy tales. With Senator Obama, we have an opportunity to build with independents and moderate Republicans and get past this bitter, partisan, win-by-any-cost, 50 +1 strategy that will only continue politics as usual.

It seems to me that most Americans have not yet had the time to run thru' Obama's records. At just barely 46yrs. he is far ahead of Hillary everything considered, except age. She is proposing the same health care plan that has been on the table and off the table for the past decades - off the table because though it sounds good "universal", it is almost impracticable. Not only is Obama's common sense and realistic but he even goes into explaining the provisions his plan would have on possible left-outs, if there be. Obama is about the same age as Bill was when he was moving into the White House. And all this talk about experience - for God's sake, Obama was a Senator in Illinois before winning the US senate and so has been an elected official to voters for 11 years and Hillary just 6. So, when people look at both Obama and Hillary, I think they confuse age and experience. Obama also has extensively travelled all over the world meeting all sorts of leaders and there is a new beam of light of hope and positive change shinning on the planet and all over the world just because Obama is running. Even when President Clinton is given credit for a wonderful economy when he was in office, those who give him all that credit including himself should realize that it was during a period when America was at peace with itself and not at war, so peace times and not Clinton deserve the credit. Besides, the past is the past and the future the future with unmatched challenges. People have not yet seen the last of Clinton tricks and spins yet in this election and my fear is that we are still in for the worst from them. It is about time America buries the divisive politics of the past 30something years of Clinton/Bush controversies, spins and an economy gone wild and vote for Obama who seems to be the only choice capable of putting things together with an inclusive and fresh spirit. Barack Obama demonstrates both exceptional intelligence and the thinking ability necessary to develop vision and perspective. Though I have always been very supportive of women all my life and sometimes even believe that the future belongs to women, Senator Clinton who happens to be very polarizing and unpredictable at her age would be the most wrong woman to be US President.

Is it just me or does hillary always start off her lie with the word WELL. Watch her when she gets gets a tough question. She always gives this long BS answer that starts with WELL. I am so scared she is going to get elected. She is so dishonest. GO OBAMA

I have been getting calls here in Ohio too from Obama supporters..They are trying to intimidate me..I got one in the middle of the night last night . It was an automated voice telling me what would happen if I did not vote for Obama..Almost a threat..

tiredofit: Denial is not just a river in Egypt. This is NOT Obama putting out stuff against himself! It is backfiring on the Clinton's because they still have so little respect for the intelligence of the American people that they think they can trick you into voting for them. This is even after SC firmly denounced them and their behavior and Bill was put on a leash.

What they seem to have failed to recognise is that the last time they were involved in a nation-wide race they didn't have the internet to so clearly expose their tricks - duping people was easier then - not now! That they persist down this path shows a disrespect for the people and a continued arrogant belief that the low road is not only the better road but that this is perfectly acceptable behavior for the leaders of a country. Say no no no no no!

Jenna earlier said, "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." She got her facts backwards. It was Clinton who went to Florida, and then after the non competitive election said she would work to see those delegates seated at the convention. Change the rules after the game now shows a lack of sense of fair play. McCain will beat Clinton because he will be seem as a straight shooter willing to buck the tide as in the torture issue while the Clinton's will be perceive as willing to anything to get ahead as in her Iraq and Iran vote. If you want integrity and more war vote McCain. If you want integrity and peace and vote Obama. If you just want to see a woman in the whitehouse, riding on her husbands coattail, ok vote in a Cinton dynasty. If you just want an insurance agent, lets see what she can do in the Senate with the Democratic majority. That's where the health bill will be formulated. Obama is sure to sign it.

I was push polled once and my response, once I realized it, was to call the young lady somethinn nasty in Anglo-Saxon and hang up. I resent that tactic bitterly.

Just to show what clintons will not do to get elected.

I think there's a slight dishonesty in pretending to be a poll. However, anybody detect any untruths about Obama? Opinion, yes, but no untruths. If true, this is rough campaigning, but not dirty. On the other hand, has anybody here covered the dishonest flyer put out by the Obama campaign, that intentionally mimics the Harry and Louise ads, while dishonestly characterizing Hillary's healthcare stance and praising Obama's lame plan? The Obama campaign has been terrifically dishonest in many ways. It relies on its media stalwarts and the anti-Clinton reservoir of lies for its negativity. Periodically, Obama himself ventures there, but then he pulls back.

There's plenty of doubt, Jason. Act your age. Furthermore, as someone pointed out above, there's a difference between a push poll and a message poll. A push poll plants false negative information by purporting to ask questions containing false information, e.g., "Did you know John McCain had a black baby?". Asking questions containing true information is a message testing poll and is entirely appropriate, if a trifle inauthentic.

I bet that greasy little Chris Lehane is doing this. May he and the guttersnipe he rolls with get what they deserve on Tuesday.

Yes there are dirty tricks in 2008, but all in all this has become a relatively civil campaign. In other words, Clinton is trying to adopt Obama's positive style. So while she is good at changing her persona to adapt to the current polling data, Obama is good at following his inner voice and bringing change to the political system. God bless Barack Obama. God bless America.

It surprises me to read that some Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. It sounds to me like those voters don't understand what Obama stands for and how ultimately important it is to have a Democrat in the White House. Doesn't Obama preach Unity? Democrats need to unite!! I am an undecided voter but I lean towards Hillary when I read all of the mean spirited comments by Obama supporters. Perhaps the notion of a different kind of politics, one of hope and unity that Obama lectures about has not reached his supporters.

No way Hillary can beat McCain! And Obama is so much better than Hillary without even mentioning electability. But for those of you who disagree with me, those who think Hillary is better, how much better do you think she is? Is the difference so great that you're willing to risk losing the general? And she will lose it! OK, let's say I'm wrong and she managed to win it. Meanwhile she will also have managed to drag down the rest of the Democratic field, just based on Clinton name nausea alone. Now how is she going to get her health care reform passed in the Congress (mandates and all and with her track-record)? Whereas Obama, with Democratic wind at his back, and the relative lack of hostility from Republicans....

It is very simple. Hillary Clinton needs to say right now, not on Tuesday or Monday, that she is 100% against the push poll and rebukes it completely and wants it stopped. Nothing short of that can insulate her from the beating she deserves for all of the dirty tricks.

No way Hillary can beat McCain! And Obama is so much better than Hillary without even mentioning electability. But for those of you who disagree with me, those who think Hillary is better, how much better do you think she is? Is the difference so great that you're willing to risk losing the general? And she will lose it! OK, let's say I'm wrong and she managed to win it. Meanwhile she will also have managed to drag down the rest of the Democratic field, just based on Clinton name nausea alone. Now how is she going to get her health care reform passed in the Congress (mandates and all and with her track-record)? Whereas Obama, with Democratic wind at his back, and the relative lack of hostility from Republicans....

It's clear from the most unflattering picture of Hillary Clinton you use for the article, the obvious bias the L.A. Times has for Obama. Obviously the journalistic integrity is spiraling downward, like the rest of the culture on America.

By giving a clear pass to Obama,so that he can coast to the nomination, you fail to understand that having weaker, 'roll of the dice'candidate is going to undermine our goal here, which is to get the Repyblican's out of the White House. Obama was elected to the Senate because he ran against a weak candidate with on resources.

To somehow project all our liberal hopes and dreams onto one man -the 'show horse' is a bandaid, vs. the real solutions needed to help millions of people who need bread, not poetry. How long are you people going to ignore the solutions that Hillary CLinton can deliver? Hillary Clinton may not provide poetry, but that's what we have Hollywood for. We need a problem solver, who can win against the Republicans. And she will win despite the Oprah/L.A. Times.

A vote for Hillary = a vote for McCain.

Hillary as the nominee = a McCain presidency.

Why? Simple. She carries too much baggage and is, fairly or not, mistrusted by far too many voters. So, she cannot get the necessary Independent and Swing voters required to win in the November General Election.

Obama, however, has wide crossover appeal -- and reaches those necessary Independent and Swing voters. ONLY OBAMA CAN TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE WITH MCCAIN AS THE REPUB NOMINEE. McCain too can attract Independents. He would suck the wind right out of the Democrats if HIllary were the Dem nominee. Obama is the only one who can beat McCain.

DEMS: THINK NOVEMBER. THINK WHITE HOUSE. Vote Obama -- or face four more years of Republican rule. You do the math. Use your head. OBAMA O8.

If the Clinton campaign push polls me, they have my personal guarantee that she will NOT GET MY VOTE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

LETS SEE LA TIMES ENDORSED SAINT OBAMA AND WOW! HILLARY IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PUSH POLL! SHUT THE HELL UP LA TIMES YOU KNOW AND WE KNOW IT THAT HILLARY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! I HOPE HILLARY WIPES YOUR SAINT RIGHT OUT OF HIS CLOUD! I AM SOOO SICK OF ASKING PEOPLE WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT THIS GUY AND ALL I GET IS THAT HE IS A GOOD SPEAKER AND IS CUTE LIKE WILL SMITH! WHAT! WE HAVE A COUNTRY THAT IS IN A WRECK AND YOU WANT THIS MAN THAT CAN'T EVEN KEEP ON THE ISSUES STRAIGHT TO RUN IT! HE FUNDED THE WAR HE FOR POLITICAL TIES MADE UP ISSUES ON NUCLEAR LEAKS. HE HAS A SCANDAL LADIES GOING ON WITH REZKO AND HIS LITTLE MANSION AS WE SPEAK! YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK! YOU ARE THE SAME DUMB STARBUCK VOTERS THAT VOTED FOR BUSH ON TWO TERMS! GET OUT AND GET REAL! HALF OF HIS VOTES ARE FROM 18 YR OLD PUNKS THAT HAVE NOT WORRIES IN THE WORLD AND COULD CARE LESS IF OUR ECONOMY IS SHAMBLES! VOTE SMART VOTE FOR SOMEONE THAT CAN MAKE CHANGE! HILLARY 08!


(The question is who benefits from this kind of operation? So we gave the Clinton campaign a chance to deny or explain or denounce or whatever it wanted to do. They said nothing. Some people will read something into that. Since you're for Hillary, you won't. Fine. Thanks for reading.)

Why is it that whenever someone goes after the Clintons Bill & Hillary are victims of a vast right wing conspiracy and Republican smear machine, but when the Clintons go after Obama, Clinton supporters claim the Obama folks are cry babies and Barrack can't take it?

Funny.

People are so tired of this stuff. I hope it backfires on them like Bill's racist remarks in South Carolina.

I am offended and disgusted that Andrew Malcom would write an article like this with NO PROOF! Who is this Ed Guy? Just because Ed 'says' it happened makes it true?
Please don't ever call me or send information to buy your newspaper. I will never subscribe to your biased paper. Or is the LA Times feeling the pressure to have to back up their endorsement of Senator Obama? Or was that the Chicago Tribune

...as an GOP political operative, it was my job to vet HC's 32 years. We are sooo ready for her , everyone on the GOP side is hoping that she wins...cause it will make keeping the WH that much easier.
Thanks to all the HC supporters, ..... a vote for her is a vote for us.

It seems to me that most Americans have not yet had the time to run thru' Obama's records. At just barely 46yrs. he is far ahead of Hillary everything considered, except age. She is proposing the same health care plan that has been on the table and off the table for the past decades - off the table because though it sounds good "universal", it is almost impracticable. Not only is Obama's common sense and realistic but he even goes into explaining the provisions his plan would have on possible left-outs, if there be. Obama is about the same age as Bill was when he was moving into the White House. And all this talk about experience - for God's sake, Obama was a Senator in Illinois before winning the US senate and so has been an elected official to voters for 11 years and Hillary just 6. So, when people look at both Obama and Hillary, I think they confuse age and experience. Obama also has extensively travelled all over the world meeting all sorts of leaders and there is a new beam of light of hope and positive change shinning on the planet and all over the world just because Obama is running. Even when President Clinton is given credit for a wonderful economy when he was in office, those who give him all that credit including himself should realize that it was during a period when America was at peace with itself and not at war, so peace times and not Clinton deserve the credit. Besides, the past is the past and the future the future with unmatched challenges. People have not yet seen the last of Clinton tricks and spins yet in this election and my fear is that we are still in for the worst from them. It is about time America buries the divisive politics of the past 30something years of Clinton/Bush controversies, spins and an economy gone wild and vote for Obama who seems to be the only choice capable of putting things together with an inclusive and fresh spirit. Barack Obama demonstrates both exceptional intelligence and the thinking ability necessary to develop vision and perspective. Though I have always been very supportive of women all my life and sometimes even believe that the future belongs to women, Senator Clinton who happens to be very polarizing and unpredictable at her age would be the most wrong woman to be US President.

Naheed Tahir wrote:

"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."

Such bitter, petty words from someone who, in all likelihood, resembles their tone in every ounce of their character. I love how people are so fond of bringing up Obama's drug use. The reason it doesn't work is that he has owned it for, what, over a decade? The guy laid it out for everyone in 1995 and admitted that it was a mistake. The thing is, Naheed, you'll find that Americans (excluding yourself, of course) are very forgiving when people own up to their shortcomings and admit their mistakes because, hey, we all make mistakes and we're all human. It's people like Bill "I didn't inhale and I didn't have sexual intercourse with that woman" and Hillary "I voted for the insectors to go in, not for the war" Clinton who will never have my respect or my vote - they refuse to cop to what everyone else knows - that they screw up all the time. Their arrogance and aloofness sickens me and, after 8 years of continuous lies and deceit, I'm far from being the only person who will cast a vote for character this election.

I am so mad at the clinton camp. I just can't stand them. This story needs to get more exposure fast!

I would seriously like to know if the La Times would state for the record that Barack Obama has NEVER done a push poll. I would love to see that. A push poll is not published as a 'poll' like the LA times is TRYING to say. Its simply an ADVERTISING campaign to get you to vote for a candidate. There is nothing wrong with push 'polls' .

Nobody puts the results out as a poll , as it would be 90% for the candidate who is conducting the poll. This whole article is WEAK, and a sure SMEAR campaign on the Clintons.


(Don't have to speak for the Obama campaign and apparently no one is speaking for the Clinton campaign either.)

The Clinton campaign is the dirtiest primary campaign in my memory, and I am 60 years old.

An outside perspective - Edwards for Obama???

Guess this post wont mean anything, but after closely following the USA Primaries I thought I should post my opinions somewhere......this post is really about me wondering why Edwards doesn't endorse Obama???

I Live in Europe, in Sweden more precisely (and please excuse me for all my spelling errors), and has with great intrest followed your election process. Why you might wonder? Well, because it is with great sadness I have witnessed the detoriation of the reputation of the USA in the world.....

One of the greatest reason for this is of course the war in IRAQ but also the fact that the bush administration hasn't really cared about the global environment. BUT, one more aspect i also the tendency that the USA is moving to a form of government where political dynasties seems to form. And with that i mean the Bushes and the Clintons, from our perspective it alomst seems that you guys are starting to adopt some form of goverment where power is handed down from one family member to another....and the power that is given away is the presidental power of the United States of America....... is that really what the USA was all about when it was formed?

From my point of perspective, I am very sad that your international reputation is bottom low and I really think that the only thing that could change this is a president whoose last isn't Bush or Clinton......

And if it is CHANGE that you really are looking for for your Country consider this:

At the begining of the 17th century it was widely believed that the sun went around Earth and not, as we know today, that the Earth revolves the sun. At this time some people started to question the ruling theory of an earth-centered solar system, the most famous of them Galileo Galilei. The people at power, the powerful church and the majority of the scientist by that time however refused to change their minds and Galileo Galilei for example was convicted of heresy.
Eventually more and more people of course joined the theory of a sun-centered solar system. Why, one might wonder? For two reason, the first of course beacause people by time of course realised that his is by fact the way it works.....but the other reason is by far more important......beacuse the old people at power and the old scientist eventually where replaced by people with fresh ideas and open minds and were ready to test old truths......

This is actually something that Edwards during his campaign has advocated. So then I ask myself....why, why hasn't Edwards yet endorsed Obama....by end of Tuesday it might be too late and by then you guyns in america either have to choose between a new Clinton or a republican......

Hillary looks 90 years old in that picture!!

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

{Between doing and selling drugs ( in his own writing in his book) this very left wing will go down like Gore, Kerry, Dean and has no congressiional experience like JFK did before the senate. }

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.

“If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn’t have repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill and then fought for months to get action on it,” the campaign said. “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”

Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush’s nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks.

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory.

In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.

In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

By then, the task force had already concluded that “existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate.”

The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.

In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes.

The revised bill was never taken up in the full Senate, where partisan parliamentary maneuvering resulted in a number of bills being shelved before the 2006 session ended.
His is weak and Mitch Mc Connel and republicans will have thier way w/ Durbin ,Reid , Obama, et. al & will go down. That's why they like him so much...foolisj dems will lose in fall again
The country middle of road ....not LEFT WING! Mc Cain will contiune war and tax breaks for rich.....

It was a push poll but it could have been from Republicans to cause dissension or from someone else to discredit the Hillary campaign. Whenever you get a poll ask for the name of the company and a call back number. Legitimate pollsters will provide them.

I am an Edward's supporter and may vote for him anyway.

OUR ECONOMY IS CIRCLING THE DRAIN!! JOB LOSSES ARE INCREASING!! WHO CARES ABOUT A PHONE POLL? VOTE FOR EXPERIENCE TUESDAY! VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!

My fellow democrats, this information just came in from the AP . My husband was voting for Borack and I was going to vote for Hillary. The reason I was voting fro Hillarry because maybe her health care was somthing good..Eventhough I never seen her explaining how she was goin to do it, . becaosuse now with this information I will not vote fro Hillary. I will know support Borack..Im tired of the dirty-tricks. I hope all women will join me.

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 ..."

Hillary and Bill cannot help themselves stooping to the dirtiest tricks in the book to win elections. If she gets the nomination, then beware of the two-headed monster that will run riot in the White House with little or no respect for the office or the interests of Americans. Billary are a disgrace. America has moved on from their time and dirty tactics. It is time for a change, Obama or McCain. Anything but the Clintons.

But it is just so much more fun to criticize Hillary than think it was actually Republicans trying to muck things up for the Democrats.

I am in Cinton's demographic: white, female, 67 years old.

Well, I could not possibly vote for Clinton. She carries all the baggage of the old that we so desperately need to dump. "Ready on Day One," she keeps saying, and every time I hear that I have to ask, Ready for WHAT?

I look for the candidate who is ready on Day One to turn the rudder! That sure isn't Clinton.

And I'm just naive and square enough to believe that you're supposed to vote for the candidate you honestly believe is best for the job, not the one you calculate has the best chance to win.

The one who is best for the job of president is not the one who presents the best package of programs all neatly stitched up, but the one who has character, integrity, vision, and the ability to communicate and inspire these values to all he works with and to the American people; and of course the ability to bring together the right people to his administration. The president does not legislate! That is for Congress; while a well-chosen administration are there precisely to help the president develop the proposals that express his leadership.

I don't need to name the candidate I clearly see as meeting these qualifications . . .

Hey Maria Shriver just endorsed Barack Obama at the rally at UCLA. It was an amazing rally! Catch it on Cspan when they put it up. It is just ending now.

I feel change in the air.Obama for America!
Out with the old divisive politics embraced by the Clintons which results in gridlock in congress.In with Obama and the new politics of building bipartisan coalitions to get things done for the American people.
Mrs Clinton touts 35 questionable years of experience including her 16 years as Arkansas first lady and First lady of the Clinton era.What is 'experience'if you cannot get things done due to deep divisions which she fosters.
She is not electable in November as up to 47% of the country hate her.Her recent gutter politics on Obama will add to that percentage.

I hope more and more people see the light of day
Hillary's claim to "35 years of experience." Subtract her years spent as first lady of Arkansas and in the White House, and her time working as a lawyer in the Rose Law Firm and in other jobs. As Reason Magazine's Steve Chapman reported in November, Hillary Clinton has "just under eight years of experience in elective office -- one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama." And, to boot, Hillary the Feminist has her man to fight her battles.
Here's a great quote from a NYTimes column by Gail Collins:

====

Hillary could start by purging her campaign of the lingering sense that the presidency is her due and anyone who stands in her way is a particularly mean chauvinist. You cannot run a campaign with the slogan: “Vote for Hillary — Think of All She’s Been Through.”

=====

The LA TIMES is a dying newspaper. It continues to lose its circulation and adopts predictable postitions. It restricts its reporters by job intimidation to report only the "corporate" position. Antthing it says about Clinton WILL be degative so all the OBAMA reportage is manufactured. Stop buying the "rag" and go online.


(Thanks for helping ensure the future by checking into our booming blog so often. Appreciate it.)

Maureen R.

I'm with you!

Dear moonscape: could you look in the "headers" of that email and post the IP address it came from? The IP address will look like this: ###.###.###.### (where the #'s are numbers ranging from 0-255). E.g.:
147.132.42.18 or 172.16.254.1 or 170.29.255.201, etc. Just copy and post the "From" headers here. (In Gmail, click on the down-arrow next to Reply, and choose "show original message", to show the IP addresses.)

Thanks!

 
« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: