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.

This is disgusting, and people should be going to jail for this.

If Hillary wins the nomination the Democrats are STUPID and will get what they deserve when the rightwing and independents come out in favor of McCain.

She is POLARIZING people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...Let us not forget that Obama overwhelmingly won in the most political savvy city/state - Chicago. He knows all the dirty tricks others will try to use on him - this is nothing new. Everyone says - Oh wait until the Republican....He can stay in the kitchen because he can stand the heat. Don't worry - He's been, there done that!

We are the Ones we have been waiting for - Empower yourself for change.

The reason I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton is that I do not want to see the Clinton drama pathology at work again in the White House in its mind-numbing repetitive pattern:
1. mess up
2. blame the target of the attack and / or deny
3. public outcry
4. have to apologize.

Now think back...how many times has this scenario played out with Bill and Hillary Clinton? How many times have we seen them on 60 Minutes apologizing or rationalizing? How many times have we been subjected to the painful and emotionally awkward sight of Bill holding Chelsea's hand who's holding Hillary's hand as they walk to the helicopter on the White House lawn?

I'd even vote Republican in November to avoid seeing that forced photo op again.

The only way out of this Clinton family drama pathology is for America to ignore the Billary team and its repetitive antics and to vote for Senator Obama.

I do not condone push pull surveys, but many democratic opponents have used them for years.

Come on, people, don't you realize that most campaigns use them? Don't you realize that the Republicans have had a misinformation campaign going toward the Clintons since 1993? In fact, Republicans have been convicted for misinformation campaigns on several occasions. The fact is, many voters have impressions of Hilary Clinton based on push pulls and slanderous gossip campaigns of the republicans going back to the 1990s.

If any campaign pays a pollster to evaluate public opinion, and try to understand why people believe things that have no basis in fact, it is their legal right. A question starting with "if" is not misleading. People believe things on no facts at all, regardless.

I am really sick of the holier than though conservative and libertarian hypocrisies (day jobs as journalists notwithstanding) and that is why I am supporting the democratic party this year.

I wish the same anger and fury at the Clinton's hard ball politics and push polling had been in evidence during G.W.B.s first election bid.

I live in Nevada and I know from personal experience that this type of thing is standard fare for the Clinton camp. Two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama their suragates filed a lawsuit to close down "at-large" precincts which serviced working-class, primarily Latino (40% Latino) voters. Then they started circulating fliers through the Latino community mischaracterizing Barack's positions.

The Obama campaign, of which I was a part, was commited to running a clean campaign. We were blindsided at the caucus because the Hillary Clinton supporters were told to "be aggressive" and that "it's not illegal if they don't tell you so." They also sent out a pack with their caucus volunteers instructing them to shut down the caucus a half an hour early. This I saw with my own eyes. In some precincts the police had to be called because the Clinton people were trying to chain the doors closed and were telling Obama supporters they couldn't register. What they did violated the party rules and the party did nothing. Those of us who were there as Obama volunteers never expected this type of thing to happened and we were totally unprepared for it. We did not think that a DEMOCRATIC candidate would sink to so low as to use these kinds of Karl Rovian tactics. We were wrong. Their behavior was disgraceful to the party.

What happened in Nevada was largely ignored by the media. Then they went into S.C. thinking they could get away with anything. Finally the media took notice of their behavior. I hope that the media continues to scrutinize the Clintons and not allow them to get away with the types of things they did in Nevada.

For those concerned about "experience," Barack Obama has been an elected official longer than Hillary Clinton. He has been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a professor of constititional law, a state senator and now a US senator. In my opinion, this type of experience is far more valuable than being a corporate lawyer. Obama knows how to motivate, inspire and lead. If you visit his website you will see that he has clear plans for leading this country into a better future.

Barack Obama is more than a politician. He is a leader and a uniter. He isn't demanding to be the ruler of America, he is asking to be the delegate of the people.

Another sleazy trick from the sleazy Clintons... I'm surprised they haven't asked their pet dog to campaign for them. They got Hillary's mother, daughter, cheating husband and now push pollsters? LOL!!!! Next thing you know they'll have some old corpus standing on stage with them pretending he's Dwight Eisenhower or a cardboard cutout of Al Gore.

“Sen. Clinton now claims experience and strength as traits that qualify her to be president, both of which are untruths.

First, claiming 35 years experience is not true. As one just out of law school and working at a law firm for 15 years, isn't credible experience.

As for strength, any woman tolerating the many infidelities that Bill committed against her through the years - that doesn't bode well for that claim either.

We certainly don't need more of this from another Clinton White House”.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080124/NEWS/827897827/1037/EDIT04

I love it. First, Hillary talked about the vast right wing conspiracy. Now, it is the entire media conspiracy. Next, it will be the entire world against Hillary and her supporters.

Everybody who calls into question the journalistic integrity of this paper are out of line. You should be able to argue on the basis of argument, not poisoning the well.

Maybe the Hillary supporters will realize that maybe all of these stories are not fabricated but, rather,they are pattern of insidious behavior. I bet they won't. Heads in the sand.....

Hey California, we hope we can queek out a win Tuesday for Obama! What say you?

Dress George W. Bush in a skirt and you've got our new President, Hillary Clinton complete with George Bush's foreign policy and same inability to answer questions honestly or admit mistakes, like her vote authorize George Bush's Iraq War and Iran.

Thats exactly why I hate clintons. They just want to be in power by hook or crook. Clintons are not honest with the American public. This election saw the Clinton machonery using all tactics to stop their opponent. An honest request to all democats going to primary on Tuesday - Please stop the dynasty politics in USA. Please vote for change. May God bless USA

Dear Editors,
Your newspaper is biased towards Obama as other American media are at present.
Why is it so? Is it because:
(1) he is black,
(2) he is the only one to be able to defeat Senator Clinton,thus a vehicle for Clinton bashing
(3) he could be easily defeated by any Republican in the November election due to his lack of substance and experience.
Why don't you describe his shortcomings and failings as you describe both Clinton's?


(If you'd been reading this blog more regularly, you would be embarrassed to ask that question. We offend everybody at one time or another. Welcome.)

You can say its just standard politics and that the Republicans will do the same thing, but that doesn't make it right.

I can tell you one thing that is a fact: If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination the Republicans will organize en masse to ensure that she does not win. After 8 years of the Bush mess many Republicans have become disillusioned and apathetic. However, if there is any chance that slick Willy and his boss Hillary will be back in the Oval office they will be energized to get out and vote for any alternative candidate.

ANYONE BUT HILLARY '08

I guess I am just a little more suspicious than most people.

Upon reading the article, my first questions were why does a former director of a news department say the person identified himself as a pollster. Would you not think someone who has been involved in news reporting might want to know who he is talking to (i.e., name of the pollster), or maybe even which organization, candidate, etc. he was doing the poll for? I know I would.

Secondly, I guess unlike most people if I were in the process of preparing my dinner I would tell the individual that I had limited time and would want to know how long this call was going to take or ask if he could call back later.

Another question, since this happened the other night why is it just now being reported? Surely a former news director still has contacts and if he were so concerned or upset about this he could have gotten this out immediately after it happened. Of course, I do not know what "other night" means to Ed; would surmise it does not mean last night and probably not a night or two ago or he would have said a couple of nights ago.

Guess my lifetime training and working in auditing makes me sort of suspicious about just about everything. Sure curious why this all of a sudden comes out when the race is tightening up and Sen. Obama seems to have the momentum in California. But then again as I say . . . . .

I can easily believe Clinton is behind these "push polls." Maybe, with one day to go, the "pollsters" will throw in a few sobs for dramatic effect.

Yes We Can Vote Democracy over Dynasty


I’m going to keep this simple and straight to the point.

If Hillary Clinton is ANYWHERE on the ticket, I will change my registration to Independent and vote Republican for the first time in my life.

I know what some people are thinking as they read this blog…“We don’t want another Republican in the White House”…”The Republicans are far worse than Hillary Clinton”…”Vote for the lesser of 2 evils”

I know that this thinking may sound plausible…because we have been trained by the pundits to think this way. When we have come to the point when we are led to choose between “the lesser of two evils” we have to come to terms of reality that our democracy is slipping away from the true values of the American people. If you believe this cynical view, then you’re voting out of fear instead of conviction.

We see right now that the balance of power has shifted towards the Executive Branch when the son, George Bush 2, of a President, George Bush 1, is in the White House.

We can’t even begin to imagine how the balance of power will continue to shift to the Executive Branch if we have 2 presidents, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, in the White House at the same time for the first time in our history.

It strikes me in awe that people are so blind by their self-interest of winning and in fact state their reason for voting for Hillary Clinton simply because of having a president, Bill Clinton that already served the full 2 terms, back in the White House which would otherwise be unconstitutional. But at the same time these same people are wide awake and realize that a 2nd term of the Bush family was the worse thing that happened in the history of our Democracy.

Let me be very clear with my view on this.

My vote will not be against Hillary Clinton.
My vote will not be against the Democratic Party.
My vote will not be for the Republican Party.
My vote is bigger than Barack Obama.
My vote is for Democracy over Dynasty.

Too many times we have seen our “loyal” vote taken for granted by the Democratic Party, as well as, the Republican Party. So I say here today…

My vote is not going to be a Democratic vote.
My vote is not going to be a Republican vote.
My vote will be an American vote for justice, peace and prosperity of Democracy.

America, we have the chance to lead the world in setting aside the Ideological, Partisan, and the Dynastical mind set that is so deeply rooted in Politics perpetuated by the Main Stream Media. The leaders around the world will begin to see that YES YOU CAN win by uniting people across gender, religion and race.

Because I stand for Democracy over Dynasty…because I’m an American before I’m a Democrat…I will be force to change my registration to an Independent to send a clear message to the Democratic Party that my vote will never again be taken for granted.

I ask all that agree with this blog to unite on this message of Democracy over Dynasty. Let’s unite in one voice and send this message to every blog around the world…Every article that is written…Every Radio Station…Every TV Station.

YES WE CAN VOTE DEMOCRACY OVER DYNASTY.

If we do this America, Barack Obama will shock the world with the Audacity of Hope.

The Clinton's will do anything, they havent changed.. i beleive that people are really finally waking up to the chance that they now, right now have the chance to change the course of our nation and the world for the better through Barack Obama, I am more impressed by him each day.

If you want a better future, vote for Barack Obama over more Clinton years of lies and scandal. We as a nation must be better then that, and we must hold our leaders up to the highest standards. The Clintons do not meet these standards and should not get another term in the White House.

Get out and vote for Barack Obama be a part of a defining moment in our history! The time is now!

How can anyone say that it is the Obama camp playing all these dirty tricks? Remember, you are the same people who say that he is too inexperienced and naive... This sounds like "well seasoned" political campaigning. Like some Clinton, I mean candidiate has done this before...

This seems to be pretty mild to get upset about.
The caller doesn't smear the other candidates just highlights Clinton's positives
and the other's negatives. Obama's false healthcare mailers are
certainly more disiengenous than this poll.

How can anyone say that it is the Obama camp playing all these dirty tricks? Remember, you are the same people who say that he is too inexperienced and naive... This sounds like "well seasoned" political campaigning. Like some Clinton, I mean candidiate has done this before...

This is just the STATUS QUO pushing back against change... Don't listen to the background noise...

GOTV - BARACK OBAMA 08! Vote Tuesday and show the "Status Quo" that it's time has ended as they know IT!

YES WE CAN!

I am astonished by how many Hillary supporters say this illegal, unscrupulous, and dishonest activity is just part of routine politics. This is precisely the kind of dishonesty Obama wants to end, and the fact that Clintonites think fraud and dishonesty are just fine only further convinces me of the urgency of having a president like Barack Obama who has some integrity and decency and who has successfully changed ethics standards and laws. Up until recently I told myself I'd be happy with any of the Democratic candidates, but after seeing the tolerance among Clinton and her supporters for dishonest "politics as usual", I doubt I could vote for her. Note to HRC supporters: to demand the truth and condemn fraud do not make a person "weak" or a "cry-baby." I don't know if Clinton is behind this, but it's revealing that so many of her supporters think it's ok.

Re this push poll. I repeat..did anyone watch Bill Moyer's journal last weekend ? 527's, hired by groups that support one candidate. They hire someone who can sound like an Afro-American or any voice they want to use , & pose questions that will deliberately make the person they call annoyed with the questioning. Apparently, they are successful with people who don't do anything but listen to media celebs to make decisions for them. Use your heads. If you were called at dinnertime or in the middle of the night, you would be annoyed at the candidate they pretended to put in a good light. These people know how to play with your head !!!! And think......who benefits from this ? Don't vote for someone just because he's Black. Vote for America. Go Hillary.

The mere fact that so many people point to the tactics of Bill and Hillary Clinton on this blog is evidence of how devisive she is. To understand your present condition look to your past actions... L.A. Times has endorsed Obama, so has the SF Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, and on the blogs today in Washington Post and New York times are all similar to the experience one gets from reading through the postings.

Hillary polarizes people and people dislike her to an extreme. Those who defend her as wonderful and attack people who are pro Obama have no shame. Where were you and what did you say when the following happened?
Mena Airport
Cocaine
Lassiter
lost lives of children and witnesses
Vince Foster
Chinagate
Filegate
Watergate
Theft of 700 FBI files on people who oppose the Clintons
Waco
Money, money, money all for the Clintons

With a history like this no wonder people don't want to hear from these two again. Well I say CORPORATIONS endorse Hillary but the PEOPLE endorse Obama.

If you would like a real eye opener check out the private memorandum to Hillary from David Rockerfeller in the release of her papers under Judicial Watch FOIA request via litigation in which he tells her she's got to go after everyone who doesn't support her in her health initiative (while Bill was president) get their "names, addresses, ... everything". I challenge anyone in this blog tonight to read that memo and have the guts to come back on this blog and say Hillary would never resort to "tactics" in an election. Sorry it is status quo. My vote is for Obama, and I'm white, 59 years old, have a son in Iraq ... I have done my research, and Hillary comes up sorely lacking any ethics whatsoever.

If I don't get to win now, then I will take my ball and go home.

No surprises here - same old stuff from the Clintons. They have no shame. I remember when Hillary traded commodities to help make money for Slick Willy's first presidential bid. Just one of the many scandals which has marked their quest for power. Bill Clinton can look into a camera and lie better than anyone.

YES WE CAN!
GOBAMA

Has anyone thought that since the GOP would rather run against Hillary than Obama, that Karl Rove may have hatched this plan to help Hillary win? Karl Rove once staged a breakin of his office so it would look like it was done by political rivals. I wouldn't put anything past the GOP. Rove probably still has his finger in helping the GOP win. Personally I favor Obama over Hillary, but will vote for whoever ends up as the Democratic Party's candidate.

sad very sad indeed. lately i seem to have lost more and more respect for hillary.

Why are there people settling for "politics as usual"? Why leave voters guessing and confused and mislead? The reason such campaigning tacts are used is because the guilty candidate's own records do not stand a chance to win an election if it were based on honesty. So why are people settling for "politics as usual"? Why do you agree to being confused and mislead and having to guess at what to believe? As for who is behind these push polls, we may never find out. We can spin this article any way we want to benefit whoever we want, but we really don't know at this point, hence it being a blog. But welcome to the internet, do your research, do your digging on all the trash, all the accomplishments, all the lobbyists, contributors, past tactics, business dealings and legislative records. Etc. You won't be able to find every detail, but you'll have learned enough to make a decision that's based on something more than name recognition or race or gender or the way they speak or dress.

Disgusting. More good things from Sen. Clinton

What seems to be totally ignored in all the hooplah is a nagging, fundamental question: are the Bushes and divisive Clintons all what The Great America has now left for leadership? OGK/Geneva

Obama will be the first democrat I have ever voted for. If you cannot see the reasons why we should be supporting this candidate, then you are truly blinded by the media glitz and glamour that is american politics today. If McCain select Lieberman and Obama wins the democratic nod, America finally wins...

CORRECTING ONE LESS-THAN-HALF TRUTH

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

Thank you for the oppty to debunk the myth of MSM bias for Obama.

Actually it's less a myth and more pure tactics by The Clintons which they share with Bush/Rove REPS. You'll all heard of "the liberal" media, courtesy of the REPUBLICANS; and now The Clintons and their blogging surrogates are telling us that MSM is in Obama's corner.

Now, there's your fairytale and here is why:

1. Bill & Hillary rarely ever mentioned Obama in 2007, and never critically.

2. Shortly before losing the younger and women's vote to Obama in Iowa, they decided they needed to create and raise Obama's negatives.
This is when Shaheen, the husband of former NH GOV and Clinton's NH campaign chair, Jeanne Shaheen, resigned after admitting to planting a media story in NH that suggested Obama was a drug dealer. You'll note there was another Clinton-staffer who was allowed to resign aftetr getting caught sending emails and faxes with lies about Obama (Muslim, No Pledge Allegiance, etc.)

3. After the Iowa loss Bill Clinton decided that if you want something done..
He sought to cover himself first by accusing the media of giving Obama a free ride.
Initially NBC/MSNBC and specifically Tim Russert called him out publicly asserting that Russert had directly posed every question to Obama.
Then, he got flipped.

4. Russert held up this 4-page to Obama during the Las Vegas debate in a very accusatory tone, asking wasn't the fax proof that the Obama campaign was also guilty of keeping the racial storyline alive.

Obama agreed and pled guilty, chastised his staff, and promised an immediate end to it without reservation.

But what Russert knew and did not clarify was that the fax did not include any comment or characterization from Obama or the campaign about Sen. Clinton at all.

Obama policy had been to not comment on Hillary's MLK/LBJ comparison at all because it was already being replayed on air and that videotape speaks for itself. However there were others in the Black community that were responding to her comparative analysis of the relative contributions to passage of the Civil Rights Bill from MLK vs. LBJ.

The only purpose of the fax was to make sure MSNBC was aware of the widespread reaction (all negative) within the black community to Sen. Clinton's comment.

It contained a few quotes and links to other feedback like the reaction from the S.C. Congressman, Clyburn.

Neither Obama nor the campaign referred to her as racist or implied anything.

Moreover, even Congressman Clyburn in his comments at that time only warned her and everyone to be very careful about, "how we characterize Dr. King and various contributions to the movement.

Russert could have clarified the point, but he was more concerned with moral equivalency and chastising Obama.

What's worse is that earlier in that same debate, network anchor Brian Williams tossed an apparent softball question to Obama about what Williams described as a torrent of daily faxes and emails seeking to plant lies into stories about Obama.

Obama was gracious; but I was surprised Williams didn't identify the source of the faxes and emails, when this was the same practice and content in evidence when Clinton staffers resigned in Iowa.

I just assumed the media was seeking to facilitate peace among them; that was until Russert was so eager to call out Obama for essentially just sending links, while they gave Sen Clinton a free pass even though they were receiving planted Obama stories from some campaign (hers) that same day.

The woman doesn't have an honest bone in her body, let's just be realistic about that. She is also fairly demented, totally socialistic and vicious. Other than that, what's not to like?

I call her Shrillery the Socialist Shrew.

Joyce in Muncie: It's time to get back on your meds!

Hillary is a traitor to the democrat party. Her husband defended his "chummy " behavior with Bush Sr. and Hillary was practically endorsed by George W. in an interview conducted with ABC a while back. Folks, it doesn't get any worse than this! George Bush, the man that caused most of the turmoil right now in our country and in Iraq, the man that gradually stripped Americans of numerous privacy rights through the patriot act, the man that pressured our democrat congress into voting quickly for the patriot act and using dirty propaganda tactics to get the most recent patriot act passed. My god, what do you people need to wake up! It is so obvious that this guy and the Clintons are in the sack together! If you want more of Bush vote Hillary, if you want our freedom back vote Obama - it's that simple!

Our elections are rigged! What do you expect? Hillary in office for the next 8 years leaves us a nation ruled by Bush's & Clinton's for 36 years. Washington does not have a problem with this because they are all abusing their powers. They've all cashed their checks and are turning a blind eye.

If you knew that Mrs. Clinton's campaign was calling you at home and pretending to be interested in what was important to you, while actually spreading false or exaggerated information about her and the other candidates, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?

Hillary Clinton has no chance against Mc Cain. Therefore I will vote Obama as I am not gonna allow my country another devastating Republican administration. Besides freezing mortgage rates for 5 years is her policy!

I study Finance and can assure that it will be very bad for Americans buying a house. The consequence of freezing a rate is having a fixed rate.
If you want a fixed rate you can already get a fixed rate however wants to as it is always higher than the variable rate. Why? It carries more risk as banks dont know what the rate will be in 5 years.
More risk to banks means a higher rate/price to consumers. In other words it will be very expensive to get a mortgage is that what we want?

As for Mc Cain, he wants to reduce taxes to boost the economy. That means the government will have less income, they will still waste billions of dollars on Iraq and what happens to our huge deficit (that makes the US dollar a joke), education and healthcare? Oh yeah that is not important, forget about it, lets attack Iran and borrow the money from China our communist friend.

The writer, Andrew Malcolm, is a former press secretary to Laura Bush. Helpful Ed Coghlan worked for a Faux TV channel. 'Nuff sed.

I have been focused on CNN coverage throughout this campaign and find that CNN's candidate is Obama. Everything they cover shows Obama in a favorable light and Clinton in a negative light, though there are positive results to post about Hillary. CNN is supposed to be reporting information on all candidates, but it is obvious they are either anti-woman. Could this be because they are male dominated. How sad they cannot be objective in their reporting.

Ah, Olga--if anyone is against your Hillary they must be anti-woman, misogynist, male chauvinists, right??
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Is it too hard for you to grasp that millions of us are all for a woman POTUS, but NOT President Clinton-Clinton. We are against her not because of the color of her skin (nor because of the configuration of her genitals) but because of the content of her character. If you support Hillary merely because she is a woman, then you are supporting her for the stupidest possible reason--just as supporting Obama merely because he is half-black would be a stupid reason.

God save America from the voters who vote with their skin, their genitals, their spleen, their gut or anything other than their brain!

Dr. Veritas

Well said!!

Olga's comments illustrate exactly why John McCain will be the next president. Voters may have misgivings about Clinton or Obama, based on the candidates' positions on issues or their histories or their intentions. A hard-core section of the liberal establishment immediately assails such misgivings as rooted in chauvinism or racism. To which the normal human reaction is "screw you for labeleing me. I'll show you, I'll vote GOP". This is even more probable if the GOP fields what is perceived as a moderate candidate.

Once we stop callling attention to skin color and genital configuration, and ask voters to look at the PERSON, only then will Dems have a chance in November. It is not looking good at this point....

hillary's experience lies in lies (and lies infinitum)

Today it is revealed the Barak Obama plagerized speeches and ideas, phrases, etc. from others' speeches.

So he is a fraud. Not only does he not have any original words of his own but his "ideas" are probably plagerized too.

Does it make a difference? Certainly!!

It goes to character (lack thereof) for not crediting the original speech maker like "As my friend Deval Patrick has said......"

He knows by doing that, he can't take full credit for being this BIG FRAUD INSPIRATION.

What else will he plagerize if he becomes President?

And this gives the repulicans something really HUGE to play with during the general election.

What else will be found out or even distorted (like the Kerry swiftboating) about him by the republicans?

Regarding Barack Obama and my reasons for not liking him and not voting for him.

Many of them are logical and I cannot debate his supporters who come back with illogical responses based on personal jabs and loss for words thus things like "You're a waste of time."

I also have gut feelings about him that aren't quantifiable but they are logical.

Since we don't know a lot about him, since he doesn't have as much of a history as Hillary Clinto for us to say, "OK, he is a pretty responsible person, he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about being an "African" American (he really isn't but I suppose that's neither here nor there in most instances), he is definitely completely PRO USA and has no ties or allegiances to Farrakhan, etc.

I am still perplexed about his membership in a church (Christian?), that aligns itself with Farrakhan, a Muslim (another reason for my gut feeling).

He goes back on his promises, votes present in IL senate to preseve HIS political standing rather than trying to go on record as opposing a bill in it's final form or better yet, CHANGE IT! WORK TO CHANGE IT! THIS CANDIDATE OF CHANGE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN IL VERY EFFECTIVELY!

He said he would not run for president in 2008. Then he said it was due to wanting more experience, etc. OK, so according to some of his supporters here, he was told what a wonderful candidate he would be.

This just proves that what he says today in his campaining can DEFINITELY be manipulated and changed by OTHERS. He can be made to change HIS mind and go against his own promises and visions.

So that among many other things makes me wonder what changes we can believe in today which he will go back on tomorrow.

He is too raw, new, inexperienced and flaky to have my vote.

Regarding Barack Obama and my reasons for not liking him and not voting for him.

Many of them are logical and I cannot debate his supporters who come back with illogical responses based on personal jabs and loss for words thus things like "You're a waste of time."

I also have gut feelings about him that aren't quantifiable but they are logical.

Since we don't know a lot about him, since he doesn't have as much of a history as Hillary Clinto for us to say, "OK, he is a pretty responsible person, he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about being an "African" American (he really isn't but I suppose that's neither here nor there in most instances), he is definitely completely PRO USA and has no ties or allegiances to Farrakhan, etc.

I am still perplexed about his membership in a church (Christian?), that aligns itself with Farrakhan, a Muslim (another reason for my gut feeling).

He goes back on his promises, votes present in IL senate to preseve HIS political standing rather than trying to go on record as opposing a bill in it's final form or better yet, CHANGE IT! WORK TO CHANGE IT! THIS CANDIDATE OF CHANGE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN IL VERY EFFECTIVELY!

He said he would not run for president in 2008. Then he said it was due to wanting more experience, etc. OK, so according to some of his supporters here, he was told what a wonderful candidate he would be.

This just proves that what he says today in his campaining can DEFINITELY be manipulated and changed by OTHERS. He can be made to change HIS mind and go against his own promises and visions.

So that among many other things makes me wonder what changes we can believe in today which he will go back on tomorrow.

He is too raw, new, inexperienced and flaky to have my vote.

 
« | 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: