Obama crushing Clinton and McCain in new national polls

Hillary is not losing because the media is being mean to her and nice to Obama. Hillary is losing because she has made and continues to make mistakes.

1) she voted for the war in Iraq
1a) instead of repudiating it she offers a lame "if I only knew then what I know now" excuse

2) She relied on endorsements and top down organizing everywhere, including Iowa, whereas Obama patiently built grassroots support from the bottom up

3) she let Bill out on a rampage in South Carolina reminding the country of the bad parts of the Clinton legacy and also putting to rest any notion that she could run in the general on her strengths alone. Meaning that the Republicans could dust off their old dirty tricks against Bill and use him to rally their base.

4) whenever she lost her camp would belittle the state that choose against her, i.e. IA Obama only can win in caucuses because only rich people caucus, SC Obama can only win the black vote, all the other 11 victories in a row, Obama can only win the youth, Obama can only win the small states, Obama can only win... That grows thin quickly

5) Her camp didn't prepare for a fight after Feb 5th.

She shouldn't blame the media for her and her camp's failure. I don't trust her to run any better in the general against McCain. If she is having this much trouble beating Obama I don't but much faith in her to beat McCain.

Right. In 2000 the polls stated Bush would win the popular vote. We know that was wrong.

While not exactly hard science, the polls do capture a mood of the country. I think Hillary had a good chance to change some minds in the last debate, but only succeeded in confirming our worst fears. Whereas Obama came across (to me) as more calm and intellectual, Hillary seemed to be grasping at straws. The big "moment" in the debate (for me) was when Barak was asked about Louis Farakahn and his recent endorsement of Obama. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.” Hillary Clinton quickly jumped into the fray adding, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting...I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.” Now to me this is grasping at straws and doesn't communicate to me someone that is in command -- it communicates someone desperate to prove she is, uh, well, I don't know really. I'm not sure what she was trying to prove. But Obama's rebuttal deeply impressed me. Instead of getting bogged down in petty arguing over the whole matter he instead defused the whole thing by saying, "Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting," Obama said. "If the word 'reject' Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce." Brilliantly played. He diplomatically defused Hillary's point (if she even had one) while illustrating that, well, she wasn't really making any serious point and was just playing politics. The same old politics.

She is her own worst enemy. While she didn't actually cover his face with her hands to block him out, she gave that impression.

Tori, I don't think this poll's purpose was to determine how Obama or Hillary are going to do in next week's primary, but just to show that overall, Obama has more support and if nominated, has a better chance against McCain. This is a big change from what the polls showed a few months ago when Hillary had a huge lead over Obama.

Even polls in Texas where Hillary had a big lead are now neck and neck. Polls can be wrong (as they were in Iowa), but as crob80227 mentioned, they do reflect the current mood of the country.

---1) she voted for the war in Iraq
1a) instead of repudiating it she offers a lame "if I only knew then what I know now" excuse---

If I may: what in the hell is that about?

This is probably the core judgement call that should swing the election.. you vote with the truly dreadful policies that were so bloody obviously wrong, you lose.
Later saying 'Oh, but I didn't know'
Didn't know what exactly? That is was a rediculously stupid idea to lose track of the core target of the operation in order to attack a state that was making no hostile moves at all? Uhm.. that's the kinda no-brainer that will make or break you. Hilliary, you broke. Admit it and back off.

Exactly. With all her "experience" and Obama's "all-speech-no solutions", she voted for it and he voted against it. Like Obama mentioned during the debate, how can she claim that she will be "ready on day one" if she makes mistakes like that.

And I never thought the "experience" campaign was a smart choice since 1. many Americans want a fresh take after enduring the current administration and 2. two very experienced politians are Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld. Enough said.

So you're proposing the New World Order the first Bush talked so adamantly about. Congrats.

Wrong approach completely - leomello

Security isn't derived by overpowering your advisories, it comes from building bridges of understanding and mutual interests. Look at history, it doesn't work. Look at Israel, they've got all the weapons, they get away with killing 300 Palestinians for every one Israeli killed - does it fix any thing? Has it stopped violence? If Israel increased it's capability to kill and suppress, how in the WORLD could that change an already flawed methodology???

So, you can squash twice as fast, twice as easily. Is that what's best for humanity? Who in your little world would decide for the great masses which of us was a threat and which of you weren't?

You are no student of history and you are fated to repeat the mistakes of the past - if you fail to learn from them. I wish you well, but open your eyes.

jmatthew..

that would seem to be the case.It is unsurprising that the US, having suffered hugely under the GOP Old Guard and their bizarrely inbred political wankery, is now looking for someone untainted by that particular stink.

It's actually kinda odd, I was 100% pro Clinton until I saw her in action. I loved Edwards, but he's gone now, and Obama is the only electable voice still standing.

in my opinion, anyways

leomallo, Are you one of the signers of The Project For The New American Century? If so hang on we are almost there.

You can tell me I am an idiot and it'd be okay with me, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, but "what the world needs now, is love sweet love" - like one of my favorite old songs by Burt Backarach, have a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfOcqlFkQvw&feature=related

The world doesn't need another war, more weapons, more killing, more oppression, less understanding.

"I'm crushing your head"

Hilary is just to shisty. For starters, why did Bill classify documents involving her from her First Lady days and will only be declassified AFTER the elections.

And where Obama is running on a campaign of fix what's wrong with our county Clinton seems like shes running on 'Anybody but a republican'. Of course that's just in the most broad sense.

Obama will win. Let's hope he does the right thing.

It looks very much like Obama iis going to be the candidate. Now its really important that we get a majority in the Senate and Congress so we can undo the damage Bush has done. Work for and donate to the Democrats in your area. Last but not least check to make sure you are on the voter rolls, then use a paper ballot. Remember this bills start in the Senate and Congress, that is who you want to lobby for things that are important to you. Both Clinton and Obama have crappy health care plans. We need Dennis Kucinich's Universal Health Care Bill that is sitting in congress right now needing to be passed.

I believe Obama will be the democratic candidate but am also still concerned about our votes being counted correctly. The fact that they haven't been able to come up with a verifiable method of voting after almost 8 years seems conveniently avoided.

let's try some facts:

Hillary voted for the war with the information provided by the Bush administration at the time - and by the pentagon, our secretary of State - most elected officials voted for the war at the time.

Obama did not vote against the war - he was not at that level. Obama has repeatedly said he might have voted for it if he had the information they did.

Hillary does not apologize for her decision because based on the information they had at the time it was a solid decision. She doesn't need to apologize for making the right decision at the right time.

Now she has an exit strategy better than his - that's what smart people do - they make decisions, situation changes, they make better decisions.

Only problem was Bush lied, the media lied. And we all fell for it.

Now Obama lies, and the media lies for Obama and you all fall for it.

As for establishment comment - hummm let's see John Kerry, Ted Kennedy (and the older Kennedy's because the younger Kennedy's support Hillary), Louis Farrakan, Jesse Jackson - now thank God they are not establishment. Same God they are not old school politicians...

Obama is same ole same ole - Hillary - that would be a breath of fresh air and a real change. Madame President! Go Texas Go Ohio Go Hillary!

and if you kids get a moment check out where their contributions are coming form - Hillary has more small donors than Obama - and he has as many special interest donors as she does. hummm