Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama Downplays Clinton’s Gain

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 6, 2007
Obama
sethapartner.com

Barack Obama’s campaign reached out to supporters on Monday, attempting to downplay national polls that show Hillary Clinton gaining more of a lead. Campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama is still doing well in the key primary states, despite a seven-point bump nationally for Hillary.


Reuters via Yahoo:

A number of national polls in the last week or so have given Clinton, a New York senator, a large lead across the country. A Newsweek poll put her lead in the Democratic primary race at 23 points, up from 16 points in June.

“As the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this [Obama] candidacy,” Plouffe wrote.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By mas, August 8, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

I guess that is what I am trying to say.

Although not as eloquent as some my point is that the economy is fake…it is a fabrication of the same people who pull the marionettes strings.  The latest plan is to change our currency to something like the Euro.  He who controls the money, controls everything.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2007/feb07/psrfeb07.html


((You have the clue, ‘mas’ and you are right but this is still already a little out of date. Even the Republican politicians are in revolt against their own party and especially the Bush-Cheney administration. They know that it is costing them their political futures and to continue is sure death for their careers.))

Does that not scare you to realize that the language we are using in discussing this, sounds like we are in a board meeting?...talking about mundane subjects?  If its a little out of date then what done about it yet?...If its a blow to their futures and to their political careers,  I wonder why any of this matters?  As far as I am concerned their careers should be over right now. They need to be routed out of positions of power.  They are traitors to this great Country and to all it stands for.
Im sorry but it just seems that talking about these assholes at all is a waste of time.  Speaking of most of these people in government ...they should not have careers in it…there should be limits to how long any one person can serve at all.

We need to ignore this ILLUSION of separateness of the parties and clean up our government.

I feel that we have been insulted enough by this party of elitist assholes.  You now…the party is getting stodgy…


However I don’t think we should ever feel guilty about the way things are.  After all, they are smart and very patient.  The average American is either too busy, ignorant or just plain apathetic to make much of a stink about anything.  We were hoodwinked, duped, fooled…and are now beginning to get it.
I hope we wake up and smell the fascism.

Report this

By atheo, August 8, 2007 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Douglas makes an excellent point. The drain of the occupations (all three) on the US economy cannot go on forever. The tricks are running out. Wait til the public realises the consequences. Something both parties brought on.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 8, 2007 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

#93151 by mas on 8/08 at 11:04 am: “...Doesnt it bother you at all to know that Dems and Repubs are only the left hand and the right hand of the same being? .......Both of our parties have been compromised by the Neo-Cons. .......Go to the Neo-Con web site and read what they want this world to be…..”

You have the clue, ‘mas’ and you are right but this is still already a little out of date. Even the Republican politicians are in revolt against their own party and especially the Bush-Cheney administration. They know that it is costing them their political futures and to continue is sure death for their careers.

What is more, even those who supported the Neocons in the past in business are abandoning them in the face of mounting pressure for a more rational system of government. You can’t keep endlessly bleeding the country for war. They now have to stop and rebuild the domestic infrastructure and the economy or nothing will be left.

Report this

By mas, August 8, 2007 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Doesnt it bother you at all to know that Dems and Repubs are only the left hand and the right hand of the same being?

Both of our parties have been compromised by the Neo-Cons.

Go to the Neo-Con web site and read what they want this world to be…

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for.

Some people belive that the Constitution is merely a piece of paper that hold old values and has been outdated.


I do not.


We are wasting time debating crap like Hillaries cleavage, Obamas points etc….

We need to fix our Country…this is PRIORITY !!  We need to clean the house.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 8, 2007 at 1:14 am Link to this comment

#92742 by d.alon on 8/07 at 4:18 am: “...I for one don’t agree that she (Hillary…) is the most experienced and qualified.  Other dems in the mix do have more experience, and are (at least equally) qualified ...Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd….  This of course is not true if you’re speaking of the mainstream candidates (Edwards, Obama). .......There are many, many problems with the status quo of this nation’s government that Hillary will not rectify.  We are not really given many viable options for change ......and Hillary would be the least likely of any of the candidates to do anything of substance…..”


Well ‘d.alon ‘, “After 6 years of extremist right-wing government”, you should complain about having Hillary as the first woman president of the United States? I don’t understand how the alternative could be anything other than self-defeating.

There may well be others who are “at least equally qualified” somewhere in the field but they might actually make better vice-presidents. Leadership is a talent in itself. What is more, Hillary has changed and matured. She is no longer merely the wife of Bill and is now a competent candidate in her own right.

Apart from that, the “most qualified people” are not in politics anyway. And, of course, “there are many problems” that Hillary will not be able to rectify. We are now facing the culmination of a long period of wrong thoughts and actions of many many people who have all contributed to messing everything up.

It would hardly be fair to expect the first woman president to somehow magically solve all of the past problems and errors of all the previous male presidents - and in one term too, I presume. That was the fantasy that befell Cory Aquino in the Philippines some time back. The people there then got what they really deserved as a result of such stupid blindness.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 8, 2007 at 1:12 am Link to this comment

#92858 by Sean on 8/07 at 12:29 pm: “...Obama is not falling behind…he’s moving up…”

Yeah, right Sean, ha ha. And Obama has now joined the chronic liars in politics as well as the extreme right wing who want to blow up the planet…..

Quote: “CHICAGO (Reuters) - Leading Democratic presidential contenders sparred on Tuesday over taking campaign donations from special interests, with Barack Obama and John Edwards taking swipes at leading candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting funds from Capitol Hill lobbyists…. “You’ve got to have a president in the White House who is not subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists,” Illinois Sen. Barack Obama told a debate in Chicago sponsored by the AFL-CIO labor union…..”  http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0727339220070808

#92848 by felicity on 8/07 at 11:28 am: “...IF she gets elected, she’s going to have to continue the terrorist scare technique to get re-elected to a second term….. That said, there’s a new ‘silent majority’ in America - Republicans who want Hillary to run and are intent on making it happen.  Is it because she can’t get elected or is it because in office she’ll simply repeat the Bush reign which has proven extremely profitable for the already rich….”

Its because they can’t handle the idea of a black woman as president, ‘felicity’. Condoleeza Rice is “the most experienced and the most qualified person” the Republicans have - and they know it. The rest are a bunch of old goats who belong in the past with their grandpa suits and their vague notions of a faded empire.

This is a time of change and even the Democrats are barely stepping up to the plate in that regard. The terrorist bogeyman is over and the reality of climate change has begun. Also, the $US falling to a level from where the US’ remaining industries can compete and the government topay its debts is an issue just appearing.

Report this

By atheo, August 7, 2007 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

Jeffrey Blankfort:

AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s official Washington lobbying arm, which, in testament to its power, is generally referred to in the halls of Congress simply as “the lobby.”
From a one-man office when it was founded 50 years ago, AIPAC has grown into an organization of 85,000 members, with activists in every Jewish community in the United States. Each Spring it holds a national three-day conference in Washington. “It’s climatic Congressional Dinner attracts hundreds of congress members and dozens of foreign ambassadors,” writes Forward editor J.J. Goldberg, “all of them eager to curry good will with AIPAC and the Jewish community. Lest the point be lost, the dinner chairperson always reads a ëroll call’ naming every senator, every representative, and ambassador present in the hall… followed by private receptions by lawmakers courting Jewish campaign support.”[18] The organization does not contribute money to candidates directly but advises numerous Jewish PACs and wealthy Jewish donors as to the campaigns where their money might be the most useful to Israel…

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html

Report this

By Sean, August 7, 2007 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to Douglas Chalmers

Obama is not falling behind…he’s moving up

he’s in FIRST place in SOUTH CAROLINA

he’s TIED FOR FIRST in NEW HAMPSHIRE

he’s FIRST BY A LITTLE bit in IOWA

Report this

By atheo, August 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul — If I Were a Betting Man . . .
by Steve O

I would start looking heavily at laying my chips down on Ron Paul. It appears that Ron Paul’s odds of becoming the next President of the United States have been slashed from 15 to 1 to 8 to 1 following this weekend’s Republican debate in Iowa and some extensive mainstream coverage and sound bytes.

I guess taking a strong stance on Internet Neutrality and voting against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act goes a long way with freedom loving Americans that love their Internets “government free.”

That big of a jump while the MSM misreported his immigration position? Pretty good. If Paul got the nod, we’d have a real election, with two strong, very different candidates to choose from. That’d be refreshing.

Report this

By felicity, August 7, 2007 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Hillary knows, as do many of the rest of us, that George’s re-election in ‘04 was predicated on nothing more than America’s phobic fear of another terrorist attack.  Not a fool, she’s lifted that terrorist-around-every-corner-unless-you-elect-me page from the Rove bible.

But, consider this.  IF she gets elected, she’s going to have to continue the terrorist scare technique to get re-elected to a second term because that’s the only one that obviously boosts her numbers.

Are we all ready for more invasions and occupations of foreign countries clear up to 2014? 

That said, there’s a new ‘silent majority’ in America - Republicans who want Hillary to run and are intent on making it happen.  Is it because she can’t get elected or is it because in office she’ll simply repeat the Bush reign which has proven extremely profitable for the already rich.

Report this

By atheo, August 7, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

The Real Debate About Iraq Is Between Real, Fake War Foes

Ira Chernus

The real debate about Iraq is just beginning to take shape. It’s not about whether U.S. troops should begin to leave Iraq. A vast majority of Americans now agree on that point. Even at the White House, insiders say, they’ve accepted it as inevitable.

The real debate is between genuine opponents of the war, who really want to end our involvement in Iraq, and fake opponents who use antiwar language to mask their endorsement of a continuing, perhaps permanent, U.S. presence…

Genuine opponents of the war argue that the U.S. cannot restore order in Iraq, because it is the U.S. occupation forces (civilian as well as military) that are the main source of disorder. You can’t put out a fire by heaping more fuel on it. Iraq will remain war-torn until all U.S. military personnel, civilian contractors, and private security forces leave. So they should leave. All of them. ASAP…

Far too many of the newcomers are fakes. They shout loudly that they want the war to end now. But they choose their words very carefully. They talk about withdrawing troops but are careful never to say “all troops.” They endorse withdrawing “combat” troops (a technical term that covers less than half of all U.S. forces in Iraq) or just “starting to withdraw” troops. They oppose “establishing” permanent bases, but they don’t say anything against keeping the bases (some of them small cities) that have already been built. And they would let the Pentagon decide which bases are officially “permanent.” They never mention the ever-increasing air war, nor the civilian forces.

Behind that smokescreen, the fakes are busy building support for the next phase of the war. In that phase, tens of thousands (perhaps up to a hundred thousand) U.S. troops would stay in Iraq. What would they do? There is an emerging bipartisan consensus among the fakes. Some troops would be “redeployed” to the north, to protect our friends the Kurds, and others “redeployed” to Afghanistan. Some would stay to “defend” Iraq’s borders, which conveniently happen to be the borders of Iran and Syria too. Some would wage the war on terrorism inside Iraq. Some would “train” (read: help to lead) the Iraqi government’s fledgling army. The top three Democratic candidates for president, among others, espouse all these plans.

How can they call this ending the war? The premise is that most Americans don’t really care how many Iraqis are killed, as long as few American soldiers are killed. So the public would assume the war is over, stop paying attention, and allow U.S. forces to continue their long-range plan for securing a permanent and decisive presence in Iraq. Those forces (including an increased proportion of Air Force and Special Forces) could do anything the government wants them to do, since no one would be watching. Meanwhile, the thousands of civilian security personnel could continue to do whatever they like and be wholly unaccountable.

Genuine war opponents often oppose this vision of continued war on moral grounds. But they don’t have to. They can just point out the obvious practical problem: The fakes, who are trying to fool the nation, are most of all fooling themselves.

The fakes assume that if the U.S. military changes its modus operandi, far fewer Americans would die. Do they think the Iraqi resistance fighters, who risk their lives to oust the 160,000 U.S. troops and countless civilian security forces, will call off the fight once there are “only” 80,000 or 50,000 U.S. troops and countless civilian security forces still occupying their land? Do they think Iraqis will let long-term U.S. forces go about their violent business without interference? Do they think Iraqis will not see and resist a continuing U.S. effort to control their internal affairs? Do they think the war will really end…

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/2995/

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, August 7, 2007 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I must have missed how many actually votes have been cast.These poll numbers are useless and signify nothing.Too far out and let us not forget most Americans while they are on vacation and getting a tan do not follow politics closely and will answer the pollsters questions with the name they remember.I understand why Truth Dig has to carry these numbers but I will bet you that 99% of Truth Dig bloggers realize how useless they are.

Report this

By Mstessyrue, August 7, 2007 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

As the competitions between presidential candidates increase and tense up, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today.  Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop.  According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition.  However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.”  And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars.  It’s time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Report this

By PACRAT, August 7, 2007 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary v. Obamma. Who cares who is “ahead” at this point in the pre-mature campaign? The media as usual is hyping the debate as a huge dispute - come on!

It’s wonderful hearing Obamma talk about all the things he would do - as though he could! I am so tired of hearing that he voted against invading Iraq! His “vote” didn’t count for any more than mine since he wasn’t in the Senate at the time - and neither was I. By the way, what has he done for America since he became a senator? Would love to hear him talk about that!

Hillary, on the other hand, while untested in international diplomacy, was at least close to it and personally knows many of the key players around the world. And being a reelected US senator does give her some sort of edge. That doesn’t automatically ensure that she is the better candidate, of course - let’s continue the debate!

Let’s hear them talk about something realistic for a change!

Report this

By jkoch, August 7, 2007 at 8:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A pox on both Hillary and Obama.  A victory by either means more foreign interventions and war.  Either one will reneg on any shallow campaign promises to exit Iraq, “so long as the security situation allows.”  In fact, this will translate to the same bill of goods sold by the current administration.

Hillary will not win any electoral votes in the South.  Obama will do better there than some might predict, but still not win.

A 2008 defeat of Hillary or Obama would not be such a bad thing, were the GOP candidate anti-war, but their slate has only one real anti-war guy, Ron Paul, whom the GOP “base” appears to prefer less than the more hawkish contenders.

Time to probe whether Bloomberg might present a credible alternative on the DEM ticket.  Being financially independent, and not particularly ideological, he might be less beholden to various lobbies than Hillary or Obama, yet also offer a comparatively balanced stance and strategy.  But, then, maybe not.  Two ex NY mayors in a November faceoff would be a weird scenario.

Report this

By atheo, August 7, 2007 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Obama, Clinton Battle for Endorsements

Jennifer Siegel | Fri. Aug 03, 2007

...Obama’s congressional Jewish supporters include Rep. Jan Schakowsky, from his home state of Illinois, and Rep. Robert Wexler, who is co-chairing his campaign in Florida…

Rothman said he finalized his decision to back Obama after holding a one-on-one meeting with the senator last Wednesday.

“I wanted to confirm again, with him, my understanding of his views about the need to safeguard Israel’s security, to keep Israel’s qualitative military edge and to assure myself that everything my friends in Chicago and in the Senate, that all the things they’ve said about him on Israel, are true — namely that he understands how vitally important to America a strong Israel remains,” Rothman said in an interview with the Forward.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11285/

Report this

By JeZZZ, August 7, 2007 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Polls can still go either way. Do not trust early results, they might change as elections come closer

Report this

By Y, August 7, 2007 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course, this poll was taken before Hillary Clinton’s bizarre defense of lobbyists (and her habit of taking money from them). More on this at: http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com

Report this

By mas, August 7, 2007 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Unfortunately Truthdig is riding a ratings game…

There is no coverage of Ron Paul who kicked everyones asses at the ABC debates.

I have asked several times that Truthdig cover this outstanding candidate yet nothing so far, not one response. 

Which Candidate is following the Framers intention? 
Which Candidate is for keeping American Sovereignty?
Who wants to fix what we have at home and not force it on anyone else?


Enough with all the Blue/Red, Democrat/Republican, us vs them crap.  Both sides are in bed together and only ignorance keeps people from seeing that.  Truthdig is almost like CNN or Fox…these shows are obviously slanted…and Truthdig is only playing games when it parades this circus of losers in front of us and says “well…what do you think”?

Like my Dad used to say…
“You can add all the bread you want…but its still a shit sandwich”
 

Please start covering this most important situation with intentions other than gaining yet another award. 

If you covered Ron Paul with 1/2 the energy as you do this gathering of idiots you would be doing this country a Service .

Report this

By W i l l, August 7, 2007 at 5:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is Gannet News angling for a Clinton/Guiliani Presidential election. Two, very friendly to corporate America candidates.
And really…who do they think they are fooling? Senator Obama (and I don’t even endorse the guy) squashed Senator Clinton in the realm of the small private campaign donations.
Gannet News, either did a cheery pick’d poll, or is flat out lying. And at 22 points…that’s some serious stroking of the numbers.

Report this

By d.alon, August 7, 2007 at 5:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By the way - I didn’t intend to imply that the majority of the others candidates with experience don’t represent the status quo.  They do.  But Billlary has made it clear, and have shown in practice, that they stand center-right.  There are other candidates with “experience” that would serve the interests of the middle class far better than she would.  I think this would be the first time in a long time that a third party candidate would actually have a legitamate shot of winning.  I’m probably kidding myself though.

Report this

By d.alon, August 7, 2007 at 5:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Douglas Chalmers: “The last week or so has tended to prove that Hillary really is “the most experienced and the most qualified person” the Democrats have to offer.”

I for one don’t agree that she is the most experienced and qualified.  Other dems in the mix do have more experience, and are (at least equally) qualified (Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd).  This of course is not true if you’re speaking of the mainstream candidates (Edwards, Obama).  But really, what does experience count for if one’s experience is that of the establiment’s status quo?  There are many, many problems with the status quo of this nation’s government that Hillary will not rectify.  We are not really given many viable options for change (as I would assume is the point afterall), and Hillary would be the least likely of any of the candidates to do anything of substance.  After 6 years of extremist right-wing government, I think a far left candidate is the only way we can balance this see saw.  Hill simply won’t do that.  She would certainly be better than Fred Thompson though!

Report this

By John Borowski, August 7, 2007 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The extreme right wants Obama to win the nomination. The reason is that they know there is tremendous amount of covert bigotry and prejudice in this country. If there were an election, the rigging against Clinton would so overload the voting machines that they would melt. Against Obama, the rigging would get the machines hot, but few would melt. I believe this is a moot point because after the 10,000 Americans die in there latest terror attack, the right will use this as the reason they are declaring a dictatorship.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 7, 2007 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

Its not just so much that Hillary is ahead but that Obama is falling behind. That, of course, implies that something negative has happened as a result of his own actions. The last week or so has tended to prove that Hillary really is “the most experienced and the most qualified person” the Democrats have to offer.

Report this

By Sean, August 7, 2007 at 12:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

yeah but…
Obama is up in the three way tie in Ioway (at 27% to clinton and edwards at 26%)

Obama is tied with Clinton in New Hampshire

Obama is first in South Carolina

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.