Over there at CNN there’s an obvious statement:
Polls show Obama has a better chance than Clinton at beating McCain in the general election
Wow. Here’s more:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. John McCain became the likely Republican nominee after Mitt Romney decided to suspend his campaign Thursday. Now, the Democrats are debating who would do better against the Arizona Republican.
Two polls this month have asked registered voters nationwide how they would vote if the choice were between McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.
A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That’s within the poll’s margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..
[…]
Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing “I’ve got appeal that goes beyond our party.”
In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That’s outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.
Consider that, remaining primary states, as well as my earlier post about Clinton’s assertions that she’s not the establishment, when you vote over the next couple of weeks. Please?
get ready the white house is about to turn black
I don’t know if you’re being racist or not, so, I will withhold judgment, and keep an eye on your IP for a little while.
I hope you’re not. I’m looking forward to the White House changing hands in that way.
I am glad that younger people are voting, but why are most of them choosing OBAMA? I asked a few people under 30 to give me a reason for supporting obama and they say that he captured their imagination or he inspires them. They also say that he gives them hope. I always walk away saying, What?!?!
Most families in America do not need HOPE, they simply need HELP. He is unqualified and inexperienced. He has not demonstrated the ability to deliver results on a national level. He was only in US Senate for 1 year before he began campaigning for president. I just do not get it! If Hillary were a white man with the same qualifications and experience that she currently has, there would not even be a competition. She is politically far superior to Barak, yet there is a tight race. It has to be a sexist, gender related reason for this. America is still afraid of smart, strong, capable women. So afraid that they are willing to choose an unqualified, inexperienced man as President, any man.
I think it is horribly small minded to assume that those who support Barack and oppose Hillary are sexist. Obama has built a campaign that is inspiring for many people because it is powered from the bottom up, something that has not existed much (outside of Howard Dean’s campaign in ’04) in US politics.
And to your “He has not demonstrated the ability to deliver results on a national level” comment, I offer a hearty “HUH?” Have you been without cable teevee for some time? No radio there? Newpapers?
I don’t mean to be snarky, but neither candidate has a proven “national” track record as a senator, if that is what you’re getting at, so what we have to go off of are their previous votes in the senate, and how they are running their campaigns. For many, Obama’s opposition of the war is a big motivational factor (and the largest demographic in this group is under the age of 30), and comparing campaign to campaign, one cannot argue Obama hasn’t “delivered results on a national level” without arguing the same for Clinton, as neither has nabbed an obvious lead.
I would never work to discourage a person who finds a reason to support this candidate or that over another. It’s what democracy is all about. But for the love of Jeebus, these claims that any who don’t support Clinton are sexist, or any that oppose Obama’s candidacy are racist are, quite frankly, pretty uninformed.
I tend to agree with the person that thinks the experience of Obama is a little on the short side. Hillary at least has been involved at the federal level since her husband was President. She wasn’t the sit in the White House and entertain kind of First Lady, but one that actually used her position and her connections to try and better life for those of us who continue to need it.
I have been a woman involved in a man’s world of the electric utility business, and I know how hard it is to be accepted for your knowledge and contributions rather than the fact you wear a dress.
But most importantly, who will do the most for all Americans. I am sick of Afro-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Mexican Americans, ETC. Aren’t we all Americans? Women and men? Shouldn’t we be concerned with our jobs going oversees, hungry people, and the rest of the problems for all of us.
hjp
It’s not that she wears a dress, I have no problem with a woman running the show in America. I have a problem with THIS woman.
She is a wildly polarizing figure. If you think what the Republicans did to Bill was bad, just wait until President Hillary gets into office.
She’s going to make Bill’s impeachment look like a day at the carnival.
I like the thought of someone like Louise Slaughter running for President. She’d be great.
Hillary, if she can even make it through the General election (which I don’t think she can because of what Republican’s can and will do to her), will be a one term, powerless President who had to spend all her time fighting off massive attacks from the Republican Hate Machine.
Now, take a longer step back … Given that in Utah, Hillary’s approval rating is lower than Cheney’s, I think you underestimate the kind of down ballot damage that a Clinton candidacy can have to Democrats in Utah.
It will be a slaughter, and things are bad enough in Utah as it is.
I like Hillary, I think she’s smart and a pretty good Senator, but, in the case of the presidency, I think that the Cons outweigh the Pros by a significant enough margin that I can’t give her my active support for the nomination at this time.
Oh, and, I think that Obama kicks ass. He’s inspirational and, lets face it, Hillary just screeches a lot, no matter what she says.