Blog Archives

Hillary Trails Top GOP Candidates in Head-to-Head Polls…


A new Zogby Poll says Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election head-to-head match-ups. This, with the previously reported numbers on Obama, may be the electability issue coming home to roost for the Clinton campaign, as her national support from this past summer appears to have evaporated.

I predicted this as far back as as two months ago here, here, here and she has only herself to blame.

Even Newt Gingrich is predicting an Obama win in Iowa. 

Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, in particular Barack Obama and John Edwards, both lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, according to the survey.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 since June, however now, she trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

Back in July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, and held a solid five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar.

However, as she has wavered on immigration, the failed attempt to license illegal aliens in New York, and in nationally televised debates, her support has eroded…as it should. 


America wants a truthful President and a person who leads from a pulpit of what is right, not what is right for the pollsters.

We’ve had eight years of dishonesty and back paddling. People are starving for integrity in the Oval Office. They want someone to bring our country back from the edge of the cliff that George Bush has led us to. America has raised the bar and apparently Hillary is having a tough time getting over it.  These poll results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.

This is no way for the Clinton campaign to start on any level.

Many Democrats, including me on this blog and on my Internet radio show, have expressed concerns about the former first lady’s electability in a tight national race against Republicans. This survey slso showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters – another ominous sign.

“The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem,” Zogby said.

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.

“It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House,” Zogby said.

The poll consisted of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in on-line polls.

Some have pointed out that the poll may be skewed, as Obama and Edwards supporters could be more active. However, several polls suggest the same trends and the data seems to be consistent.

I’ll say it again as I have been saying it for months…

Hillary Clinton is no lock for 2008 and in my opinion, she is not living up to her reputation as a tough campaigner. Her campaign is being run poorly and she almost sounds as though she believes the nomination is a coronation that has already been decided.

Not so Hillary…not so.

Democrats are looking for someone, anyone, with consistent positions on the issues and a solid platform that the Republicans cannot attack with a broadside shot and sink the whole ship! Hillary Clinton nor her campaign should be surprised at all that this is happening. People are beginning to pay attention as we get closer to Iowa and what they are discovering is that Hillary can’t make up her damn mind on just about anything.

I don’t know how much of a problem these numbers are this early, but if I was a betting man, I wouldn’t push all of my chips her way just yet.

Save the waffles for breakfast Hillary and choose your positions carefully, or Democratic caucus goers may choose them for you, in the form of Barack Obama.  

More 2008 Presidential Election News here…


Obama and Clinton Tied in Iowa?


As of today, polls show Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton in a statistical dead heat in Iowa (Obama up by 4 points with a 4 point margin of error).

Less than two months before the Iowa Caucasus, the Democratic race is still a toss up, with Edwards trailing close behind. This is according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll released Monday.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is in the lead with 30 percent support from likely Iowa voters, followed closely by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, who earned 26 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards got 22 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson earned 11 percent.

Clinton is the national front-runner, but has seen her lead drop in recent months, according to the poll.

In July, 50 percent of Iowans thought she had the best experience to be president, but in the poll released Monday, 38 percent said they thought she did. 

39 percent said they still thought she is the most electable candidate, with Obama in second in that category with 25 percent.

I believe the main reason for this sudden closing of the gap between Clinton and Obama is attributed to Hillary Clinton’s constant waffling on key issues. The latest incident involved the immigrant license program in New York. First she’s for it, then she’s not for it, then she understands why Spitzer wanted it, then when Spitzer drops the idea, she says she’s against it again!!!

Get a grip girl!

I’ve said it in other posts…pick a position for God’s sake and defend it! This constant back and forth is feeding an already tarnished reputation that has Hillary pegged as someone who can’t commit to a position – especially on tough issues.

The Democrats better wake up and realize that this nomination process is not a lock for Clinton, as I have been stating on this blog and my radio show for several months. We need a candidate that is dynamic, exciting, and can win next November, so we can progress on key issues. 

Hillary is looking less and less like that candidate everyday.  

I’m Beginning to Wonder If Hillary Should Be the Nominee…


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s is running damage control after her debate performance Tuesday. Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect those attacks.

All of this comes on the heels of a rather poor debate performance in Philadelphia. Supporters and analysts alike agreed that Clinton stumbled. Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” One supporter also voiced his concern that the Clinton campaign is not devoting enough money and staff to Iowa, lagging behind Obama, as well. 

Another supporter said Russert “should be shot.” 

Oh boy. That was headline waiting to be written in some conservative rag. 

In a memo from the Obama campaign, spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton “offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion that won’t bring the change America needs.” 

Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate, Clinton’s position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, “Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen. Clinton’s position … She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards.”

My question is…what the hell is Hillary Clinton doing? Aren’t we living the Its-not-my-fault Presidency right now? Instead of withering under attacks and blaming other Democrats for piling on, shouldn’t she just come out swinging and stick to her position? Does she or her campaign really think that the Republicans will treat her any better if she gets elected? Please!

Personally, I’ve had enough of the excuses and blame game. It is for this reason that Hillary is going to actually turn the 2008 election into a horse race vs. the most pathetic Republican field in twenty years. She is playing right into the hands of conservative critics who wasted no time blasting her all over talk radio today. I counted about forty “Flip-Flop” comments from conservative knuckle heads (apparently they have a patent on he phrase), and a brutally cold analysis, at best, from liberals.

Why in the hell would anyone support Spitzer’s driver license program? Are you kidding me? New York State troopers were arresting illegal aliens at DMV locations throughout the state on the order of county clerks! Read a paper! It doesn’t take a genius to exercise a morsel of critical analysis on this one. I made up my mind 30 seconds after I read Spitzer’s proposal – conclusion…bad idea! By the way, 68% of New Yorkers are in my camp. Clinton is famous for following popular trends – why not follow this one! Just get up there last night and say, “After careful consideration, I have concluded that criminals shouldn’t get licenses, and I’d like to thank you for bringing this important issue up.” Enough said. She could have completely unarmed the opposition and looked graceful all at once. Maybe she would have had to shake off the flip-flop nonsense one more time, but she could live to fight another day without looking like a baby! This is what America is thinking. Is the Clinton campaign pandering to the left or just completely out of touch? I don’t get it. 

I’ve been saying it for months – Hillary Clinton is not a shoe in for 2008 and in my opinion, she is not living up to her reputation as a tough campaigner. What her campaign needs is a dose of intestinal fortitude. I don’t know if her campaign wonks are reading this, but if they are, I suggest you ladies and gentlemen re-think your approach.


Bush Slaps Children in the Face with Heartless Child Healthcare Veto…


President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation that would expand a children’s health insurance program by $35 billion over five years. The program called, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), was designed to fill the gap between families who made too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to provide health care for their kids – the key word being kids. Bush said he vetoed the bill because it was a step toward “federalizing” medicine and inappropriately expanded the program “beyond its focus on helping poor children. I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system.”

Inappropriate? Wasn’t the point of all this to make expanded health coverage for children appropriate? 

What’s not appropriate for old George, is that the program would cut into insurance companies’ profit pie. The government’s policy should be “to help people find private insurance” Bush said.

Ahh! Now that makes more sense! The corporate pay-masters think it’s a bad idea to cover all kids who need it under a federal program, so they just let their puppet president wield the veto sword. I’ve got it now.

The disgusting part is that the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the Senate and House of Representatives. “I think that this is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country. It is incomprehensible. It is intolerable. It’s unacceptable,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy. I’m with you Ted. No matter what faces these heartless Republican bastards, they simply will not throw the middle class a crumb – not even to kids. The Senate voted 67-29 last week to expand the program and has the required 2/3 for a veto.

“It’s very sad that the president has chosen to veto a bill that would provide health care to 10 million American children for the next five years. It is a value that is shared by the American people across the board,” Nancy Pelosi said. House Democrats also were quick to compare the bill’s $7 billion annual cost to the money spent each month on the Iraq war. Where were these ‘fiscal conservatives when we went to war in Iraq? There was plenty of money then. Maybe we should ask the Chinese for the money again? Hell, they already own us like a pet dog anyways, so lets just finance this too! 

Of course there are just enough narrow minded House Republicans that agree with our moron president to quash any override. “The public can see that we’re playing more political ‘gotcha’ than we are at really solving problems,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, who said the legislation contained “all of these little hidden gizmos, among other things that we’re going to provide health care to the children of illegal immigrants.”

Okay, what if the illegal immigration coverage gets dropped?

Akin also said the bill would have led to “a massive expansion of, basically, ‘Hillary’ socialized medicine,” a reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and her unsuccessful health care efforts in the 1990’s. Gee, I guess you’re right Senator Akin. We are playing ‘Political Gotcha.’ If Hillary is for it, it must be bad – and we can’t give her any momentum for 2008 now can we?

In response, Democrats denied the bill would provide coverage to illegal immigrants and denied Akin’s charge.

I checked the language – the Democrats are right – so that makes Akin and every other Senator who voted against this bill an petty obstructionist and a liar.

What these anti-American middle class Republicans do not grasp is that healthcare is simply out of reach for many people in this country and that situation is only getting worse. Under this legislation, 4 million to 8 million more children will be covered.  It would only cost a maximum of $12 billion for the next five years. We’re spending over $2 billion a week in Iraq.

Sen. Orrin Hatch is as conservative as it gets, and he split from the president. “It’s very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for,” he told his colleagues on the Senate floor before the vote. “It’s unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue.”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted September 27-30 found over 70% surveyed favor the program. 

Critics have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill. Can’t these knuckleheads get it through their thick skulls that the people who would be helped by this bill HAVE NO DAMN INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY CAN”T AFFORD IT!!!!! There is no switching to be done! We’re talking about the working poor here! They’re among us all and they just want to help their kids! What do we have to do with Bush and the rest of these jackasses who simply cannot wrap their simpleton heads around this issue – whip it into them with a stethoscope until they finally get it?  

…of course given the sexual behavior of some of these guys as of late…they might enjoy that.

Hillary Clinton Suggests Lou Dobbs a Racist…


I guess it was a campaign tactic to pander to the Latino vote, but it seems Hillary Clinton went a bit far when she said that some in the media attack Latinos and that she found it “destructive.” Later, she would single out Lou Dobbs of Lou Dobbs Tonight.

The Monday New York Times described how Democrats pandered to a Latino audience during their debate on the Spanish-language channel Univision. “They expressed concerns that Republicans were enabling anti-immigrant feelings and even racist attitudes, or at least not taking a tougher stand against them.” 

Hillary Clinton said legislative proposals to overhaul the immigration system, which all the Democrats at the debate endorsed, had been used by Republicans and some in the news media to “bash immigrants” and then added, “There are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. I think it’s very destructive.”

The Times pressed Clinton after the debate for clarification and she said she was referring to the CNN anchor Lou Dobbs and the radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others.

How on earth does Hillary Clinton draw the parallel between Limbaugh and Dobbs? For the record, Limbaugh is a racist. If he had his way, anyone with the skin color of ‘non-white’ would be deported. He has made racist comments about everyone from Jesse Jackson to Barack Obama to Donovan McNabb, which he was fired for from ESPN.  Dobbs, on the other hand, simple wants the government to stop beating the hell out of the middle class. He has never uttered a racist word about any Latino I know of. He merely takes the apparently ‘destructive’ position, that immigration laws should be enforced and American companies should be held accountable and summarily punished for hiring and harboring illegals.

Sen. Barack Obama, who is polling at 25% to Clinton at 44%, said President Bush missed a chance to defuse the fears of American workers who believe illegal immigrants will take their jobs. He stated, “They (American workers) feel that they are losing jobs. They feel like they are losing health care…” He also added, “They feel that they are falling behind, and their children won’t have a better future. So a president has to speak out forcefully against anti-immigrant sentiment and racist sentiment, but also has to make sure that all workers are being tended to.”

This is Dobbs’ position and that of many other Democrats, including myself. Why can’t we enforce laws while protecting American workers, and people who want to come to this country legally?

What Hillary has done is reinforced to moderates that she just doesn’t get it. She is willing to pay lip service to the Latino voting block and liberal Democrats in the name of getting elected, while ignoring those Democrats who favor immigration reform and stricter enforcement of the law (polls suggest a majority of Americans want stronger border security and a fair way to handle illegals already here.) This position isn’t destructive or racist as she suggests, it’s just plain common sense. We have finally reached a point where we can’t afford this nonsense to continue. There are too many hard working American born and legal immigrants who need health care, welfare, childcare and jobs. Why should any of the spoils of America go to those who consciously cheat the entire system and make a mockery of our legal process? Is it appropriate that immigration activists are calling Elvira Arellano the next Rosa Parks – a woman with blatant disregard for U.S. laws and a mother who is using her American born son as political leverage so she might live here illegally and help others do the same? 

If Hillary wants to label people and their agendas “destrcutive” she should invest a little more critical analysis and a little less rhetoric before she throws someone under the bus, who actually wants to protect the middle class.

Personally I stand by Lou Dobbs and his position because it reflects my own feelings on the issue. American workers and their families first…the Mexicans can do it like every other immigrant group has since the 1850’s, or go back to Mexico and work on reversing 200 years of corruption and dysfunctional government. Either way, I cannot endorse the idea that they be allowed to sponge off of hardworking and honest people. Hillary is wrong and she has given me another reason to support Obama.