Obama Memo: I'm Electable, Baby

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Hillary Clinton has always used her general election viability as a trump card against Barack Obama (think: "I'm tested, I'm ready.") But Obama's campaign is pointing to new polling data to shoot the moon.

If they can get voters in the larger primary states to think they're as viable (if not more viable) than Clinton is, she loses a core argument of her candidacy.

TO: Interested Parties

FR: Obama Communications

RE: The Candidate Who Can Win: Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton with Independent voters and can beat John McCain in November

DA: February 8, 2007

On the day that John McCain became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, a Time poll confirmed what voters and polls have consistently demonstrated in the last few weeks – Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November.

In all six of the most recent general election head-to-head match-ups, Obama does better than Hillary Clinton against McCain by an average of more than five points. In four out of the six, Clinton loses to McCain.

From Time Magazine: The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for Time, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground." [Time, 2/7/08]

The truth of this statement is reflected in the results from the contests we’ve had so far. In critical swing states that Democrats need to carry in November, Obama has beaten Hillary Clinton among Independent voters by crushing margins. In Missouri, he won them by 37 points (67-30). In New Mexico, he’s winning them by 39 points (63-24). In Arizona and New Hampshire, he won them by 10 points (47-37, 41-31).

On Super Tuesday, in six red states that had primaries or caucuses for both Republicans and Democrats, Obama won and got more votes than the top two Republicans combined. These states – Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Carolina – account for a total of 53 Electoral College votes. In Idaho and Kansas, where there was no Republican primary, Obama won at least a three-to-one victory over Clinton. Obama has shown such a strong appeal with Independents that even John McCain’s Texas media consultant Mark McKinnon recently confirmed that he would not work against Obama if he is the nominee.

On NPR today, President Bush’s chief political strategist Matthew Dowd said, “The other thing that I think John McCain has going for him is if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination I know there’s a lot of conservatives out there that said they wouldn’t vote or would vote for her but I think she’s the most unifying force for John McCain out there right now, not himself.” He went on to say later in the interview, “I think if you gave the strategists and people around John McCain some truth serum and asked them to say who they want to run against, in a minute they’d say Senator Hillary Clinton. They think that she’s polarizing; she’d motivate and unite the base of the Republican Party. She’s not a generational difference and a change of a figure, she’s a bit of throwback to the past, like to a degree he is. Against Senator Obama it’s a much more difficult task. It would be a generational campaign, the new versus the older. Somebody that had a distinct stand on Iraq versus his stand on Iraq. I think Senator Obama is a much more difficult race and there is not any vitriol from the conservative and the Republican base against Senator Obama. They don’t sort of dislike him to there core like they do Hillary Clinton. I think they would much prefer, the McCain folks, race against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama because it’s hard to compose a strategy against a new guy like Barack.” [NPR, 2/8/08]

Most recent head-to-head match-ups:

Time (Feb 1-4)

Obama 48 (+7)

McCain 41

Clinton 46 (+0)

McCain 46

CNN/Opinion Research (Feb 1-3)

Obama 52 (+8)

McCain 44

Clinton 50 (+3)

McCain 47

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll (Jan 31-Feb 2)

Obama 45 (+2)

McCain 43

Clinton 41 (-4)

McCain 45

ABC/Washington Post (Jan 31 – Feb 1)

Obama 49 (+3)

McCain 46

Clinton 46 (-3)

McCain 49

Fox News (Jan 30-31)

Obama 44 (+1)

McCain 43

Clinton 44 (-1)

McCain 45

Rasmussen (2/04-2/07)

Obama: 47 (+5)

McCain: 42

Clinton: 43 (-3)

McCain: 46

Comments

Please. This far out all of these polls are meaningless. The press has given Obama a free ride because of their hatred of the Clintons. Now that Saint John has a chance to win, Obama will be destroyed by the Republicans and the press. He has no idea what is about to hit him.

Posted by Teresa | February 8, 2008 1:59 PM

Teresa: Hillary's new slogan No We Can't!!

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:02 PM

Teresa: Would you like some dessert wine (whine?) with your sour grapes?

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:05 PM

We democrats nominated two uncharasmatic candidates with no appeal to the independents in the last two elections and lost.
Obama is the best choice for the Democrats in November because of his huge advantages among independents, and because pro-life Republicans are willing to vote for him.

Posted by Ni | February 8, 2008 2:05 PM

The Clintons have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and he is still standing and stronger than ever. Yeah, the republicans will try to throw stuff at Obama, but it won't work...he's bulletproof...if Bill Clinton couldn't take him down with his smarmy race baiting, no republican will be able to thread that needle.

Posted by RKA | February 8, 2008 2:08 PM

Teresa-

The polls show Hillary, in all likelihood, would lose to McCain. That's before you factor in your very own suggestion that the media will make McCain a "saint" and, at the same time, exercise all their hatred of the Clintons. With that, she loses. Period.

Is it possible Obama could be slimed by the Republicans? Maybe, though I imagine the Clintons are going to use anything and everything in their power before going down in defeat. But there's also a chance that Obama can withstand it.

See the difference? Obama might beat McCain. Clinton will not.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:09 PM

Obama has gotten a "free ride" because there's no dirt on him except Rezko, which has been analyzed to death and found to be largely without merit. He's also gotten a "free ride" because he is exceptionally likable, and journalists are human beings too (though sometimes that's hard to remember!) His plans for the presidency in both foreign and domestic policy are extensive, detailed, and have been tested and vetted over the course of 18 tough debates against a highly competent and experienced opponent in Sen. Clinton. No "free ride" there to me.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

Teresa-

The polls show Hillary, in all likelihood, would lose to McCain. That's before you factor in your very own suggestion that the media will make McCain a "saint" and, at the same time, exercise all their hatred of the Clintons. With that, she loses. Period.

Is it possible Obama could be slimed by the Republicans? Maybe, though I imagine the Clintons are going to use anything and everything in their power before going down in defeat, and leave little new material (to the extent that it exists) for the Repubs to use. But there's also the greater chance that, having vanquished the Clinton machine, Obama can take it from the GOP.

See the difference? Obama might beat McCain. Clinton will not.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

The idea that Obama has gotten a "free ride" is frankly a "fairy tale". Obama has undergone more scrutiny in this race than any other candidate. The reason is because he was the new guy. So all of his past mistakes, no matter how far back, were considered newsworthy.

This is not true for the other candidates. Their past has not been re-examined. You can say it's old news, but the fact is that most people have lodged those memories in the back of their minds and haven't thought about them in a long time. When they are reminded by the press, it will have an effect.

So Hillary supporters, don't kid yourself. Hillary is not immune to these attacks. She will suffer just as much as Obama.

Posted by Mike | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM

please please please let this story win the news cycle rather than chelsea v msnbc (feminist alert: from the tears to being broke to now the daughter, hillary is playing the poor me fem card)

Posted by heather | February 8, 2008 2:11 PM

I have very strong feelings for Hillary. She's going to right many wrongs men have been perpetrated on the Sisterhood throughout the years.

Posted by Teresa | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM

Obama has barely had any negative ads run against him. He's barely had any hit pieces done on him by the press.

The minute he's the presidential candidate all his ties with Rezko will be dissected. Every bit of dirt in his past will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Then the attack ads will come. He's flip flopped heavily from his very liberal positions when running for the senate. Example of what to expect: "He said he'd decriminalize marijuana, now he says different - where does Obama really stand" (nice subtle jab at his past drug use in that one).

Yes, Hilary is the easiest to beat but if anyone thinks November will be a cake walk with Obama get real.

Posted by Jesse | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM

There are also many Democrats for Obama who will not vote for Clinton if she is given the nomination. They see her as an inevitable loser to McCain. To harp on any one piece of "baggage" she carries appears mean, but when the whole list is presented, the Republicans will eat her up. She will not maintain the newfound groundswell of interest and involvement that is in large part due to Obama.

Posted by Charles | February 8, 2008 2:13 PM

LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE, YOU BASTARDS!!!!

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 2:13 PM

The idea of using polls this far out to measure electibility is somewhat silly. The general is nine months away, and much will have changed by then.

If Clinton wins the nomination, though, the Republicans unify in their hatred of her, and any problems McCain might have in getting the base on fire is gone.

Posted by Curtis | February 8, 2008 2:14 PM

Completely agree, RKA.

Peggy Noonan said it well in today's WSJ here.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:15 PM

Heather, I don't believe that Shuster's comments amount to Clinton "playing the poor me fem card" at all. I have yet to see her campaign take advantage of his thoughtless remarks in any way, although I do not rule out that they may do so in the days ahead. I would like to see Obama come out strongly against these comments because it stand in strong contrast to the way that Hillary did not come out against the comments by Bill after SC. Clinton supporters have a legitimate right to be angry at Shuster (and Chris Matthews as well.)

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM

Love the Peggy Noonan article.

Is she related to Danny Noonan?

Posted by Jay | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM

"She's going to right many wrongs men have been perpetrated on the Sisterhood throughout the years."

Ask the millions of poor, single mothers who have been wronged by our federal government giving the states authority to impose crushing work requirements and massively cutting funding for after-school programs and health care as a result of "welfare reform" (PRWORA). Wait, who caved to Republicans and signed that into law again? Oh that's right. The Clintons.

Posted by Yes, we will | February 8, 2008 2:17 PM

He's shooting the moon because his own memo projecting loses in Ohio, Texas and Penn. show him coming out ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the day.

The issue for him now is not whether he can come up with a higher number, but whether he can show dominance and to do that he has to win at least one of the big remaining primaries.

Posted by C.B. | February 8, 2008 2:18 PM

Jesse, don't you think the Clinton campaign has been exceptional in bringing up all of the dirt in Obama's past? Their resorting to drug, muslim, and race smears via surrogates shows they have nothing else - and it exploded in their faces. And Obama made a mistake in raising his hand at a debate, he has always been in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:20 PM

Sure, the Republicans are going to attack Obama if he's the nominee, but you are simply not being honest if you do not recognize that the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth venom that Hillary inspires among the "right wing conspiracy" is unique.

It's really funny the argument that Hillary supporters raise: "Yeah, the Republicans hate us and want to pummel us into the ground. But that has nothing to do with her. They do that to everyone!"

Yeah, right. The Clintons are just reaping what they've sown: inciting fury in huge swathes of the American electorate with their constant lying, scandals, vindictiveness, and cynical scorched-earth politics.

You become "battle-tested" when your strategy is to battle everybody.

Posted by Penelope Chen | February 8, 2008 2:22 PM

I'd say Shuster's comments re Chelsea are on the mark. Bill has always seen himself as a Big Pimpin' Poppa.

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:24 PM

Theresa, it seems to me from reading many blogs that Clinton supporters at this date *mostly* fall into 3 camps: 1) Those who haven't been introduced to Obama yet. 2) Those who don't believe he can actually bring about the change he promises. 3) Those who deeply admire Hillary as a strong woman trying to break through the highest glass ceiling in the country. You sound like a member of this third group, and it's this group of Clinton supporters whose motives I understand and respect. My question is why you are so strongly committed to having the first American female leader be someone who is so deeply polarizing and has so much scandal in her past as Sen. Clinton. Why not get behind a strong, uniting, scandal-free charismatic female leader who can win red states in the fall instead (Sebelius, Napolitano, McCaskill)?

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

Hey Teresa,

How Ironic would it be if the sisterhood propels Hillary to the nomination, she loses to Mccain because she is unelecatble, and Roe V Wade is overturned at the end of John McCain's 1st terms because poor Justice Stevens ain't going to live forever.

The sisterhood may well end up shooting itself in the foot on this one.

Posted by RKA | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

It's been obvious for a while that Obama would have better chances in the general election. Hillary wouldn't do as badly as some people have claimed, but Obama has far more independent and crossparty appeal, and that's what wins elections.

Posted by m | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM

Clinton did better Tuesday in purple state, up for grabs areas where the conditions most closely resembled a general election (that is, primaries instead of caucuses). In Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona and Arkansas, Clinton went 4 for 5, and Obama squeaked by in Missouri.

The fact is, unless it's a caucus we're talking about (and caucus conditions obviously won't prevail in November), Obama is a weak candidate -- very much in the John Kerry uberliberal mold. He simply hasn't expanded his base beyond blacks, affluent liberals, and younger, left-leaning, aspirational independents.

Democrats: wake up before it's too late. The Clintons have demonstrated a proven ability to win in areas that usually go GOP, and this has enabled them to defeat the Republicans in two national elections. Choosing far left process liberals like Obama hasn't worked before, and might even be a weaker strategy this time around, given Obama's utter lack of ability to win Hispanic votes, and his easily swift-boatable, McGovernesque positions on national defense. The MoveOn wing of the party attacks Clinton for triangulating on Iraq, but at the end of the day winning requires tacking to the center in a general election. Hillary -- sensible, strong on defense centrist -- will accomplish this far more readily than the extreme liberal Obama. NO WONDER Obama has mostly emphasized unity rhetoric rather than policy! His positions are the LAST thing he wants the media to focus on. Also, Obama puts California into play -- exactly what Democrats don't need this year if we're to play offense instead of defense. Oh, and it's obvious the Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Obama. Anybody see Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ today?

I have a feeling Team Clinton and the media are about to expose The Great Myth of Obama's Electability. My guess is this memo from Obama is a preemptive first strike to get out in front.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 8, 2008 2:32 PM

All I know is teh Clintons have had their turn. America is not some Banana Republic with revolving doors for spouses to take turns at the White House.

Posted by John Rawlings | February 8, 2008 2:37 PM

I'm a lifetime Republican who went to his first political rally in 1984 to hear Reagan speak. Never voted for a Democrat, grew up in an upper middle class home with a bunch of conservatives who absolutely DETEST Hillary. Some of them are a bit ambivalent this year about McCain, but mention Hillary's name, and you'd think a firecracker had gone off in their ass. M, you have NO IDEA what's coming if Hillary's nominated. The only chance she'd have is if McCain was so stupid as to name Huckabee as his VP.

I plan on voting for Obama. However, if Hillary is nominated I'll try very hard to vote twice (against her both times).

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 2:37 PM

TOEM:

And Clinton won handily in California and New York. We could nominate my mouse pad as the Democratic candidate and he/she/it would win those states in a general election.

Your arguments are suspect, at best.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:39 PM

Obama Electability Myth / Clinton Campaign Worker...

Thanks for coming out! And for free, too! That was really nice of you.

Posted by Jen | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM

Here's the problem with your analysis: it misses the point. Every Democrat that has voted of Obama, Edwards or Clinton, will vote for whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is. The question then, is will the independents and Republicans who re-registered as Democrats to vote for Obama vote for Clinton in the fall. All of the polling to date suggest the answer is an emphatic NO.

His message, throughout the primary, has been the same. Methinks he doesn't have to alter a word of it to appeal to independents in the general unlike Clinton and to a lesser extent McCain.

Posted by Keith | February 8, 2008 2:41 PM

I plan on voting for Obama. However, if Hillary is nominated I'll try very hard to vote twice (against her both times).

I strongly feel that Marc is one of MANY voters who feel this way. Case in point: my father. A lifelong Democrat, there is "no way in hell" he'll vote another Clinton into the White House.

Posted by Bridoc10 | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

TOEM, do you honestly think Clinton can win AZ against McCain? Do you honestly think a dem can win TN after Gore failed to carry it in 2000? Do you honestly think a dem can carry deep red OK? Here are the Obama pickups for 2008: IA (+17 vs. McCain post-caucus!!!), CO, MO, VA, NM, OH. Here are states Obama may pick off: NV, FL, NC, KS (+Sebelius), LA, WV. I'd love to discuss what states Clinton can pick up besides probably NM. She has a good shot at OH, FL, MO, and possibly AR. I do not like her states lined up next to Obama's. The key for Dems is not the south, it's the midwest, and midwesterners adore Obama.

Posted by John M | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Obama is STILL for legalizing marijuana? Ouch.

I think its fairly obvious that Obama is going to be painted as the most liberal of liberals if he gets the nomination.

Hilary, on the other hand, has always been seen as someone who hugs the center. Her husband governed from the middle.

Obama's cross over appeal will simply dissapear after a succesfull ad blitz questioning his integrity and painting him as ultra Liberal and out of touch with Americans.

Posted by Jesse | February 8, 2008 2:44 PM

Jesse, you mean *decriminalizing* marijuana, which 72% of Americans now support (2002 Time/CNN poll)? Yes, Obama is still in favor of it. I wish you luck in the general my friend.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 2:50 PM

Hilary, on the other hand, has always been seen as someone who hugs the center

I loved her stance on flag burning. Very relevant!

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 2:51 PM

How do you ObamaNation people explain this?

ABC News
The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel?
Obama's Connection With an Accused Political Fixer Raises Questions

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Jan. 10, 2008

In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

This week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the Rezko trial to begin Feb. 25.

Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer.

Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.

"It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

In the wake of the Rezko indictment, Obama says he has given $44,000 of the Rezko-connected money to charity.

There is no mention of Obama in the Rezko indictment. Federal authorities say the investigation is focused on Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, identified in court filings as Public Figure A.

Posted by Frank | February 8, 2008 2:57 PM

After the failure of polls this year I put zero stock in what they say will happen 9 months from now. I do not believe Hillary is unelectable, even if Obama may have a few points edge at the present time. I too support her to break the bar on women achieving the presidency. I do not believe she is "scandal ridden" ( a ridiculous conclusion on the 90's when the Repubs tried to destroy her and Bill personally, financially, and politically is that she is "scandal ridden") and the more unreasonably arrogant and maddening her critics become the more strongly I seem to feel about her. I am not sure thats healthy but there you are.

I do also believe this is the one chance to elect a woman in my lifetime. With about 20% of people saying they will not vote for a woman no matter whom, with no other potential presidential candidates on the horizon (yes, I know all about Sibelius and other woman governors and I stand by my comment. Did you listen to Sibelius' response to the state of the Union?) people are always going to be torn over a woman. If she cries she is soft, if she tries to act tough she is mannish. Its a hopeless box. The fact that so many women reject her is depressing, but not at all unexpected. In my experience, the most damning criticism of women comes from other women. Sometimes I wonder if women deserve a woman president. African Americans have certainly come together around their man.

I really wish Obama had waited. I like him too but I have been committed to the first woman president for a long time, and the more Obama and his supporters attack the 90's, the 60's, the 70's and Bill Clinton the more aggravated I get with him. If Hillary says anything about him she is accused of all sorts of evil deeds and thoughts. He can waive away 40 years and the very successful Clinton presidency and get a complete pass even though thats not quite how I expected the man of hope and unity to get to be president (joining the Repubs in dissing Bill and the 90's). Moreover, his supporters strike me as largely arrogant, exclusionary (the nasty talk about baby boomers and the "failed politics" of the past 40 years doesnt make me feel included, welcome or accepted at all), not really very progressive at all (the constant threats by supporters to vote for McCain rather than Hillary if she is nominated: a capital crime in my book) and somewhat akin to a mob. I have always stood against the power of the mob because they are usually wrong and always arrogant.

Finally, in terms of electability, if Obama democratic supporters support Hillary if she is nominated, she will win. If they split off and some go for McCain, they were not true progressives anyway, obviously dont give a damn about progressive policies or the Supreme Court, and McCain can have them as far as I am concerned.
I think we will still win.

However, Obama will have my enthusiastic support in the fall if he is the nominee. We MUST have a Dem president. I am just sad that a strong, centered, super smart woman who would be better than her husband may well lose out. Can Obama supporters make the same pledge: that they will enthusiastically support whomever the Dem nominee is for the greater good our our country?

Posted by Jammer | February 8, 2008 3:00 PM

One last quick point: I know many many Republicans. Not a single one of them is even tempted to "crossover" and support Obama. They think he is way too liberal.

Posted by Jammer | February 8, 2008 3:01 PM

The reason for those poll numbers are twofold.

First of all a hatred of the Clintons from the right based on the fact that they are the only ones since Jimmy Carter to beat them in an election.

Secondly, the public doesn't know Obama. The mainstream press, and certain OBAMA PAID BLOGSITES like Drudge and Politico give him a free ride. So, to a large extent have the Clintons in the interest of maintaining party unity.

Everyone wants to believe the self created myth of Obama, and assume that he was found in a basket in the bullrushes just a few months ago.

But the delayed trial of REZKO, CHAIM, and ATA, will eventually proceed.

The public will become aware of the Black Supremist views of Obama's mentor Jeremiah Wright Jr. and the Trinity United Church.

The public will begin to ask about his maternal grandmother Maddie Dunham, who won't talk about (or to) the grandson she raised.

Perhaps they will wonder why the sweet old African "grandmother" the campaign provided for PR purposes, is not related to Obama except by virtue of being another wife to his grandfather who took over care of the children when Obama's biological grandmother left the family to become a prostitute in Nairobi.

Perhaps they will get information from the American woman Barack Obama Sr. took back to Kenya with him after abandoning his first American family. That woman, Ruth Atkins eventually left him because he beat her constantly. Perhaps they will find out that Barack Obama Sr., the "Dream Father" left a young wife and his child in Kenya before he ever came to America, and returned to them with a new "wife" some 5 years later.

Perhaps the fact that Obama Sr. was a bitter drunk who never even asked about Ann Dunham or his son after he returned to Africa and before he died in an intoxicated car crash. One of many he had, which previously cost him both his legs from the knee down, and various other afflictions.

Perhaps the machete weilding Luo youths wearing Barack Obama/Raila Odinga T shirts, who are slaughtering Kikuya countrymen in Kenya, and have driven 200,000 from their homes will come to light.

Perhaps the fact that Obama supported Odinga in Africa, hosted him in America, and sent political hitman Dick Morris to manage his election campaign will come to light.

Perhaps the "Million Person March" Odinga wanted to hold in Nairobi will be traced to Black Supremist Louis (X) Farrakhan, via Jeremiah Wright who honored him as an outstanding American recently, and Obama, Wright's protege.

Perhaps the refusal of the suburban Chicago police force to release an artist composite drawing of the African American who cold bloodedly executed 5 women in a South Side mall (even though they had exact description from a surviving victim), will be traced back to political pressure due to the fact that it happend just a few days before Super Tuesday. Major news outlets declined to even mention the race of the suspect WHO IS STILL AT LARGE and a threat to kill again.

Perhaps the fact that Obama thinks Canada elects a "President" as it's head of government will come to light. Maybe someone should ask him if he knows where Canada is on a map.

Perhaps the fact that he CAN'T EVEN PUSH THE RIGHT BUTTON when voting in the Senate will get a little more attention.

Certainly the Republicans will be all over this stuff to an exponentially greater degree than Obama's Democratic rivals have been.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:05 PM

i thought obama said he wasn't a poll-driven candidate? so much for that.

Posted by jose | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

The Chicago media has been extremely aggressive about searching for evidence of any favors done for Rezko by Obama. They have found nothing. Let me repeat, there have been no illegal transactions between Rezko and Obama, and nothing borderline shady except the house purchase. The various financials of the purchase are explained quite well by the article. Obama, who had dinner with Rezko perhaps twice a year as he was an important cog in the political machine, mentioned his difficulty in purchasing the house and lot to Rezko, and Rezko expressed interest in purchasing the lot next to the house. Was it "boneheaded" to decide to go forward with the transaction without learning more about Rezko's brewing legal troubles? Absolutely. Did it compound the error to later purchase part of Rezko's undeveloped lot at above a fair market price? Yes. But from this vantage point it sure looks like a single stupid decision to me. Compare it to Clinton's extensive scandal sheet or list of 17 seedy donors published in TNR, or to McCain's Keating Five role and flip-flopping on Bush positions and he looks like a veritable saint.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

Sure, Jammer. A left wing, reactionary wacko like you hangs around hordes of conservative Republicans I bet. What a joke.

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

"Reality check" for Teresa and others like her: I went to an all women's school, I've lead 'down with the patriarchy' chants, and I am NOT voting for Clinton. I am happy that she's running but I am convinced that an Obama presidency would bring a much better world for women in this country and woman elsewhere than a Clinton presidency would. If anything, the war-mongering and behind closed door, insider politics that Hillary Clinton has been a part of represents the worst of the partiarchy.

So don't pretend to speak on behalf of "the sisterhood". Hillary Clinton's campaign is not the campaign of feminism. And if you, Erica Jong, and Gloria Steinham keep trying to portray it as such, and cut women and men who support other candidates out of the feminist movement than you are hurting, not helping the cause of feminism.

Posted by former Deaniac | February 8, 2008 3:09 PM

Clinton's campaign is running behind Obama in all the states before March 4. Commenting on ad spending Howard Wolfson said, “I do not anticipate he will have any significant advantage in the March 4 states.” Okay, but 8 states, DC and the Virgin Islands vote before then. According to polls released today Obama is 15-20 points ahead in Virgina, a state her campaign said as late as yesterday it has a chance of winning. Clinton's campaign bought ad time too late in the contests through Feb. 12 to do anything but keep Obama's victory margins down a little.

I don't understand the anger surrounding Obama performing better versus McCain. At the end of the day, as a Democrat, I want the strongest candidate who can win in the fall. For right now however Obama has empirical data he can cite as to why he can win in November and Clinton does not.

Posted by Ben | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM

"Clinton did better Tuesday in purple state, up for grabs areas where the conditions most closely resembled a general election (that is, primaries instead of caucuses). In Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona and Arkansas, Clinton went 4 for 5, and Obama squeaked by in Missouri."

I love how (to a Clinton supporter) TN, OK, AZ, and AR are 'purple' but Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Delaware aren't.

Posted by BobP | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM

People don't trust Hillary

People trust Obama......

So don't get too hung up on policy details.

Policy means nothing if you don't trust the person speaking it. And they are very similar on policy.

Obama has more integrity than Clinton....Unless Hillary can undo that... She will be beat.

Further Hillary would have no credibility arguing the war against Mccain....Obama would

Posted by lubetkin | February 8, 2008 3:12 PM

It seems likely that a series backroom deals would favor the Clinton machine. However the better argument should be made that Obama is much more electable than Clinton, given the crucial Independent vote and his high performance in swing states and the South. However, the Clinton’s are established. For instance, they are apart of the DLC, a corrupt faction of the Democratic Party that accepts money from special interest groups and questionable organizations. The DLC strongly supported the Iraq war and NAFTA. Obama refused to join. Are they trying to gain more power by placing Hillary in the Oval Office. Make no mistake about it; the Democratic Party is suffering. What is odd is that if Barack Obama is elected, he will not only defeat McCain, but restore the courageous courageous ideals that drew people to the party in the first place.

Many people recognize Obama as something rare that most citizens never get to see, a president that can get the people to take part in steering this nation. He is a movement that could possibly change the course of this country for the better. He would easily be the front-runner if not for dirty tactics and an overall fear that the American people may actually have a say in this process. By giving away the election to a corrupt figure such as Hillary Clinton, people will understand that their party sold them out. Without the party having the courage to move forward with vision and integery, will they end up pounding the final nail into their coffin? Are we to stay in Iraq for many more years? The question is, where will the Obama supporters go who are not married to party lines? The implications may go a lot farther than throwing a vote to McCain.

Posted by Jess | February 8, 2008 3:12 PM

The Chicago media has been extremely aggressive about searching for evidence of any favors done for Rezko by Obama. They have found nothing.

Too bad the same can't be said about the Clinton's and Norman Hsu and Marc Rich. I laugh every time some Clinton wacko starts down the path of accusing others of dealings with shady characters. I heard Bill had a nice vacation recently in Kazakhstan. See how easy it is? And I'm barely trying!!

Posted by Marc | February 8, 2008 3:13 PM

I realize I am troll-feeding, but this is directed to Robert Ethan:SHOULD'T YOU BE OUT ON A LEDGE SOMEWHERE?

Posted by bougie | February 8, 2008 3:15 PM

First, a disclaimer - I'm a Republican supporter of McCain.

No matter what kind of dirt gets dug up on Obama, no matter what kind of liberal brush he gets painted with, he will NOT evoke the kind of response by the right (and parts of the middle) that Clinton does.

As a McCain supporter, I think that his best chance of winning in November is to run against Clinton. I also think that he doesn't have a very good chance to beat Obama. I *still* want Obama to win the primaries, just so Clinton doesn't become president.

As another measure of why Obama has a better chance than Clinton - I dislike Huckabee tremendously. If Huckabee were to somehow become the nominee, I would seriously consider not voting if he was running against Obama. If he was running against Clinton, I would vote for Huckabee in a heartbeat. Heck, I would vote for Buchanan before I voted for Clinton. Much of the far-right of the party feels the same way about McCain. They don't like him, but they'll hold their nose and pull the lever for him just to keep Clinton out of the white house.

Posted by Christian Buhl | February 8, 2008 3:18 PM

robert ethan is a hairless, odorless dwarf who lives in northeastern Minnesota. He's been banned from many a blog as well as quite a few public restrooms. he truly is a legend.

Posted by robert ethan rocks! | February 8, 2008 3:20 PM

I've noticed an interesting phenomena and coincidence...many supporters of Billary tend to filibuster about rubbish on blogs just as Hillary tends to filibuster about rubbish well past her allotted time in debates. Pure chance? I think not!

Posted by Ken Starr | February 8, 2008 3:24 PM

The rumors are that Obama's cousin and "long time friend" Raila Odinga is among the 5 Kenyan politicians denied visas by the U.S. for to "inciting violence" in Kenya.

U.S. envoy J. Frazer is also pressing for an international tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of violence in that county.

Great stuff for the Repubs if Obama's blood relative ends up being prosecuted for war crimes, with photos of the two of them together floating around the Internet.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Jammer, I will strongly support Clinton if she is the nominee as well. I prefer Obama because I deeply believe that he is simultaneously more electable and more liberal and that "better than her husband," though true, just isn't good enough given the situation we face right now. A smarter, more competent, less sleazy, less charismatic Bill Clinton with exceptionally high negatives is not going to shake the nation out of its funk and lead it forward into the 21st century. And in passing I'll mention that Sebelius's SOTU response was pretty flat but in no way poor. She does much better in front of crowds and really, really well in the interviews I've seen. She hasn't gotten much play outside of KS and was clearly uncomfortable with the format. I believe it's nothing a little experience can't cure. I think her ludicrously high favorables and ability to win KS crushingly without abandoning any core democratic principles speaks extremely highly of her.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM

robert: is it true that you're a hairless dwarf in northeastern mn?

Posted by Jose | February 8, 2008 3:26 PM

Forget the independents. I voted for Obama in Colorado. I will vote for John McCain against Hillary a 1000 times. I do not need polls to know that most of my friends who voted for Obama will vote McCain.
Good luck DNC. You are the party of missed opportunities. You will find a way to mess this one up.

Posted by Alan | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM

Charlie Cook addressed the subject on POTUS 08 today. He see no difference today between Clinton and Obama against McCain, although he think Clinton has a lower ceiling and a higher floor and that Obama is a riskier candidate.

In my mind Obama is a general election disaster.

His weakness among older voters, Latino voters, and Jewish voters are gaps he has not shown he can close. He will not win FL.

He won't flip NV, CO, AZ, or NM as Democrats hoped to do.

He may have problems with working class white in PA and OH.

At the end of the day he will just look light as a feather standing next to McCain on issues of national defense and security. It will doom Obama.

Plus lets just lay it on the line. A lot of Americans will not vote for an African AMerican for President. The white guy will win.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu1q9MI4JTHR_27gg8FtQ6zvvFSwD8ULV7300

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 3:30 PM

Jammer, I will strongly support Clinton if she is the nominee as well. I prefer Obama because I deeply believe that he is simultaneously more electable and more liberal and that "better than her husband," though true, just isn't good enough given the situation we face right now. A smarter, more competent, less sleazy, less charismatic Bill Clinton with exceptionally high negatives is not going to shake the nation out of its funk and lead it forward into the 21st century. And in passing I'll mention that Sebelius's SOTU response was pretty flat but in no way poor. She does much better in front of crowds and really, really well in the interviews I've seen. She hasn't gotten much play outside of KS and was clearly uncomfortable with the format. I believe it's nothing a little experience can't cure. I think her exceptionally high, continuously rising favorables and ability to win KS crushingly without abandoning any core democratic principles speaks extremely highly of her.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:31 PM

In my mind Obama is a general election disaster

And we know what a feeble mind you possess, Dick Head Flatts.

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 3:32 PM

I cannot understand how people can think that hillary's phony centrism, her triangulation, will help her in the general election.

Why did Kerry lose to Bush in 2004? Because when the Democratic candidate acts like a Republican, why not go for the real thing? (and because Kerry, like Clinton, was unable to connect with people at a personal level and appeared untrustworthy and a flipflopper).

The same thing happened in 2000.

Bill Clinton invented triangulation, but he would never have won without Ross Perot... and he only beat Dole because Dole was a terrible candidate.

Hillary will be accused of flip-flopping on Iraq. People will think "I disagree with McCain on the war, but at least I know here were stand."

Obama can't be accused of flip-flopping because he publicly spoke out against the war before we went in (despite the potential damage to his political career if the war had been a success).

The main thing to consider, however, is that Obama touches people in a way we have never seen before. I was at an Obama rally in Manchester, New Hampshire and Chris Mathews (who was also at that same rally) was telling the truth when he said that if you go to an Obama rally and don't cry, you're not an American. I would say you're not even human.

The election is not a ware, a battle, or a boxing match. It's not about who is bigger, meaner, plays dirtier, or hates the other side more. It's a popularity contest.

Historically, the more charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins. without fail. consistantly. Think about it. Look back at every election in American history. The more charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins.

Posted by DB | February 8, 2008 3:32 PM

Also do not forget. Obama has had 2 months of press like no pol has ever seen in his life. It was a national media love fest. Only Hannah Montana got better coverage.

That is already ending as the race lengthens and it becomes more of a process story. Not to mention the media likes McCain too.

So Obama is doing well now because of all that hype. How will those numbers hold up? Probably won't.

Clinton on the other hand had 2 months of hellish press which seemes to be reversing. She was beating McCain last fall and into Nov., Dec. I suspect she could easily return to those numbers soon enough.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:33 PM

Lets not refer to any of the candidates as bulletproof just for today out of respect for the Kirkwood, Missouri City Council.

Let's tamp down on the rancor. One of these two (if not both) will be on the Dems ticket and we'll need to rally around them. They are both good, they both have flaws, they are both extraordinary Americans. Lucky us.

PS. You can't even guess who I'm rooting for but I'll tell you. I'm backing the US of A all the way.

Posted by MB | February 8, 2008 3:35 PM

Last note:

Obama's friend - the man he said he "saw socially on occasion" - Tony Rezko's trial starts on Feb 25, 2008.

The Sun-Times reports Obama is the "unnamed political candidate" mentioned in the indictment.

So come the end of Feb Obama has headaches and his challengers have all the ammo they want.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM

Only Hannah Montana got better coverage.

And given your pedophiliac tendencies, no doubt a subject you're well acquainted with.

Posted by James Dobson | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM

Last note:

Promise?

Posted by Chris Crocker | February 8, 2008 3:37 PM

James Dobson ... really classy comment there bub. Can't argue with substance so you accuse me of crap.

NICE.

I find most Obama supporters tend to be arrogant and childish. I assume you are one.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:39 PM

Dickie,

1) Can't carry CO? Did you *look* at what happened there Feb. 5? Did you see how he dominated both the urban and rural vote? Did you read anything about the extreme enthusiasm?
2) Can't carry NM? Either candidate will carry NM. Last I checked btw it was a 1000-vote margin with 17000 provisional votes out that are likely to favor Obama.
3) Latino voters. A bunch of analyses have been done that suggest it was mostly Clinton's locking up the Latino machinery in CA early that gave her her margin. Obama's much better results in other states support that theory. He won Latinos in IL, proving that as that group gets to know him they come to like him. I cannot say the same of Clinton for the youth vote or independents in NY. Obama just needs to cozy up to Villaraigosa and play up his support for *eventual* driver's licenses for illegals.
4) FL. I see Clinton's margin as nothing more than a result of name recognition. Look how fast Obama closed in the last 2 weeks in other states when he was able to actually reach them. I have yet to see a convincing argument that she would run better in FL than Kerry in '04.
5) AZ. McCain is the nominee, AZ will not be flipped period.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:42 PM

Fact: Republicans Can't stand Hillary, and she improves republican turnout and fundraising
Fact: Independents don't vote for her
Fact: You need independents to win
Fact: McCain is the best republican candidate in the eyes of independents, and does well with independents against hillary
Fact: Mccain Loses his edge against independents if he is matched against Obama, as they prefer him
Fact: Obama is increasing turnout, and moderate republicans are voting for him.

Who has the better chance to win?
Who has the only chance to lose?

You can vote with your emotions and argue for Clinton, but the facts are clear. Clinton is a disaster in the general, and could actually lose. Remember, she is not Bill. I'd love to have a woman president, but not her, at least not now, because she polarizes, which makes a close, nasty general election. Obama wins in a landslide, and the country can unite behind him and move on...

Posted by William | February 8, 2008 3:44 PM

Dickie, here's a full paragraph from the "unnamed political candidate" story: "The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating."

Do you ever get tired of lying and distorting? It looks exhausting. Back in the day this sort of crap might have stuck, but thanks to the internet I can show what a fool you are in less than a minute.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:46 PM

Dickie Flatts, despite his accusing others of being "childish and arrogant" is a consistent Clinton shill, distorting facts, outright lying, name calling, etc. The guy seems unhinged, frankly.

Posted by Nelly | February 8, 2008 3:51 PM

Isn't it obvious that the White House spokesperson would NOT be saying that Obama was more difficult for the Republicans to beat IF THAT WERE TRUE!!! You've got to be really naive to think the rationale for saying this isn't actually the EXACT OPPOSITE! The Republicans have been enabling the Obama nomination precisely because they know they will be able to devastate his "glass jaw" and his lack of proved handling of terrorism, etc.as too much of a risk in these times. Then there's going to be the leader of his "afro-centric church", support of Louis Farrakan, etc. etc....and some likely "orange alerts" at the convenient times. Everyone knows that Clinton would not be suseptible to such threats and the growing fears the Republicans will most assuredly instill into the population at having multiple wars being handled by a novice.

Posted by Mayo | February 8, 2008 3:51 PM

John M:

Newsflash. All states are blue states in a Democratic primary season. Democrats win Democratic primaries and Democratic caucues all of the time ... 100% to be exact.

If he underperforms among Latinos he isn't going to flip CO. Nor will he flip NV, AZ or NM.

As for Latinos, I am not making up the brown - black divide. There are friggin' books written on the subject and unlike IL's primary, Obama isn't going to have years to win these voters over and favored son status. Not to mention IL was not exactly contested.

McCain knows how to work with Latinos being from the west. He will also be able to gain some good will from his attempt, with Ted Kennedy, to reform immigration. Many Latino small business owners are receptive to lowering taxes. McCain can gain similar support as Bush. Meaning the west could hold for Republicans like it did under Bush.

As for FL. Obama's problems are not just with latinos. They are with older votes. He has put "all options on the table" with regard to social security, and his generational talk (ragging on the 60s for instance) doesn't help him either. His problems extend to Jewish voters who have problems with Obama. McCain will so well with these voters on his hawkish stance in the Middle East. Lastly the Cubans will vote for Obama in smaller numbers than they did for Kerry. Obama promising to meet Castro is a loser. Obama can't win FL.

Posted by Dickieflatts | February 8, 2008 3:52 PM

Nelly, agreed. I wonder if it's even worth responding to them, but I feel like it's valuable to collect the obvious, basic counterarguments to their lies in a single place.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:53 PM

I kind of feel sorry for the Clinton's. There caught in the middle between the Republicans (who have played dirty ROvian politics and a perceived saint, Obama)If they try to get into a Rovian style battle with Obama, saying things like false hope or misquoting him it backfires against them. However they had to defend themselves all during the 1990's against the republicans using these same tactics from a defensive posture. At this point If they really wanted to help the country, I think they should step aside and allow the healing process to occur with Obama. I think thats the only way this type of Rovian Politics/status quo since 1980's will die.

Posted by Emanuel | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Mayo: Nice use of logic. You also seem to be overly fond of parenthesis.

How old are you? Let me guess...15?

Posted by Bill L | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

John, where did I lie? I didn't say Obama was accused of anything in regard to the Rezko affair. Not accused of anything YET anyway.

You never know what will come out at trial. Plus it is well documented that Fitz is famous for working from the bottom up to use the little guys to take down the pols.

So who knows.

If nothing else it exposes Obama has someone who has social ties to a sleazy indicted criminal. That isn't very "different" of Barry Obama, and sort of flys in the face of his no skeletons in the closet pledge.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM

Mayo, you should go over to the Republican blogs (start with townhall.com), go back into the archives a bit, and see the exact same case being made in favor of Romney a few weeks ago. They were absolutely CONVINCED that Democrats were saying "Romney lol" because we thought he would be tough to beat in a general and we are a obviously a unified machine capable of intricate spin. Republican pundits as a group simply do not have the degree of message control that you attribute to them.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM

For all you Clinton supporters talking about the Rezko connection, let me ask one question. Do you really want to talk about shady connections? Hsu, Marc Rich, Denise Rich, Peter Paul. Should I go on?

There haven't been any illegal ties from Rezko to Obama, period. Maybe everyone should see "Hillary: The Movie" and then make their decision. Oh, let me guess, that is all a bunch of BS, right? Anyone of you can go to http://youtube.com and search for Hillary The Movie and see clips pertaining to this documentary.

Now, if we want to continue this talk about shady connections, then please, let's do. If you don't, then shut the hell up.

Posted by Darrell Elliott | February 8, 2008 4:02 PM

Dickie, you know that was an incredible distortion. You must be a troll, because no sane human being would enjoy distorting the truth enough to do it all day as I see you do all over the blogs. Uh oh, Obama is the "unnamed political candidate" in the Rezko trial that's starting! Oh wait, he's mentioned in one paragraph as one recipient of Rezko's ill-gotten money and there's nothing that suggests he did anything wrong or had any idea what was going on. You were massively shading the truth of the situation through incomplete information and you damn well know it.

Posted by John M. | February 8, 2008 4:03 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184952,CST-NWS-obama24.article

Posted by Pago | February 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Didn't Clinton's co-chair take money from Rezko? Face it, if your in politics, sometimes people get money and then they do something stupid. It happens to everyone.

We don't need more Clintons,

"Clinton (Bill) is just a mushy-mouthed
treacherous politician who’s given sex a bad name." -H