Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
Inside WikiLeaks

Inside WikiLeaks

By Daniel Domscheit-Berg
$15.64

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

April Surprise?

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

Posted on Apr 1, 2008
Snowbama
Flickr / mstearne

Barack Obama recently decided to get more competitive in Pennsylvania, thanks to prodding from his supporters. Two recent polls show that his efforts there might be paying off. He still trails Hillary Clinton, but he’s closing the gap. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that he’s able to outspend her by a significant margin.

A SurveyUSA poll shows Clinton’s lead cut by five points, thanks to shifts among men, seniors and conservative Democrats, while Rasmussen has Obama trailing by only five points.

(h/t: Political Wire)

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 Maani, April 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

The following paragraph comes from an article in today’s NYT, discussing the on-again, off-again relationship b/w Clinton and Murdoch:

“Many longtime Murdoch observers have noted that he is above all a pragmatist, who has a history of supporting candidates who could potentially help his financial bottom line, regardless of party affiliation. ‘He has a very well-informed sense of the influence of politics on his business interests,’ said Reed Hundt, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in the first Clinton administration, who during negotiations had an up-close view of how the media mogul seeks to influence government.”

It doesn’t get any more direct than this: clearly, Murdoch believes he is “buying” something by supporting Obama; that an Obama presidency would “serve his interests” better.  This is almost certainly a response to the fact that Clinton has been much harder on the FCC than Obama, and over a longer time.  So what does this say about Obama?  After all, Murdoch is no fool.

The remainder of the article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/politics/02murdoch.html?_r=1&sq=luo&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, April 2, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Good for Penn. Beautiful state but can seem like a roller Coaster Ride in th eBack seat of a Car.
Hillary’s ridiculous claims, her Insulting and Irrational moments may actually lead people to look at her REAL record and Review Who helped get US to this Disasterous Time in Our countries History. Hillary HAS NOT done a stellar Job! Votes, Armed Service.. Now her Rovian Campaign. She doesn’t even deserve to remain in Public Service- she’s either Done Nothing or has helped Pave the way for this Admins Corrupt Doctrine. I’ve been a Dem for 26 yrs- and SHE’s NO DEM- at least not one I want leading this country- nor voting on any more Public Policy issues. She could Although be Mac’s second hand- He could use one, his minds going (just as Planned- Hillary is Dick in Drag)

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 2, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Nancy Pelosi’s Not-So-Secret Support for Obama -

Whatever her official posture, Nancy Pelosi is not neutral in the Democratic primary.

Typically, for instance, someone who is neutral wouldn’t say that victory by one of the candidates would be “harmful.” That’s essentially how Pelosi, the supposedly impartial House Speaker, has characterized the prospective nomination of Hillary Clinton.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happens in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,” Pelosi said in an interview for ABC’s “This Week” that was taped late last week…...

Any assessment of Pelosi’s motives, for instance, must consider the Iraq war….....

On this level, Obama, who spoke out against the war in the fall of ’02, is the natural choice for Pelosi, especially compared to Clinton, one of the many congressional Democrats who sided with the White House. When it comes to ending the war, and to avoiding similar entanglements in the future, Pelosi can reasonably conclude that she’d have a far more reliable partner in a President Obama than in a President Clinton…. http://www.observer.com/2008/nancy-pelosis-not-so-secret-support-obama

Report this

By Christopher Robin, April 2, 2008 at 5:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When he has the time to spend on the ground campaigning, his numbers go up. How the Hillary mis-speaking tour will impact him? I can’t say. I trust more are seeing through her rhetoric.

Report this

By cyrena, April 1, 2008 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment

You’ve got a point here Patrick Henry. It’s good to be ‘skeptical’.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 1, 2008 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

Ask Ron Paul.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook