What's up with the Pew survey results?  25% of Clinton supporters will vote for John McCain?  Or is that somehow taken out of "context" like everything else?

At first glance, the poll makes clear that McCain is drawing his support from Democrats, which makes it even more strange.

As all things tend to revert to the mean over time, I suspect that were Obama the nominee, that these Democrats would return home and vote for him.

So why are they responding to the poll this way? I can only speculate. I wrote some time ago that the extreme negativity emanating from Obama supporters toward Clinton -- or perhaps it would be better described as the perception on the part of Clinton's supporters as extreme negativity  (we don't need to revisit that, Lowell. I know you see it differently as a matter of what is actually occurring) would cause some blowback.

If so, it's a temporary phenomenon, and this particular poll is a tempest in a teapot.

Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches

When you combine that with the results of this poll....

That's what happens when you go this negative in a primary.

2+2=4

I spent most of my career in journalism.

Sometimes, headlines suck. This is one of those instances.

I mean, you don't take the crawls on Fox and CNN at face value, do you?

...which I read, by the way.

FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." Clinton was referring to Obama's anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

Criticism has been leveled towards Clinton as well, though, especially her claim that she is ready to be the commander-in-chief on "day one." When asked at the press conference if she could name a particular instance in her past that equips her to deal with a national security crisis, Clinton balked, saying, "Well, I was involved in a lot of the decisions that were made. Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective," Clinton said. "You know, no one who hasn't been president has done that, so that's not the right question. The question is, what have you done over the course of that lifetime to equip you for that moment?"

Texas voters will go the polls on Tuesday to give her the answer.

And here is Matt Stoller of Open Left commenting on the article, which he presumably read as well.

and I think it is clear that both you and Matt misread it. I understand the visceral reaction, however, if you already think Hillary Clinton engages in this style of politics as a matter of course.

And BTW, could you explain how under your rating system raising a legitimate question about the context and meaning of a candidate's words on the trail is unproductive?

Only you read it correctly.  Thanks for clarifying.

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.  

and I really respect her opinions and takes on things.

But I just think she is wrong here. I mean, is she saying Clinton is angling to be McCain's VP?

She's saying that she can't believe someone running for the Democratic nomination for president would say what Hillary Clinton said today.

Rachel Maddow is one smart woman. :)

and resign his role in the Clinton campaign when he mentioned Obama's past drug use under the guise of "his opponents will say..."

not the fact of the attack itself.

Suggesting that McCain might attack Obama on the experience issue is a pretty legitimate point. He certainly will do so.

Obama is certainly free to argue that his judgment would be superior to McCain's. In fact, it would be. But isn't it going to be an issue in the campaign?

In fact, Obama himself claims it will be. He also claims he has a better response than Clinton -- the fact that he opposed the war. I think it is a good response.  

It's the same thing Hillary did.

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

doesn't sound too "personal" to me

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

but undecided voters do.

This is the age of the soundbite aznew. A candidate's goal is headlines and short quotes, not 3 page articles.

All that counts is what some lazy reporter says about it.

Maybe it doesn't bother you that most people think Al Gore said he "invented the Internet." Maybe all that matters to you is the soundbite that filters through to voters.

But, personally, it ticks me off.  

did you hear obama is a muslim?

Maybe instead if a three-word campaign slogan, Hillary should print an AP article on all her signs?

And undecided voters are morons by the way.  

In speaking to some die hard Clinton supporters..there is a shared sentiment about not supporting Obama (either not voting or voting for McCain). I do not understand the reasoning - and considering that according to Senator Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, there could be as many as 2-3 Supreme Court Justice retirements coming up in the the next 4 - 8 years.  

clinton supporters will have to think long and hard whether they should support obama or mccain. supporting obama will be a HUGE gamble. im not necessarily saying we should  support mccain but we need to think about what's best for America and not what seems to be best for the democratic party at this time.

ralph nader has also announced that he intends to run again so there is just another option.

Yeah, I suppose that's an option, but not one I like very much.

Period.  Any Democrat who needs more than 2 seconds to figure that one out...well, I'll just let you all complete the thought.

that some of Hillary's support is coming from the moderate right?  That they see her as less liberal than Obama?  These slight conservatives could stomach her in order to get rid of the stench of the Bush administration (McCain has gotten the slime all over himself), but if they feel Obama is too liberal that they'd rather go with the conservative choice.

Just wondering out loud...

significant support from the right, "moderate" or otherwise, is about 0.0000000001%.  But that's still a chance, I suppose! :)

In those Pew numbers Obama gets 3% more GOP support, and 6% more independent support than Clinton.  It would be interesting to see what characteristics are unique to those group(s).

As far as Obama's weakness relative to Clinton goes within the Democratic base, I think some of the resistance might be coming from voters who are strong Clinton partisans who are just angry that their favored candidate is struggling.  It's easy to be magnanimous when you're doing well -- it's not as easy when things aren't going the way a person wants.  

Regardless of who wins the nomination, I think there will be some Democratic support that swings McCain's direction -- or that simply doesn't vote out of spite.  

My wild-guess is that the educational divide is probably the biggest factor accounting for the difference in remaining cross-over voters.  

...still have warm and fuzzy feelings about McCain based on his advocacy of such issues as campaign finance reform and taking action on climate change.  Among a Republican party so full of clones that it looks like a platoon of Star Wars stormtroopers, McCain stands out as an alleged "maverick."  He's done a good job of polishing that image with a presidential general election in mind -- and now he's ready to cash in on it.

Clinton supporters are less interested in taking a chance on the new kid on the block and more inclined to go with someone they've heard about long enough to become comfortable with.  Some -- by no means all -- of her supporters may keep up less on the latest news and rely more on name recognition.

So Obama's still got a lot of work to do introducing himself to voters, and making them feel warm and fuzzy about him too.  The good news is that the more people see of him, the more they like him.  But it remains a race against time for him to define himself in the public mind before the Republican mudslinging machine defines him in the most reprehensible way possible.

And why ahven't they heard McCain's "100 years in Iraq" quote?  I imagine that would disabuse them of their tolerance for him.

occasionally listen to the news, and don't waste scads of time talking about politics online.

There are lots of them, believe it or not.

is it that much of a stretch to attribute their lack of support of Obama to racism?

I only point this out because my 80 year old mother voted for Hillary in the VA primary but is dead set against Obama because she's a racist.  She hasn't said so, but I definitely imagine she would either vote for McCain or not vote at all if Obama gets the nomination.  Sad but true.  She claims she'll never vote for another Republican, thinks Bush and Cheney should be tried as war criminals, supports the Palestinians but she's a racist against African-Americans.

The fact that she loathed the Clintons and was an Edwards supporter shows how much antipathy she has for voting for an African-American candidate.  I was quite shocked when she said she was going to vote for Hillary.

I severely doubt that race is a factor for 25% of Clinton supporters.  But I'm sure it's a factor for some of them.  By the same token, I'm just as positive that some people won't vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman.  

The reality -- borne out by recent voting patterns -- is that an awful lot of people want to vote for a candidate that looks like them.  

I don't look like Hillary, Obama, or McCain.  Where does that leave me?  :-)

I partially agree with your point - that some of the voting patterns play out in a manner that indicates that those voters are not seeing beyond the man/woman or black/white aspect.  And that says we as a nation still have a way to go.  Luckily there are even more people who aren't voting that way - which says we've come pretty damn far.

...I sure hope you don't look like Kucinich!  ;-)

to claim that clinton's older supporters will not cross over to obama because they are racist is disgusting. most older voters are not crossing over to him because they are wise enough to know he is not prepared to be president. by the way there are a lot more african-americans voting for him because he's black than there are whites who are not voting for him cause he's black.  

to state that Obama is not prepared to be president based on his short political resume.

Historically the claim that political experience is what matters most just doesn't hold water.  In fact many of the least successful presidents were career politicians (e.g. Buchanan, Harding, Van Buren -- even LBJ was at best a middle of the road president).

On the other hand, many of our best presidents had less than a decade worth of high level political experience before becoming president (Lincoln, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR).  I'm not saying that Obama is going to be in that class, but I think he has the potentially to be a very good president.

With any presidential candidate there are going to be uncertainties, but Obama's record recommends him strongly.  

There's no way to dance around this one: In my experience, the kind of voters who say "this guy isn't qualified" tend to be pretty ignorant.  They are looking at the question of "what makes a successful president" on the basis of flimsy assumptions and weak analogies (e.g. making Bush and Obama comparisons while ignoring their professional resumes before they got involved in politics.  There is a lot to recommend Obama based on his pre-political career.  This is a lot to recommend him based on the substance of his 10 year political career too.)

obama is a respectable person who has done a lot of great things in his pre-political career. with the rise of globalization we are facing much more complex global issues that require more experience than ever before. Obama needs to work on his foreign policy credentials before he becomes president.

Why didn't he step aside and let the guys with experience run for office? :)

the first selling point for me was of Obama's Iraq War speech from 2002.

In that speech he made some specific claims:

1. Sadaam Hussein does not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.
2. If we invade Iraq we will be able to quickly topple Sadaam, but it will also result in a long occupation with open-ended costs.
3. It will inflame anti-American passions in the region.
4. The war will be a distraction from Afghanistan.

For a guy who was a "rookie" his analysis turned out to be on the mark.

In that speech Obama also talked about the oil dependence issue.  This was clear to me in 2001 -- and it should have been obvious to other politicians.  We have wasted 6 years now by not working on this issue.  

By not doing this we have effectively strengthened people like Putin and Hugo Chavez whose popularity has been boosted by huge profits from oil production.  Because of oil dependence we are forced to throw money into the Middle East in a way that does not advance our long-term interests.  In my view this is THE issue -- the one area of our foreign policy that should be completely within our control.

When Obama first got to the U.S. Senate he did work on this issue.  He made it a priority.  His thinking on this issue in terms of R&D is ahead of the curve.  This is one that makes sense both in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy.  Obama was ahead of both Clinton and McCain on this one by more than a half a decade.

He also has worked with Senator Lugar on non-proliferation issues -- it was Obama's connection with GOP Senator Tom Coburn that ultimately got this bill through the Senate.  

Obama has demonstrated the right judgment in reference to Pakistan in 2007 (both in reference to dealing with Al Qaeda and support of Musharraf).  He has been right on Iran.

He's right on technology issues, which have consequences for U.S. security too.

This is someone who also has a set of experiences overseas that no other American president has had.  He can bring a perspective to these issues that we haven't had in the past.

The bottom line is that he is a leader who has demonstrated an ability to anticipate crises and has shown first rate judgment.  I'm not sure how more seasoning will necessarily benefit him.  

If foreign policy was the only criteria for judging candidates I would concede this area to someone like Biden.  But out of the remaining options Obama is head and shoulders above the field.  The choice just in this one area should be pretty easy -- especially with the rise of globalization.

that obama was right in supporting musharraf. he is essentially a dictator in that country and does not deserve our support despite what bush says.
obama has also talked a lot about our dependence on oil and environmental issues but has he done anything about them?

To read about what he is planning to do.

you're thinking of Clinton.  

From the Jan. 5th New Hampshire debate . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...

Clinton: Real quickly, thirdly, so far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan. I would work very hard to try to get Musharraf, who is the elected president -- these elections are about parliamentary positions. If you remove Musharraf and have elections, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next. I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and perhaps Great Britain so that there is some failsafe.

Note the reference to Musharraf as the "elected president" (a generous term given that the two elections that he "won" in 2002 and 2004 were considered rigged).

Obama: SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.

Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant -- proliferation strategy -- something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

Read: "legitimate government" -- in other words -- not Musharraf.

In fairness Richardson had the best answer on the Pakistan question (his response is available in the link provided above).  In an earlier New Hampshire debate Biden was the first one who flagged this issue.

As far as Clinton v. Obama v. McCain -- I'll take Obama's stance out of the remaining candidates.

As far as the oil dependence issue is concerned, Hugo's right that some information on his plans is available on his website.  The key element is his new technology investment fund -- something along the lines of DARPA which has resulted in the development of some of our more advanced weapons system.  This is a big one too because countries like the United Arab Emirates are already pouring billions into alternative energy research.  They see the writing on the wall and are trying to get ahead of the curve.  Germany is ahead of the curve on development of wind turbines.  The U.S. wants to be the country leading the charge on this one.  We're probably looking at a 10 year window on this one, but there is a real potential for creating new domestic industries here.

As far as the question of "what has Obama actually done".  He actually took some heat on from the Clinton campaign on this one but he was able to get the largest investment in renewable energy that we have had in the 2005 Energy Bill (a bill that was heinous in a number of respects).

From factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/elect...

The mailer further charges that Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies." Obama did vote for the 2005 energy bill to which Clinton refers. But as we've said more than once before, her claim that the legislation resulted in large tax breaks for the oil industry is misleading.

In fact, the bill President Bush signed into law in 2005 actually raised taxes on the oil industry overall. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Energy Policy Act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."

Many subsidies were proposed during debate, but they did not make it into the final bill which contained a total of $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of which didn't go to the oil industry.  Instead they benefited local utilities, nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient vehicles and buildings

 

where you said obama was right for supporting musharraf. if he doesn't then fine but senator clinton certainly doesn't nor should any potential leader in america. he is being walked all over by al-qaeda in his country.

By "right on Musharraf" my meaning was "right not to put all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket".

We see eye to eye on Pakistan policy.  Musharraf was a necessary ally in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but after 2003 and the Iraq invasion he took U.S. money while only making symbolic moves to slow the resurgence of Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan.  He has been an unreliable ally and we haven't gotten much of a return on our billions of dollars in aid to him.  

Being married to the guy who was president is not a job.  

"If Barack Obama happens to be the nominee of this party, there's going to be enthusiastic support of his candidacy from this campaign."

-- Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, quoted by The Hotline.

I wonder why they were forced to issue a statement like this? Shouldn't this be a given?

and then reading his statement of hypothetical Obama support .... the guy is schizoid or was just water boarded into saying that.

Hillary and company have been on a non-stop say anything campaign. Leave it to the press to sort it out later ... we'll just run at the mouth and make any old baseless allegation just to get our careerist girl elected. Hell our high paying consultant jobs are on the line .... shit we've run one of the worst campaigns imaginable ..... so let's pull out some classic Rovian politics and hope for the best.  

Miss Wannabee President lacks something special .... Oh yeah I remember ... she's not Inspiring.

Regardless of what happens on Tuesday .... the Clintonistas are taking it to the convention.

I really liked the Obama video at the top of this diary .... keep showing that one and people will "get it" in terms of the grassroots wave our surfer dude candidate is riding.

Yes We Can ... get some.

so who u gonna vote for? mc cain who can't even get up at 3 a.m. or obama.
hillary has become a laugh line. so sad.

If 25% of those Democrats that support Clinton will/would vote for McCain over Obama in the General and we take 25% of those who voted for Clinton in the Virginia primary and give those to McCain in the General will Obama have enough to turn Virginia "Blue" in November.
I have had many an independent tell me they are going McCain b/c he represents what they feel is the best in the Democratic idealogy and also what is best in the Republican.(My guess is its Clinton heavy, Bush lite, yuck) Strangely I am actually alomst willing to concede the point, especially after I had a women tell me McCain is the best candidate from either Party since Reagan- and she is a life-long Democrat....now that is just plain craziness speak.

Now, all you folks were so quick to believe a blogger posting quotations from a CBS blog...did any of you bother to even look that it was a question on who would be able to match up against McCain's foreign policy experience? Nooooooo

March 1 Dallas,

""I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Gee, much different than a blogger claiming Hillary was endorsing **MC CAIN**, huh?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...

Most of the Dems and Independents I know are either Hillary or McCain supporters.  They feel BO is too inexperienced -- particularly on foreign policy and military issues -- to be Commander in Chief.  Many Dems & Independents -- and Americans in general -- admire McCain as a war hero and for standing up to his own party on immigration and environmental issues (and for trying to take down Bush in 2000).  On the other hand, there are many months to go before people vote.  That's why polls like this so early in the game can't really be counted on.  Remember -- both Kerry and Gore were ahead by 15-20% after the Democratic Conventions in both 2000 and 2004.    

and also the handful of Republicans think Obama is the best choice out of the three.  There may be a generational divide here -- although the actual exit polling data from states as varied as Virginia, Missouri, California, and Wisconsin show Obama winning the independent vote in Democratic contests against Clinton two to one.  

The only state where Clinton actually won the independent vote was in Massachusetts.

As far as perceptions go -- these can change.  If Obama was in fact "inexperienced" I would be more worried.  The actual evidence says other wise.  

On both foreign policy and economic policy there is much to recommend Obama over the alternatives.

and also the handful of Republicans think Obama is the best choice out of the three.  There may be a generational divide here -- although the actual exit polling data from states as varied as Virginia, Missouri, California, and Wisconsin show Obama winning the independent vote in Democratic contests against Clinton two to one.  

The only state where Clinton actually won the independent vote was in Massachusetts.

As far as perceptions go -- these can change.  If Obama was in fact "inexperienced" I would be more worried.  The actual evidence says other wise.  

On both foreign policy and economic policy there is much to recommend Obama over the alternatives.

Hillary's three big voting blocks are:

White Seniors
Poor Rural Whites
Hispanics

I will probably vote for Obama in November (AFTER he does something to unite the party, this primary has been very divisive IMHO because of him).  

But Hillary's three main voting blocks- if there are voters left in this country that won't vote for an African American- wouldn't it be those three groups?

Older people are a lot more prejudiced than younger people. This is what the vote for far has been showing: the younger the person is, the less likely it is that she or he have a problem with Obama being half African American.

Now, isn't it a sad state of affairs when you are tacitly saying that the strong blocks for Hillary is the bigot vote?

I missed the misspelling until I had posted it.

as the results of this primary have shown, there aren't many people who won't vote for obama cause he's black. in fact there are way more people who won't vote for clinton because she is a woman. just look at the way she is disparaged in popular culture. it's sick. i would even venture to say that there are some white voters out there that don't really want to vote for a black man but would rather do so than vote for a woman.

of gender bias within the Democratic party.  It's quite a statement when you consider just how many Democratic women Governors, Senators, and House of Representative members there are within the party (not to mention the Speaker of the House).

The situation needs to improve further, but as far as gender goes we seem to have come much further than with race.

Even the Pew polling data shows strong support for Clinton within the party.

I think the resistance to Clinton outside of the party has a lot to do with that last name -- and the pretty heavy baggage that both Clintons carry.  In the last Pew Research polling on the presidential election the polling data showed that opinions of Bill and Hillary -- the favorable/unfavorable were identical.  There was absolutely no deviation in the numbers for the two within the Democratic party.  If a person liked Bill, odds are they had a favorable opinion of Hillary.  If the person didn't like Bill, then they didn't have a favorable opinion of Hillary.

Gender bias is real, but in Clinton's case the suggestion that gender bias is impacting her in the party nomination is just simply not true.  The general election might be a different story.