LA Times Accuses Hillary Clinton Campaign of Push Polling
By Nicole Belle Sunday Feb 03, 2008 1:02pmThe only problem is, by the description in the article, it doesn't look like push polling at all.
First a critical definition: push polling, which many of us are familiar with term after the hit job done on John McCain in South Carolina appears to the receiver to be "issues polling", but usually last just a few minutes, because the goal is to simply plant negative information against a candidate and move on.
True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively impacting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive and negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
So Andrew Malcolm in the LA Times' political blog Top of the Ticket gives this little tidbit:
Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.
Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."
But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.
Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?
Ed said, of course, more likely.
Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?
"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.
It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.
Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.
Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."
Catch that? The full 20-minute poll? And the poll taker asked about several candidates, not just planted negative information on a candidate and move on, including asking for Coghlan's take on the last debate. Pollster.com:
That last bit of information tells me that this call was almost certainly a message testing survey, and not a so-called "push poll." California has over 15 million registered voters, and roughly three million of those are independents. If "someone" was paying "to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters," would they really spend 20 minutes on the telephone with each one?
Not likely.
The call that Coghlan describes sounds more like a message testing survey that included many negative messages about Clinton's opponents. In other words, someone called a random sample of voters with the intent to "elicit answers," or more specifically reactions, to negative messages that the Clinton campaign or an allied group considered airing in California.
But wait, there's more. Ed Coghlan, the helpful citizen that alerted Andrew Malcolm of this supposed push polling is described as a former news director. But a simple Google search tells you that Ed is the former news director of KCOP, LA's FOX affiliate. And writer Andrew Malcolm? Why, he's the former Press Secretary for Laura Bush. Perhaps you can infer motives from them from that information as easily as Malcolm implies in his final paragraph:
Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.
Wow. Right before Super Tuesday with campaigning in high gear and a Saturday evening to boot, the spokesman didn't get back to Malcolm. What a shocker. Don't get me wrong, I have had a lot of problems with Clinton's tactical approach throughout this campaign, but I don't like dishonesty and what looks like a perfectly Rovian hit piece in the Times right before the primary either.
Login or Register to post comments.
Looks push-poll-y to me. Also, as I recall, there have been other mentions of Clinton's people using push polls. There's something familiar about the tone of this post, if only I could put my finger on it...
while not "push polling" it is deceptive to hide a campaign call in the form of a poll
and can anyone make heads or tails out of the polls? they are all over the place
and if romney wins california, does that mean the repugs are going all the way to the convention too?
I feel glad to know that I have not received any push polling. Am I just not cool enough?
HILLARY CLINTON VOTED FOR IRAQ WAR - AND DONT YOU FORGET IT!
You Tube Video
this story has been debunked.
Hall monitor, she pushed me!
we are all aware that all polls regardless are wholly dependent on the way
the questions are phrased or presented. this in itself will make more polls
totally useless. bias is generally built in and renders the outcome pointless.
Hillary can poll me anytime.
Gee the "LA Times" the republican newspaper that supports obama....wouldn't you know it? The were just bought out and became REPUBLICAN. Fired all the democratic leaning employees. Including the editors.
Anybody have any proof this is the Clinton campaign? Notice, there were some really nasty robocalls in South Carolina about Hillary, using the "c" word, and accusing her of everything Limbaugh and worse were accusing her of during the '90s. TPM went and investigated and it turned out to be some right-wing wacko, being financed by who knows who. It came from a handful of people who had caller ID, and they all gave TPM the same number.) Would it have been right to accuse Obama of that? No.
What we have in the Times, which just endorsed Obama, is one call, and an accusation from one guy. Based on what? This looks to me like a last-minute accusation, which it will take too long to investigate before the primaries. But it's okay, it's the Obama side making the accusation, and they're clean, so it must be true. Right? Clinton rules! You can accuse them of anything, based on one phone call by who knows who!
Hmmmm. I wonder who stands to gain from this last minute hit piece from a California newspaper the day before Super Tuesday?
I have to ad a PS>>>I just saw the quote Hillary voted for the war. She also explained why and would never have done it, if she had known the facts.
WHAT IS OBAMA'S EXPLAINATION FOR BELIEVING BUSH AND WANTING TO BOMB IRAN..AND SEND IN MISSILES.
Now we have this, in the newspaper article written by a hometown reporter in the Chicago Trib...all you have to do is search the archives. Damn. I bet no one has even asked him that question. Course they haven't he gets a pass.
Two substantive differences between Hillary and Barak
On Cuba -- Fareed Zakaria from Newsweek
Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up.
Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.
Land Mine Ban -- David Rees from Huffington Post
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.
Travis @ 1:
Have any links to these other mentions? All I've found so far are ones pointing back to this story where one person believes they were being push polled.
I wouldn't characterize that as an "eruption"
definitely push-polling.
You can avoid all this stuff if you have caller ID on your phone. If you don't know the caller, don't answer the phone. They don't seem to call back but maybe one more time. They don't want to waste their time on a phone number that doesn't answer them.
Thing Fish @ 13:
look up stuff about her Nevada campaign, there was definite push polling of the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" nature
[refers to deleted post]
i didn't want to be the one to say it. seems like she really went out of her way to prove something, that is obviously push-polling to me, as benign and inconsequential.
Travis @ 1:
Yeah, a FOX NEWS punk gets a call and tells LAURA BUSHES EX PRESS SECRETARY about it...and YOU believe it. Jeebus CRISPIES it's enough to make you wonder how we have survived as a species with such glaring examples of gullibility to outright dishonest thinking out there don't it. Wait, wait, Carl Rove just said Hillary Clinton has made a deal with SATAN to let him have the souls of all the babies planned parenthood will forcibly abort if she wins!!! It'll be on the front page tomorrow!!!
How do we know that this guy is on the up and up? Push polls use open with " Hi! I am So and So and I am polling Voters on their primary preferences..who are you leaning towards?" If you answer with their guy you get some quick puffery and a "Have a nice day" If you don't you get pushed. This poll or whatever does not sound like that. I think its probably crap: as near as I can tell there are not a lot of folks that are reporting it..in a state with 10 % of the US population.
I was polled by my ahem "Union"... Before they announced support for a Candidate.
When asked which Candidates I supported... I said Kucinich and Edwards... Both strong union candidates... FFS Dennis is a member.
The pollster asked me for a third ... to which I really did not have a third.. so the lady started saying... "H..h...hhiiillllaaaaaaaarrryyyyy?"
To which I was outraged instantly.. as I feel like one of the few liberals that does not give this woman a free pass to anywhere... and remembers her fucking RECORD...and is not impressed and googly eyed over her CFR ass...
How much more disgusted could I be when the union snooz letter arrived 2-3 months later and who did they announce they are supporting???...
Go ahead.. fill in the blank like that polling group tried to do with me..and most likely did it to every single member of the union that they called.
Even though I do not know ANYONE that supports her... I do not see ANY yard signs .. bumper stickers... or t-shirts... and EVERY time I mention her I get rolling eyes... be it at the CO-OP (Hippy Grocery Store)-- The Bar... A party... My Mechanic... Bodyshop...Work... or a Gas Station... As I actually talk to people...as I feel that Democracy is in the streets...
And ZERO support and Zero enthusiasm...for her ..
I am sure people will VOTE for her if she is the one the Bilderburgers selected and we have NO choice... Yet... the Manufactured excitement is totally fraudulent from where I am standing.
It's the fucking LA Times. What do you expect, honesty, integrity? Please. If their keyboards are clicking, or their gums are flapping they're lying.
I am not a naive person by any stretch of the imagination, but how is the fact that the man receiving the call used to work for Fox relevant in any way? Did he actually receive the phone call? Is what he is saying substantively true? Did the questions only address negative qualities of the other candidates while only addressing positive qualities of Senator Clinton? If so, his former position with any media affiliate is inconsequential and any reference to that is just an attempt to confuse the issue.
Push polling and dirty politics in general comes in a million different forms and manners, so claiming that this alleged call doesn't fit into the "classic" form of push polling and then dismissing it as push polling is disingenuous.
Travis @ 17:
I'm just questioning this current story. One person claims they were being pushed polled and it get's called an "eruption"? Also this is coming from the LA Times. Which became more Fox like since the Tribune took over.
Saw that Ben Smith's blog has a recording of the Nevada call. Can't really call Ben Smith pro-democrat either.
I'd like to wait until I hear of more reports from more sources before I'd jump on this as poll pushing.
Right now it seems more like "proof" of the democrats are just as bad as republicans so don't bother to vote meme.
Funny that
Here is some more push polling done by the Clintons Nicole Belle. Write about this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/4/14125/10055/922/449619
Betty @ 5:
By whom, when ? LINK, please..
hey, Betty - are you trolling Shillary's overtime ? You've left your shillary-VAseline-Intensive-Care posts all over Euro media online, is Shillary that cheap that you still have to slave ?
Shooo, you TROLLLL , shooooooooo..
Tell your friend Linda to go to hell as well - she pooped all over on the same Euro sites you did.
Shooo, you TROLLLL , shooooooooo..
It is not push polling???
Well as one person that has gotten one of these calls (go check the comment logs on this site 4+ months ago.. I told ppl here about it the day it happend)
It sure feels that way... when they are framing it a certain way... and then putting candidates into your mouth... I am sure many go along with it, and thats why they called Union people first with it... as we tend to be democratic, and ... well as most people do when it boils down to the moment will go along.
Most are sheep... and thats how you get sheep to go where you want them too...
Push them... Get them Scared... or Ring the Dinner Bell.
I heard the push-polling was financed by the same Las Vegas shift supervisor Bill Clinton overheard that told his employees they couldn't get time off to vote if they intended to vote for Clinton. Busy dude.
How come McCain is the only Republican in this poll? What kind of negative things did they say about him? Anything?
What a silly defense of your neo-con princess.
Why don't you post the clip of her crying again the day before the big vote!
What an offensive joke to women all over the world.
I get doubtful of stories like this only because others haven't came forward yet about it. Having said that what really matters is what the person that got the call actually thinks.
People hate push polls and they are easy to detect so the next logical step is a push poll diguised as a message poll.
In this age an 8 hrs lag in getting back to somone about so negitive an issue by a campaign if only with a "We're still looking into it" is an eternity.
Stop the clintons
Save the world
I'll take the thrust of Hillary being a self serving control freak and agree.
How did she accumulate 35 years of public service while she worked full time at the Rose Law firm?
Just heard a clip of Michelle Obama being interviewed on Good Morning America at the Taylor Marsh web site. Despite the fact that Hillary and Bill have pledged to support Obama if he is the Dem nominee in November, Michelle is not certain she can support Hillary. So much for Obama's theme of "unity". She criticizes Hillary's "tone" but I think her "tone" lacks maturity, something that should be required for a First Lady. If Hillary can work with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Lindsay Graham to get legislation passed for the benefit of veterans, (the very same men who voted to impeach her husband), then I think Michelle needs to grow up a little and understand what politics (and life) are really all about.
Don't sell the Republicans short on this one. There were up to some dirty tricks with phone calls and polling around here during the Darcy Burner/Dave Reichert race. People were getting plenty sick of the calls from the Democrats when, lo and behold, it turned out the Republicans were behind a lot of them.
Not as scummy as your avg. GOP push poll, but still deceptive.
Sort of like Hillary herself.
This is a Clinton Push Poll, Altered around the edges for plausible deniability.
Carmen @ 32:
Well said. I read this today. It's slightly OT, but it does touch upon Hillary bashing and why Obama is getting a little better treatment from the media than Hillary...
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
Please allow me to correct the confusion. I think the LA Times has gotten confused. I am the push-poller around the Clinton campaign offices. I have been making my way around the Los Angeles area, polling constituents regarding my wife's candidacy for office. And I do push my poll, if you take my meaning.
Let me assure you, I do not leave the constituents "wavering." Before I leave, I make sure each and every one of the voters I poll has reached a satisfying conclusion about Super Tuesday... or Monday or Friday, whenever I happen to get there.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to the voter rolls. I'm hardly through the "A"s yet. Here's another one, a Mrs. Pamela Anderson-Lee-Ritchie-Salomon. Hmm... with a name like that, I'd better stop by the drugstore on my way over to conduct my next round of poll-pushing...
CappuccettoRosso @ 25:
Witih a name like John shouldn't you be skipping to the loo?
Carmen @ 32:
Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Lindsay Graham
Why is it surprising that she, as a conservative, would work with these guys?
Let's try that again:
CappuccettoRosso @ 25:
Well there is a link up in a post on DU claiming the story was "debunked". But the link is back to the Pollster.com story already noted at the start of this thread.
I still say there isn't enough information to be certain if push poling has or has not occurred. And certainly not enough to start throwing invectives around.
How about we leave that stuff for the sports related threads, eh?
Supposing this story is true, as described it's border line push polling.
I live out of the state, but I got a call Friday from someone in Colorado. They opened with, "Hello, I am calling to get your reaction to Hillary Clinton getting out of the race."
After I asked him, "What is your reaction to beng a total s**thead," he thanked me and hung up.
Make a repub happy tomorrow. Vote Barak (Can't Say His Middle Name) Obama.
Obama's speech (October, 2002):
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
Bravo, lets all salute Crook’s and Liars for this wonderful insight to what many of us consider Mainstream Media’s never endless bent on control, abuse, bias, and electoral manipulation, and out right disinformation in the media’s licensed privilege to serve the public, to educate while performing oversight, but wildly, openly, with planed imbedded, favored corruption blazes through everyday, churning, deceiving, and bending politics to what ever end it wants, definitely not for the public interest. All, for power and profiteering. Self directed IMUS contractors.
Face it America we would not be in this situation, steeped in chaos of military and economic cynicism with an America filled with anger and posturing in an election to change. Since Mainstream Journalist embrace the IMUS values in a profession which they all practiced full time, discovering those so called broken areas of government, knowing what they report is a twisted sense of truth, all, side tracked, all should be played into huge public indictment of the Media. Here the Media is the problem with society. Hopefully America will vote for everything they don’t want. Because have you ever notice anything so important in the news about the analyst, they themselves leave out their very own important interest, and likes, who are they for and why. None of them ever say. But all lead you to believe what to think.
Seems “Audacity” is running wild, but still the majority of the public is pretty disgusted with it. More of the electorate is beginning more to help change every curve of every pole Mainstream Media predicts. Everything they have reported so far has sent America to a dysfunctional society, debates about torture, debates about health care, debates about undocumented immigrants, debates about changing world and spreading freedom and we find Americans have lost their liberties, identities stolen, the Constitution violated, Americans stressed out from a war with no end, trillions of dollars in deficit only after one year of Democratic oversight.
Vote Hillary Clinton 2008.
If it happened as stated, I'd say it was semantic to say it was not a push-poll.
HOWEVER, given the source, I do have to wonder if the incident really happened, at all.
Push polling is not asking what people think of a policy
It's asking would you still support boosh since he eats kittens
With the wrong color wine?
For the record, KCOP is a UPN affiliate. It is not a Fox affiliate.
Loubie @ 44:
dude,
when are you going to tell us how much the clintons are paying you?
you are on every board and youtube posting the exact same drek
sure hope you are getting more than the minimum wage
Bryan J. Blumberg @ 49:
Correct. KTTV is the L.A. Fox affiliate. It was one of the first, in fact.
Bryan J. Blumberg @ 49:
For the record, it's not wise to post things that anyone can disprove in two mouse clicks. Or maybe only one click.
it appears you have done the same thing in your headline that you accuse the LA times of doing.....
Would ya'll rather have Hillary push polling
Or pole dancing?
Hillary apologist.
The tactic was unethical whether is matches the strict definition of push polling or not.
What the hell happened to you guys? I thought we were above dirty tactics. Aren't the dems supposed to be the good guys?
People don't listen to any of the garbage. The facts are clear, the dems are winning the white house but only if its Hillary and not Obama. Did everyone see how he complained like a little girl when attacked by Bill. Grow some attack back Obama don't be such a wimp. The reps wont be nice to you at all. John Mccain is way too old. I don't care that his mother is 95 everyone knows that women live longer and when to him that man was even a pow. Hillary knows what to do with whom ever the reps nominee is. Elect her for change.
ihhsfoo @ 56:
Back to your cave troll!
Oh. All right then. Long format push polling should be better known as PULL-polling....
That is pretty sneaky, actually. Just because it's not a smear job doesn't mean it's morally pure.
Gosh,
I hope Hillary loses tomorrow.
Let's leave the technicalities and parsing of words to the Republicans. If the claim about the framed polling is correct then what you call it doesn't matter... it's shady and dishonest.
ysbaddaden @ 54:
Shillary POLE DANCING ?? Peeeehheeeewww ..
Please, keep your very ugly perversions to yourself .. nicer ones, also
I still have to eat tonight ..
BTW: is Shillary physically FIT\ to reign ?? Check it out, guys.. Send the link on, ASAP..
Thank goodness I can avoid this crap. Caller ID and Voice Mail. I figure if someone wants to talk to me they'll leave a message. If not, hang up.
Marge stated: I just saw the quote Hillary voted for the war. She also explained why and would never have done it, if she had known the facts.
WHAT IS OBAMA’S EXPLAINATION FOR BELIEVING BUSH AND WANTING TO BOMB IRAN..AND SEND IN MISSILES.
Now we have this, in the newspaper article written by a hometown reporter in the Chicago Trib…all you have to do is search the archives. Damn. I bet no one has even asked him that question. Course they haven’t he gets a pass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marge,
1) Hillary Clinton did, in fact, vote for the bill, "AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ". Any intelligent person would KNOW that "USE OF MILITARY FORCE" MEANS "TO GO TO WAR". Her explanation has been that she voted TO PLACE INSPECTORS BACK IN IRAQ or FOR RESOLUTION. Fact is she did not read the Intelligence Report and evidently FAILED TO READ THE BILL FOR WHICH SHE WAS VOTED, OR, SHE'S LYING. I think it is a combination of all three!! Whatever her convoluted reasons, SHE USED POOR JUDGEMENT IN VOTING ON A CRITICAL ISSUE!
Ironicallly, just prior to this bill, Hillary VOTED AGAINST SENDING INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ!
2) I don't know where you are getting your information from. To my knowledge Mr. Obama has not expressed this at all. What he has said is that he WOULD BE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH LEADERS from IRAN, North Korea, etc. Hillary is the one that voted for the bill that "IDENTIFIES THE IRANIAN MILITARY FORCES AS TERRORISTS" Since we in a war against terrorism, she has once again given Mr. Bush a blank check to go to war. HILLARY AGAIN HAS USED POOR JUDGEMENT IN VOTING ON A CRITICAL ISSUE!
3) FACTS--HILLARY IS DEVOID OF: Good judgement, leadership skills, integrity, honesty, wisdom, good ethics, and credibility. Frankly, I get sick and tired of her constant lies and distortions. She never answers questions directly, she beats around the bush and fills her responses with things not even related to the question. She did that at all of the debates.
4) FACT: Hillary WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING TO WIN. For instance, take this from Hillary: "I'm going to get up every day and work, and every minute of every day I'm going to figure out how to help somebody". Does this make sense to you? With her "VAST 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE" I would think she would KNOW how to help everybody, and not spend every minute of every day figuring out how to help somebody. Ultimately, she would NOT be able to HELP anybody because she's going to be too busy figuring out how to help somebody. WHO IS GOING TO PERFORM HER DUTIES AS PRESIDENT?? Bill? She says she is ready to be President on day one; yes I can see she'll be ready since ALL she is going to do is "to get up everyday, and every minute of every day I'm going to figure out how to hlep somebody".
Come on, this guy Ed Coghlan is about as reliable as O'Liely or Hannity. Being a previous
news director, receiving 20 minutes of polling questions, not recording any of it to
substantiate the questions posed and then we are supposed to believe what he is saying, is absurd. I find those who immediately accept "his story" and start bashing
Hillary equally as stupid and willing to pouch on any unsubstantiated piece of BS.
Get a life and vote for who best represents you, don't rely upon garbage.
MSM "blog":I saw you two fighting... I'm worried there could be a fight and the party would shut down.Clinton supporter:[scoffs] I'm sure you'd really hate that. There's not going to be a fight.MSM "blog":Yeah... Obama supporters said you wouldn't have the won tons to go through with it.Clinton supporter:They said that?MSM "blog":Well, I had to clean it up a little.[Later]
MSM "blog":Basically, Clinton supporters said you'd give the Republicans everything they want.Obama supporter:They did?MSM "blog":Yeah. They said you'd fold faster than Superman on laundry day.Obama supporter:We'll see about that. I always thought you were... sneaky and manipulative. Now I see you're really a very honest source for news.MSM "blog":Thank you, Sir.NinaK @ 64:
Shillery?
Why do we need Republican smear doctors when we have Democrats and progressives to do their work for them?
Obama's voters who love his message of hope are the most negative supporters I'vee encountered.
CappuccettoRosso @ 62:
The "Daily Mail" is a piece of shit, on a par w/the NY Daily Esquire or National Esquire
rag. Just go to it's home page and look at the kinds of articles appearing for proof.
Thing Fish -I might be dumbed down (am in 12 tabs right now), but what is the purpose of you posting this trash and WITHOUT the link ?
We know shillarys screw Obama by the Rove Playbook - she&/or red-nosed bubba are even worse than rover. ..say: NAFTA ... So, what is your message to us with this, please ?
Thing Fish @ 66:
CappuccettoRosso @ 70:
Fair if fair...YOU give us the link proving that Hillary is using the Rove "playbook" asshole.
Factoid - KCOP is Channel 13 here in Los Angeles. KTTV, Channel 11, is the FAUX Noise outlet here. Though that doesn't mean Mr. Coghlan isn't a Repubelick plant. (:>
I still can't figure out how the Clinton campaign got my mailing address and email address; I've never given them either.
mo_dems @ 74:
Same here, except I wonder how Obama got mine???
Doggiebobo @ 69:
You are right, I didn't ask you to study thaaat - did you see the PIX ??? More than 1000 words.. DORIANA GREY ....portrait ..
so damn BIG you couldn't miss it, Babbula ..
That's your Americana Idolittta ! Have her poooole dancing for 'ya ... Crazy glue her so she doesn't fall apart.. keep vacum cleaner handy - you'll need to keep removing that plaster (keeps falling off her), and they put on her by the pound, several times a day .. and, night .. Does this look to you like she can take the pressure of the work ??!! Between her crying, PMS, chasing bubba's sluts, , you name it ..
Doggiebobo @ 72:
You're spending too much time looking in the mirror, and, from the WRONG END !!
Be nice to your own other END !!! Pull your head OUT, I know it's not easy, you got too deep into YOURSELF.. much too deep, sweetiepie ..
Marco @ 69:
Blah Blah Blah...
Been hearing this all year...
For the record I do not support Obama either... but if I had to choose .. between voting for Obama and not voting at all.. I would vote for Obama.
CappuccettoRosso @ 77:
MY mistake, I really, truly intended to use the word "dumbed down" (the phrase you used) not asshole, so I apologize. However, you did not answer my previously posed question. And, for your info, I have NOT(at least yet) decided to vote for Hillary; ONLY
if she is the Dem nominee running against McCain.
CappuccettoRosso @ 71:
Er ah, I was mocking the responses on this thread. I was expecting most people to recognize the episode from the Simpson's. Guess I assumed too much.
Any way, regarding those links. So far there's been only 2 seminal links I can find. The one from the LA Times and the rebuttal from Pollster.com. Both are at the top of the thread. (BTW The DU I mentioned is here. Like I wrote above, it just refers back to the Pollster.com article.)
My paraphrasing of the Simpson's episode perfectly sums up many of the posts in this thread. With only one person claiming this one incident happened, slaps on the headline that its an "eruption", and suddenly its the Clinton / Obama celebrity death match with people here yelling troll at each other.
Now if the person from the LA Times who got this call was acting as a real journalist (assuming what they said actually did happen) then I'd expect they'd do some checking around to see how prevalent the calls were. And in what areas they were occurring. And who was getting them.
In short, I'd expect some facts. Something this LA Times "blog" post is severely lacking.
Now following Occam the first question that should come to mind would who would benefit from this piece. Well seeing how it sets democrats at each other's throats... well you tell me.
Thing Fish @ 80:
Exactly, you "nailed it"...and allegedly he was on the phone for 20 minutes and did
not record any of the pollester's question..and he(Coghlan) was a news director?
The Media which is Republican controlled wants Obama, he can be easily challenged and likely wiped in the general election. All, Democrats and Republicans would likely be easily opinioned to help Obama in avoiding a “CODE RED” type investigation.
Hillary on the other hand would likely challenge even good old McCain. The last thing McCain might want to do. It is suggested to talk about the “CODE RED” and it environment in the military execution of the Iraq war. Ladies And gentlemen of America, it would be at the of time of a new Presidency, and Republicans are terrified at the thought of a “CODE RED” investigation by Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton.
All National Security Secrets would be open to the new President. That includes all written military orders by the President issued that needed to be documented according to the resolution with some of its details that all Americas are in debate about. Its obvious George Bush is guilty of ignoring the resolution for years during the Republican controlled Congress. Now after running cover changing the goals so often from weapons of mass destructing to spreading freedom all the reasons have changed and America would likely find out why.
In a through “CODE RED” investigation generals along with and up to the President, George Bush will very likely be charged and indicted for violation of domestic legislation against the American people. Wide open abuse of the resolution fundamentals will likely come out if Hillary is President. If Obama is President, he will get his arm twisted to shut up and play ball or get tossed out.
Hillary Clinton already knows what it takes to impeach someone; Hillary is a lot savvier than we all think, and Obama knows. Thats what terrifies the trolls here and the Republican hard right.
Uhh, what?
Nicole...
For what it is worth there have been a lot of "anti-Hillary" posters over at D-Kos on pro Hillary diaries that start using GOP talking points and meme's from Reagan and going on about "free market" pressures.
They say they are for Obama but their rationals and arguments and their phrasing of their comments come off as GOP trolls. There is no way to validate it, but your post certainly calls a lot of it into question.
That logic is flawless as long as you ignore the false premise. Notice the wikipedia article says "tends?"
Nicole
PS. It wouldn't be the first time the Rethugs have tried a divide and conquer strategy... in fact that has always been their strategy!
Not sure if it's been posted anywhere here yet, but hey, don't look now, Hillary is crying...AGAIN!! Oh woe is me.....
"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_...
Doggiebobo @ 75:
I got both of you beat. I don't even live in the same country and I've been getting multiple emails daily from the Dem Party!!!!!
Shhhh, Nicole...don't rain on these "democrats" parade and let a glimpse of the truth out about Hillary...
They prefer to fall in line with the media and believe everything they read...cuz it's ALL about 'Bama!
And, uh, ConcernedCanuck have you ever had a reunion with people from your college or high school? What's your point?
Keep dis'ing one of our own.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_8120...
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/27/look-before-you-leap-obamas-mobb...
Jim H @ 10:
As usual, there's no proof but it's okay to pass along lies since it's another nasty hit piece on Hillary. Misogyny is alive & well in America. Sadly, it still is.
Rasputin @ 84:
Sorry man, but I'm learning pretty quickly that "liberals" are human just like neocons, and will do/say anything if it favors their candidate, and makes the opponent look bad.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
Oh one last thing....
Hillary will win Super Tuesday.
John @ 29:
.
VERY OFFENSIVE. I am one.
Shillary, the WAG of America.
SHILLARY a role model? No, sHillary's as shameless as any WAG
"I'm not some little woman standing by her man," sHillary famously said then.
Oh, please. "If sHillary had divorced Bill back then, she knew she would never have stood a chance of striding towards the White House."
Fast forward to today, and sure enough, Bill Clinton's role in his wife's campaign has become so dominant that commentators say it is as if he's running for a third term himself, while OFF his meds.
A feminist flag-bearer? No, sHillary sold her cheap soul as cheaply as any footballer's wife. She is the ultimate WAG - a woman who owes her entire career to a more powerful partner's achievements.
Thanks, sister. NO thanks !!
Whatever you call this desperate, below repig level practise that you twist and turn - what was the magic word ? ohh - TRIANGULATE - these are total LIES FORCE-FED to voters to smear the opponent, another Democrat, and sway their vote. The same was done to Edwards, who was my early choice.
Clintons delivering the CHANGE to the US sheeple nation : 100% ROVE playbook, 100% of the time, dusted w/ Carville's venom ala Lady McCheney! Take another whifff of fishmongers' Arkansasola before you faint !
.
Part of my postgrad reserach included the POLLING TECHNIQUES. Not for political purposes, but international development - including the govt instruments as well.
One can ask the polled demographics EXACTLY the same questions, without feeding any extra info (as these bastards are doing), and just have these same questions asked in a different order (say, reverse).
Polling in person the SAME people, in the SAME households, the same day of the week/time of the day, a week or two apart, will give TOTALLY DIFFERENT answers/RESULTS, should the order of the questions change. I did it myself, and with multidisciplinary teams, in the US, Canada, UK and among different nations of continental Europe, in several languages, with authorization of the European Union govts. In urban and rural areas, of all demo-socio-economic levels. The order of the questions should not be revised - for uniform/reliable results.
You CANNOT replicate any poll for the same reasons, if you want to have comparable results.
It's THAT fragile !! So, whatever you call it Nicole - Clintons primaries GIFT to dumb America - it is UNACCEPTABLE in a civilized society. Please do not repost w/ update that it was Holly Mackarel trying to smear little corpo-Shilly.
One good deed you did today, Nicole: I was to stay home tomorrow, since Edwards suspended his campaign.
You've convinced me, I AM going to VOTE tomorrow. For OBAMA.
Be proud - nothing would move me. You did. Please continue, there are more people out there who need to see it better..
Please do not forget to tell your daughters abt great Shillary, the WAG of America, as you've said you do. Role model for any lovely girl, indeed.
In your obvious sHillary zeal, I'd hope you'll consider their age before you tell them the uplifting story of bubba and his cigars.
Gotta wash my hands, fast ...
CappuccettoRosso @ 71:
CappucettoRosso, first, I'm going to apologize up front for not having a link at hand when I tell you this, but I recently read or heard that Hillary was very vocal in her opposition to NAFTA when Bill was considering it.
And, just so you know, I voted for uncommitted in MI last month, and if our primary was held tomorrow, I'd vote for Obama (Edwards was my choice).
Josh @ 92:
Hope so. Then if her and Bill get elected, you can have four more years of Bush governing, with Republican Clinton hatred mixed in. Ya, that'll solve all your problems.
Josh @ 92:
Clarification please....Do you mean that by winning New York and California, with
HUGE delegates/electoral votes, she will win because of such, or are you predicting
that she will win the majority of the remaining 22 States by popular vote also?
CappucettoRosso-
Here's what I was thinking of. It might just be HRC's spin. From the link:
TIME: Do you think NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton] was the right thing to do?
CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—
TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.
CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.
For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.
As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.
But this isn't spin: As Senator from NY, not the voteless First Lady, she voted against CAFTA.
Again- Edwards supporter who would vote for Obama tomorrow. Just sayin'...
Thing Fish @ 80:
Sorry to disappoint you - I do NOT live in a cartoon. Am trying at least not to.
Did you consider moving into Second Life ? I don't know much, but heard of it.
Josh @ 92:
Did 'they' tell you also it's rigged SOLID ? We know it is in New York.
CappuccettoRosso @ 98:
Oh, c'mon, The Simpson's is great social satire. Not as funny as it used to be, but....Hey, it's not your cup of tea. No reason to shunt someone- specially someone like Thing Fish- off to fantasyland marginalization.
political polls commissioned by a candidate inevitably have a bias. the candidate is trying to find out where their support is soft or strong. this does not make them push polls. i got a call last year about the 2008 congressional race in my district. i knew soon into the (over 10 minute) call, that the poll was commissioned by a republican challenger. i wasn't offended by it, though. i just answered the questions, making it clear i liked my current representative.
One thing I was expecting about this claimed push poll would be to hear others chime in me too. I'd think a 20 minute phone poll is pretty hard to forget. That's what I was looking for in this tread. Instead all I saw were a bunch of comments I'd expect from Sneetches.
P.S. Thanks Andy K This one's for you.
(At least I think I'm remembering your gravatar correctly... If not, ah what the hell. Only real worry I have is ysbaddaden may want residuals for stealing his schtick.)
Just because it doesn't meet the wikipedia definition of a "true" push poll, whatever that means, does not mean it is not at all a push poll. It could be a new variation of push poll. One thing learned in the 2000 election is that an obvious push poll can have negative consequences once found out. It stands to reason the push poll must become less obvious to be more effective just because of the risk of it being labeled a push poll and then associated with a particular candidate. So I don't buy the logic of the article at all.
Josh @ 91:
You hit the nail on the head, Josh. Let me add the link to Professor Fish's OpEd in the NYT:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/?em&ex=120...
I expected vituperative hatred from the vast right-wing conspiracy, but was surprised by the dissemblance from the left. However, it appears from the polls that the traditional democrats who stuck with their party in its ups and downs are largely with Hillary. It is the independents, who could just as easily swing to McCain in the general election, who are breaking away to Obama. Then there are the kewl krowd who jump from one new idea to the next latest fad; forever looking for something different. Obama will be old hat to them the next time around. I can't figure out the establishment democratic leadership, like the Kennedys and the Pelosis, and don't really care either way. But I would be very interested in knowing where Russ Feingold leans out of curiosity.
BUT BUT BUT MARIA
your making ARNOLD SO CONFUSED..........
but he still likes his blow jobs....
even if it is a kennedy democrat.............
For those who insist on bringing up Obama's
October 2002 speech, he said:
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States"
Exactly how did he know? Hussein had $10 billion a year in siphoned
off oil revenues to fund whatever he wanted. We didn't have
inspectors on the ground, we didn't know what might be reconstituted.
In short, Obama overplayed his hand. Meanwhile, Hillary gave all the
qualifications in her October 2002, noting that the Milosevic model
of having his people remove him was better, but we had to make
sure Hussein didn't have usable WMD's first, thus inspectors.
PS, Hillary was talking to Tony Blair as well - who was Obama talking to?
Someone comes with an allegation.
Much Ado About Nothing.
rduke @ 21:
Exactly.
To Uncle Joe McCarthy,
"Dude," no one needs to pay me. (And I'm not on Youtube.)
I'm just trying to help the Dems avoid another embarrasing November. This country cannot afford 4 more years of Repub leadership, or a president of any party that does not know his behind from his elbow.
Barak is a media creation, created by a GOP-owned media. (Any arguments on that point?) Clinton is the GOP's worst nightmare, and they've been trying to knock her off for six years. (Any arguments on that?)
Why is it that Michelle Obama gets off the hook for making deregatory comments about how Hillary "keeps house." Or her involvement with the Wal-Mart food supplier, although her husband used Wal-Mart against Clinton. (BTW, who the hell doesn't shop at Wal-mart?)
Why is it that no one wants to delve into Obama's mystery years in the tenement on E. 94th Street in NYC? Or his hypocracy on Israel-Palestine?
And its interesting that he's doing the Ted Kennedy line on immigration, when the black community is very concerned about immigrants taking their jobs. (I disagree with that view, but is is a stated concern among many African-Americans.)
Don't worry, the scrutiny will come. The GOP will not hesitate to say the things that Dems don't say about Barak (Can't Say His Middle Name) Obama.
Have a Happy Red November.
Desider @ 106:
What the heck does shillary's talking with DISCREDITED BUSH's POODLE have to do w/ ANYTHING ???
Why would Obama, or, whoever, sniff the yapping poodle's butt ??!!
Feel free and indulge if it gives you a kick. Just don't call us, we'll call you.
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 19:
Way to go, stuff it in their ear !!!
CappuccettoRosso @ 93:
What a hateful person you are, feel sorry for your family !!!!!!!!!!!!
Susan @ 104:
So by your logic, shouldn't you want to pick Obama because he will attract the independent voters? Seriously, just because the people have stuck with the democratic party through thick and thin doesn't mean they have the best idea of who to pick. Have you seen the last two presidential campaigns run by Democrats? Uninspiring is probably the kindest thing that can be said about them. John Kerry's campaign was idiotic and Gore's campaign made him look like a robot.
Susan @ 104:
hey TWO of sHillary's Designated TRoLLS in LOVE embrace!! Isn't it special !!
Well, Susan, why don't you just run along, back to you home on NYT blogs.. You've been to the Eurosites also, always with the same BULLSHIT how experienced shillary is. just like Linda and Betty, and you ALL sound/read the same - so, how many names do you use ?? Bi-polar not enough ??
For now, WRAP your fishy profesooor in PRAVDA - that's how the fish is handled in his environment: pple are NOT supposed to have opinions. Profesooor sez so. And, if they don't agree w/ his crap,they are antisemitic, rright? - just keep it there, in their preferred victimhood zone. And, if they didn't like shillary - they're antisemitic, that blog sez. You guys are very, very sick.
PRAVDA means TRUTH in Russian - the old saying goes that there NEVER were ANY news in Pravda, and, there never was ANY TRUTH in Izvestiya (Izvestiya = news in russian). That's why, b/c of their large sheet size and the lowest, commie govt subsidized price, these two newspapers were a wrapping material of choice for WET FISH in Soviet Union..For decades. So wrap your leaky fish and run along .. Run along susan, back to your NYT sandbox.
You're working too hard, dearie - susan= Betty=Linda..
fedup @ 112:
Im the Week of Charity for Animals, my family is too busy to pay ANY attention to you.
We do not deal w/ horned ones. Maybe after the season when you lose them.
CappuccettoRosso @ 63:
ysbaddaden - this one is younger, and "seasonal" ;)
Pole Dance
Wake up people!! A Democrat is going to win this election, no matter what the media or Rethugs are trying to tell you. So why do you think they are trying oh so subtly shove Obama down our throats? Because hopes, dreams, inspiration, and charisma have absoluteley no chance in hell of standing up to even a minority of Rethugs in Washington. Sure, Obama has a lot of potential (he's already learned to cozy up to sleazy slumlords), but DC is a little out of his league at the moment. If you vote for him, you're voting for 4 more years of the same old shit, because he'll be lucky to be able to change his underwear daily, much less policy.
Wake up people!! PAYOLA TIME !! To shillary's owners !!
.
Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
jeff @ 117:
Obviously, your superior confidence and knowledge of same old shit,must be a result of your great familiarity w/shillary's underwear changes, however often that happens. Since she doesn't know lingerie, good 'ol Fruit'o'loom will do nicely.
CappuccettoRosso @ 116:
Yeah, but you gotta remember I still have a crush on Margaret Dumont.
Typical Rove-ian spin!
the only important thing is to get the story out. it can be debunked later, but the impression remains, even after debunking.
LATimes = corporate shitrag.
:anger:
Bison @ 4:
And Obama has voted to continue it. that is when he is not voting "present".
BTW, I voted for Kooch in the NJ Primary.
jeff @ 117:
I am voting for Obama, it sounds like that makes you angry. I hope you get over it.
loubie @ 109:
Login or Register to post comments.