CJ, I second the motion.  since chuck and mark have taken over this blog, I have seen a definite move to the right on reporting, subject matter, etc.  It is no longer as middle of the road as when I first started reading and writing here.  I would like to read more on the candidates' positions, not their one-liners.  

Carrie - Thanks for your post. As much as it must pain you to defend our dear friend crazy jerry your point is right on. I hope we don't get to the point where we can't comment on politics because we aren't and haven't been politicians. Or another way to think about it is I can only comment on issues pertaining to married white males who are under 30 and middle class and majored in history and economics in college and are employed in the finance industry. I'm sure imposing those restrictions on myself would make most people on this blog happy. However, if everyone applied that line of thinking to themselves this site would suck. Thanks again for your excellent point.

Clinton Seeks Low-Dollar Fundraisers
20 Aug 2007 10:25 am

Not content with ceding the title of grassroots fundraising champion to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's campaign is harvesting for thousands of new smaller donors.

This week, the campaign's direct mail team will ask tens of thousands of Clinton contributors across the country to find ten of their friends who can contribute $10 each to the campaign.

In a letter accompanying the fundraising appeal, Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe says the "10 for 10 Program will showcase just how much support Hillary has across the country[.]

McAullife continues:

During the next stage of the campaign we need to not only continue to build our resources, but also engage and energize the broad base of supporters Hillary has across the country – and we need your help to do it.
The tiny sums involved suggest that the campaign wants to boost the numbers of contributors it can brag about. When Obama's campaign said it had recieved money from 258,000 donors through the end of June, Clinton's campaign was quick to point out that Obama occasionally charged entrance fees for large events, like a thousand person crowd in Minneapolis, and counted the proceeds of the sale of campaign paraphernalia as donations. But they were envious, too: advisers conceded that the breadth of Obama's support made it harder for Clinton to argue that her presidential bid was worth the investment of the party's grassroots.

Through the end of March, Clinton received money from approximately 60,000 contributors. Her tally through the end of June is not known.

Still won't tell anyone how "FEW" people are willing to give their money to her.  LOL.  Maybe if she ask for $1.00 they might pony up.  Hey Van send your "GIRL" some cash so she can stop begging.  Where are all of those 1,0000,000 supporters she has been touting. LOL  Guess they don't support her that much.  "TALK IS CHEAP" (polls).

Off topic but I got this from the "Clicked" column.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298840/site/newsweek/
We all must smile and look content when at the airport. Bush now has special homeland security agents trained to detect micro facial expressions of fear or disgust and pull aside those for further scrutiny. This will be tough to do since the Bush regime engenders fear and disgust.

"Just put on a happy face" -- Bye Bye Birdie sountrack

vanreuter, NY NY / I wish someone would post the real numbers on who's taking money from the lobbyists and pacs, judging from your post I suppose I will have to wait

Perhaps it is time for those of us who are serious about our politics to band together and question those whose opinions we previously have valued and respected. I am referring both to Mr. Todd's comments yesterday and this morning on MSNBC. Give us objective commentary or we won't listen anymore. Clearly, you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth, Mr. Todd.

Mitchell don't waste your time trading polls or numbers with Van, as a Hillary operative they keep numbers that bolster the image they want to produce at their finger tips.  What they don't have is PEOPLE.   I'll trade polls any day for people who are willing to give their MONEY and their time.  These people are committed.  Obama current has almost 3 times the number of donors as Clinton.  Look closely at the polls and you will see the number of people survyed in most is around 450-500.  They don't highlight that fact.  That is a meaningless number of people.

Doris, NC (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 12:04 PM)


I post ALL the poll numbers, and the links to the source. I have posted the candidates financial data, from opensecrets.com amd the Federal Elections Commission, which someone foolishly claims are Clinton websites. They shall remain nameless.

The information is there for anyone who wants to read it. I am no more a Clinton operative than the Obama supporters here are operatives for his campaign.
Those with an open mind will read the source material and form their own opinions.

Van

Vanreuter:
What are Hillary's negative numbers ??
I think that would be significant in any poll.

It's no accident that Karl Rove is taking shots at Hillary.......
She's the Republicans IDEAL candidate !!
(as well as the favored corporate candidate)
She'll lose and bring down the Democratic Congressional majorities with her.

Hillary Clinton
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and shamelessness !!

PS:
Vanreuter, want the T shirt ?

"vanreuter, NY NY / I wish someone would post the real numbers on who's taking money from the lobbyists and pacs, judging from your post I suppose I will have to wait

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 12:35 PM)



You don't believe the Federal Election Commission's statistics?

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

I don't want to call you an idiot, but where would YOU suggest we go to find the candidate's financial information?

Anyone with eyes and a brain can verify the figures I post, as they are copied DIRECTLY from the source. If you had both of the necessary prerequisites, you could too. Here they are again;

Most of Clinton's money comes from finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists Most of Obama's money comes from, (surprise) finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists, Most of Edwards money comes from; Lawyers and lobbyists.



Finance isnurance re

Clinton, $7,781,040

Obama,$6,717,962

Edwards,$1,661,100

Lawyers and lobbyists

Clinton, $6,582,595

Obama,$5,636,443

Edwards,$6,559,042

Misc. Business interests;



Clinton, $5,184,947

Obama,$4,105,528

Edwards, $877,601



Lawyers and lobbyists make up 10.4% of Clinton's, 9.567% of Obama's and, TWENTY-EIGHT point 32 percent for EDWARDS! contributions

here are the sources;

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

Anyone casting doubt on these two sources eliminates themselves from any reasonable discussion. Would that be you, MK MO?


Van

Carrie: "That's like saying you can't comment on what Congress does unless you have been a Member of Congress...which is a ridiculous proposition."

Carrie: It's as ridiculous as saying you're not 'experienced' enough to be President unless you've been a Washington insider for years !!  
Only DC hacks are qualified to be President ??

Clinton Seeks Low-Dollar Fundraisers
20 Aug 2007 10:25 am

Not content with ceding the title of grassroots fundraising champion to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's campaign is harvesting for thousands of new smaller donors.

This week, the campaign's direct mail team will ask tens of thousands of Clinton contributors across the country to find ten of their friends who can contribute $10 each to the campaign.

In a letter accompanying the fundraising appeal, Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe says the "10 for 10 Program will showcase just how much support Hillary has across the country[.]

McAullife continues:

During the next stage of the campaign we need to not only continue to build our resources, but also engage and energize the broad base of supporters Hillary has across the country – and we need your help to do it.
The tiny sums involved suggest that the campaign wants to boost the numbers of contributors it can brag about. When Obama's campaign said it had recieved money from 258,000 donors through the end of June, Clinton's campaign was quick to point out that Obama occasionally charged entrance fees for large events, like a thousand person crowd in Minneapolis, and counted the proceeds of the sale of campaign paraphernalia as donations. But they were envious, too: advisers conceded that the breadth of Obama's support made it harder for Clinton to argue that her presidential bid was worth the investment of the party's grassroots.

Through the end of March, Clinton received money from approximately 60,000 contributors. Her tally through the end of June is not known.

Still won't tell anyone how "FEW" people are willing to give their money to her.  LOL.  Maybe if she ask for $1.00 they might pony up.  Hey Van send your "GIRL" some cash so she can stop begging.  Where are all of those 1,0000,000 supporters she has been touting. LOL  Guess they don't support her that much.  "TALK IS CHEAP" (polls).

Short of martial law being imposed in a "national emergency" (even money right now in Vegas), Either Obama or Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.  We can either repeat the incredible lunacy of NOW in 1980 and run an ABC campaign (Anybody But Clinton or Obama [Carter in 1980]) and get another troglodyte Bonzo for 8-16 years or we can play the hand we have and at least we block the anti-Christ right wing from spitting on the flag again.  This is reality... take it... or leave it.

Sierra, $26.95 for a t-shirt!!! I wouldn't even buy a Hillary shirt for that price. I'm afraid all the buyers, the very wealthy republicans, will also be your only fans.

According to ABC News online poll, Dennis Kucinich was the winner. Here is the results.

Who do you think won the Democratic debate?
Dennis Kucinich 8,905
Barack Obama 7,524
Hillary Clinton 4,898
Joe Biden 3,069
John Edwards 2,819
Nobody won. I'm voting Republican. 1,334
Bill Richardson 930
Nobody won. I'm waiting for Al Gore to get in the race. 924
Mike Gravel 854
Chris Dodd 185
Total Vote: 31,442
Not a scientific survey.
ABCNews.go.com

Barack Obama has ZERO foreign policy experience.  Did you hear that? ZERO.  
The idea that anyone would consider him at this time in our history is frightening.  
How can he get foreign policy experience?  As Biden's VP.

Biden/Obama 08
Today, Tomorrow, Together

Ryan - It's good to see you around these parts.  Whether we agree or not, I always value your opinion because you are capable of stating it in clear, respectful terms.  Welcome back...I hope!

Van, you are the greatest, keep it up!

Van-My sons and I think you are the coolest. go Hillary!

Wow lookie here it's Gonzo-Gate Mania. Who can keep track of "all" of the lies ? Alberto ? George ? Take a "guess" and win a prize.

It's Gonzo-Mania, join in the fun.

vanreuter:
Hillary 2 Securities & Investment $3,030,400
       4 Real Estate $2,550,690

Does this explain why Hillary is proposing to bail out predatory lenders ?
Her campaign contributors 'pay to play', now she's supporting predatory lenders.
Hillary didn't propose helping those cheated by her campaign contributors.
Interesting .....

Hillary, YOU GO AWAY, GIRL !!
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and political polarization

Paul, OH, Nice post, but JFK was 42 when he was inaugurated. the yougest president inaugurated

On Favorable/Unfavorable ratings;

From 10/31/2004; As in many national elections, the two candidates usually go in to the last few days of the contest with almost 50/50 fav/unfav ratings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6367631/site/newsweek/

That’s clear in the new NEWSWEEK poll. The president’s approval rating remains unchanged from last week at 46 percent. A majority of Americans are still dissatisfied with the direction of the country: 56 percent, the same as last week. Yet Bush’s support number has increased by two or three points and his margin over Kerry by four or five points. Why? One clue may lie in the candidate’s favorability ratings. Overall, 52 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Bush, 43 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. Last week 50 percent were favorable and 47 percent were unfavorable. The favorables beat the unfavorables by nine points this week, last week they only outnumbered them by three points.

Kerry has seen exactly the opposite shift. His favorable/unfavorable ratings are 47 percent favorable and 46 percent unfavorable this week, basically even. Last week, his favorability rating was 50 percent and his unfavorable 45 percent."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour////shields&gigot/december00/sg_12-8.html



http://www.slate.com/id/89619/



Current F/U numbers for the top 3



Clinton 45/54

Edwards 49/46

Obama 47/45

All three leading democratic candidates have unfavorable numbers over 45%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

It won't be any different this time. It is only a real issue to those who have no knowledge of the history of Presidential elections.

Some folks here post the same opinions and contentions even after they have been exposed by the factual evidence. No matter how many times you repeat something, if it has no basis in fact, it has no basis in fact.

As those who are truly seeking knowledge to base their decisions on in this campaign season have the opportunity to review the facts on the candidates, they will learn which sources are credible, and which are not when they read the posts on this board.

Van

DID SOME ONE SAY G O N Z O  -- G A T E  ?

I WANT A JOB WITH THE GAVERMENT SO THAT I TO CAN LIE AND CHEAT! SOUNDS LIKE FUN. IS KARL ROVE'S JOB AVAILABLE ?

Obama didn't gaffe on the Iraqi constitution, you guys just don't understand what he said.  Biden is for U.S. imposition of a loose federation of Shiastan, Kurdistan, and Sunnistan with a weak central govt.  Obama is basically for the same thing, and gave Biden credit for the idea, but he wants to let the Iraqi constitution be the guide, not the strong arm of the U.S.  If we force it on them it'll be seen as illigetimate.

I SAID GONZO-GATE, CAUS IT'S  NOT GOING TO GO FRIGHIN'AWAY ! Hi Alberto !

Barack Obama


Securities & Investment
$3,352,534


Real Estate
$1,362,208

Obama,  $4,714,742 (8.0%)
Clinton $5,581,090 (8.8%)

percentage of total contributions;

Does this explain why Barack is proposing to bail out predatory lenders ?
His campaign contributors 'pay to play', now he's supporting predatory lenders.
Obama didn't propose helping those cheated by her campaign contributors.
Interesting .....
It would be just as stupid if someone tried to pull this crap on Senator Obama, and just as wrong.

What is interesting is that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two, yet some think that they can selectively use the numbers to attack one candidate. That's just more dishonesty, from a person whose irrational hateful and biased posts regularly pollute the discussion here.

Once again, the information is there for those who wish to learn. The information itself is unbiased. You can see how a person with an ax to grind will try to   use the numbers in an unscrupulous and dishonest way.
Use you own eyes and your own intelligence, and you too will find the people who do this kind of thing, irrelevant.

Van

If I can not comment on the military because I have never been in the military, then:

-men can't comment on abortion
-straight people can not comment on gay couples
-Republicans can't comment on honesty.

Let's make a deal if you want to be that way.

wonder if that includes the house the Clinton's are building in the Dominican republic.....

$26.95????  Hmmmm, bet I can do it for $6.00 a shirt and sell them for $13, double my profit.  

BROAD INDUSTRY numbers as to where contributions come from mean NOTHING.  There are plenty of people in low and medium income jobs in every industry.  Whether it is a receptionist or a cook they are lumped in with Lobbyist for the Industry.

VAn...like everyone involved with the Clinton campaign uses smoke and mirrors to obscure the truth.

I will agree with him on this point,  Stop and Think, when you hear the spin espicially  spin that  is contorted with numbers.  Hillary has "very little " small donor support.  Roughly 4K people.  A better question to analyze is what percentage is that of all people giving (she has very few contributors maybe 100K).  What is that less than 10%.  If so WHO makes up the other 90%. Forget the Industry.  This information won't tell you that.  What do they do for a living ?  She admits that she takes money from Federal Lobbyist, what percentage comes from them, what Industries do they represent?  Bet she won't disclose that little GEM, you'll have to dig much deeper to find that out.

On negative numbers - there's a theory well known among campaign strategists called the Reagan effect.

It basically says that negatives 45 and under are great. When numbers get into the 46-47 range, the candidate starts to gain vulnerability. At 48 and above, the candidate is unelectable.

The difference between 45 and 48 seems small, but under consistent polling techniques, from what I've read in Campaigns and Elections Magazine, its significant. Negatives don't have the volatility that head to head polling often does. And negatives rarely go down.

Thinking about it mathematically, consider a candidate with negatives of 46 against a candidate with negatives of 48. There's probably some overlap of people who hold those views, but for modeling simplicity, let's say there isn't. This means roughly 6 percent are truly up for grabs.

The candidate with negatives at 48 has to win more than two-thirds of those truly swing voters. As any political analyst will tell you, that's a daunting task to say the least. Not mathematically impossible, but nearly practically impossible.

There seems to be some deviation in how some current polls are coming up with their numbers. I saw one in which Clinton's negatives were down at 36. That same poll had Obama's negatives at 20. These simply are unbelievable numbers. Even a popular, likable candidate who is well known would be higher than 36 through party identification alone, and as for the 20 figure, its ludicrous.

Clinton's negatives have consistently been at 48 in polls I've seen. Van cites a poll above in which Clinton's "unfavorables" are at 54, and I assume its presented as those "unfavorables" are exactly synonamous with "negatives." Not sure that's true, and I have no idea why he cites these numbers as they would be extraordinarily damaging to Clinton if believable. They're not. I can imagine her negatives climbing up to the 49 level, but I can't imagine even her pulling negatives at 54 - those are Barry Bonds or Michael Vick type numbers.

Clinton's two-fold challenge is 1) to lower real negatives below 48 and 2) to convince people that a 48 number doesn't mean what it means. Thus far I haven't seen numbers under 48 - maybe they are out there, but I haven't seen them. She's done quite well insulating her supporters and the media that 48 is acceptable, though the question is coming up more and more often, and will continue to as we move closer to the Iowa Caucus.

Only from the Clinton News Network.....

Newsday
Les Payne
August 12, 2007   Senator Clinton, are you black enough?

The question usually aimed at her darker opponent from Chicago triggered a burst of laughter from Hillary Rodham Clinton. She recovered from the barb and proceeded by not answering it.

This campaign moment occurred Thursday before the Las Vegas convention crowd of the National Association of Black Journalists. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux pinned back the former First Lady to explain how she could "sustain black support " while running against an African-American. Ironically, thanks to Sen. Barack Obama's mixed white and Kenyan parentage and campaign mischief, it is he who usually gets to field the "black enough" question.



Although Clinton moon-walked away from Malveaux's direct question, she came before the 2,700-member journalist group with her designer set of promises. As president she said she would "call for a national response" to the crisis of neglect facing young black men. As part of her Youth Opportunity Agenda, she says the initiative flows from her belief that "it takes a [white] village to raise a child."

Yep!  Todd and the corporate media support the Dem candidate who enters the prez race seeking to start a conversation - ROFL! - but has yet to offer any specifics on policies - while the corporate media provides 24/7 pro-Hillary coverage courtesy of the Hillary-Murdoch merger.

No thanks Todd - we're supporting the candidate who has produced the best plans and solutions for the middle class - John Edwards.

Why does the corporate media hate the middle class?

According to the LATimes, John Edwards is the candidate the Republicans fear the most.
That makes sense - since Fox News and other corporate media have been smearing him from the gitgo.

Colleen:

Why would anybody want to commit on abortion?
it's nobodies business but the woman

Jerry dummy,Susanne Malveaux is a Bush Cheerleader, is always suspiciously hanging around the Bush twins and writing syrupy sweet stories about them. So much for balanced interviewing and reporting. Also the question was about as irrelevant as it was presented to Obama.

I think Sierra is Jerry. For real.

Jerry,

I agree, but come on your from Texas!  You know they comment anyways.

Paul Miller - Clinton's two-fold challenge is 1) to lower real negatives below 48 and 2) to convince people that a 48 number doesn't mean what it means.

Hillary will reduce those negatives with her warmth and humor.

Wait a minute, you're right, she doesn't stand a chance.

GONZO-GATE IT ISN'T JUST FOR BREAKFAST ANYMORE.

BROAD INDUSTRY numbers as to where contributions come from mean NOTHING.  There are plenty of people in low and medium income jobs in every industry.  Whether it is a receptionist or a cook they are lumped in with Lobbyist for the Industry.

VAn...like everyone involved with the Clinton campaign uses smoke and mirrors to obscure the truth.

I will agree with him on this point,  Stop and Think, when you hear the spin espicially  spin that  is contorted with numbers.  Hillary has "very little " small donor support.  Roughly 4K people.  A better question to analyze is what percentage is that of all people giving (she has very few contributors maybe 100K).  What is that less than 10%.  If so WHO makes up the other 90%. Forget the Industry.  This information won't tell you that.  What do they do for a living ?  She admits that she takes money from Federal Lobbyist, what percentage comes from them, what Industries do they represent?  Bet she won't disclose that little GEM, you'll have to dig much deeper to find that out."

As the information above is readily available, one wonders why this person doesn't bother to do the research that would make her case. It's mostly because they sadly don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
The unbiased sources have been listed here for anyone to check.
Approximately 2% of Senator Clinton's campaign contributions come from Lobbyists. There is a FEDERAL LAW that makes disclosure MANDATORY. The links are here. This person is beyond consideration, as their inability to understand the nature of the numbers listed, despite the guides provided on the websites listed, like this;

SOURCE OF FUNDS

   * PACs: Contributions from political action committees.
     
   * INDIVIDUALS: All contributions from individuals, both large and small.
     
   * CANDIDATE: Contributions and loans from the candidate to his/her own campaign.
     
   * OTHER: All other revenues collected by the campaign, such as interest from the campaign's bank accounts and loans from outside sources. This figure is calculated by subtracting PAC, individual and candidate money from total revenues received. Negative numbers generally indicate an accounting error by the campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/pacind.asp

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: PAC contributions and large donations from individuals are the two biggest sources of contributions for most members of Congress. In the 1996 elections, winning U.S. House candidates collected about 39% of their money from PACs, 36% from individual contributions of $200 or more, and 19% from small individual contributions. Senators get about 25% of their money from PACs, with large individual contributions accounting for the biggest share of their campaign cash.

The number of wealthy candidates funding their own campaigns has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1998, a total of 95 House and Senate candidates spent $100,000 or more of their own money. Fifteen of them (seven in the House and eight in the Senate) spent more than $1 million in personal funds."

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

Contributions    
Individual  $58,496,362  
PAC  $125  
Party  $0  
Candidate  $0  
Transfers-In  $0  
Disbursements  $22,357,038  
Cash On Hand  $36,263,688  


over 1,000 44,470,375 (76%)

This means that over Forty-four million dollars of Clinton's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's about 76%


Size of Donations
$200 and Under  $14,316,815  
$200.01 - $499  $2,935,079  
$500 - $999  $3,945,864  
$1000 - $1999  $9,013,473  
$2000 and Over  $28,405,818


1,000 and over  37,419,291 (63.9%)

This means that over THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION dollars of Obama's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's almost 64%

These are real verifiable figures, from the candidates THEMSELVES, as provided to the Federal Elections Commission.

One hopes for Senator Obama's sake that most of his supporters are of a higher caliber than this LynMD person.  Until you can come back with something that doesn't illuminate your foolish partisanship and disrespect for the truth, you will be counted among the growing ranks of the irrelevant.


Van

Still won't tell anyone how "FEW" people are willing to give their money to her.  LOL.  Maybe if she ask for $1.00 they might pony up.  Hey Van send your "GIRL" some cash so she can stop begging.  Where are all of those 1,0000,000 supporters she has been touting. LOL  Guess they don't support her that much.  "TALK IS CHEAP" (polls).

CD, NC (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 1:27 PM)

Another person on the road to partisan irrelevence;

Contributions    
Individual  $58,496,362  
PAC  $125  
Party  $0  
Candidate  $0  
Transfers-In  $0  
Disbursements  $22,357,038  
Cash On Hand  $36,263,688  


over 1,000 44,470,375 (76%)

This means that over Forty-four million dollars of Clinton's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's about 76%

Size of Donations
$200 and Under  $14,316,815  
$200.01 - $499  $2,935,079  
$500 - $999  $3,945,864  
$1000 - $1999  $9,013,473  
$2000 and Over  $28,405,818


1,000 and over  37,419,291 (63.9%)

This means that over THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION dollars of Obama's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's almost 64%

These are real verifiable figures, from the candidates THEMSELVES, as provided to the Federal Elections Commission.

That some supposed democrats would resort to the kind of lies one sees here, in the face of the facts and sources that anyone with eyes and a brain can follow...let's just say I'm not surprised by all of the lol's in their post.


Van

van , every time clinton gets her but whooped in a debate your on here in full damage control.Then every body els shows you the holes in your so called facts . im just sayin. Give up man . if the msm cant fool these cats your not going to. your like a lot off people i know who wants so badly to be smart but lack common sense . That is if you actually believe what you protest.
ps. nobody wants to scroll thru a page of nonsence man . keep it short ,thanks.

"Clinton's negatives have consistently been at 48 in polls I've seen. Van cites a poll above in which Clinton's "unfavorables" are at 54, and I assume its presented as those "unfavorables" are exactly synonamous with "negatives." Not sure that's true, and
I have no idea why he cites these numbers as they would be extraordinarily damaging to Clinton if believable. They're not. I can imagine her negatives climbing up to the 49 level, but I can't imagine even her pulling negatives at 54 - those are Barry Bonds or Michael Vick type numbers."

Forgive me, Paul, but how much effort or intelligence does it take to follow the link to Rasmussen reports and look at the numbers for yourself?

They are the weekly numbers, and the first to find Clinton below 50% favorable in quite a while. I posted the numbers, good or bad for Clinton or the others, because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE(!) with the link so that anyone with a brain could follow them, why didn't you?

You don't have to, "imagine", and who cares what you think if you can't think enough to check the source of the information BEFORE you state your opinion?
Try looking at the site this time;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

It is almost funny how many here spend more time posting their opinions than they do reading.


Van

"van , every time clinton gets her but whooped in a debate your on here in full damage control.Then every body els shows you the holes in your so called facts . im just sayin. Give up man . if the msm cant fool these cats your not going to. your like a lot off people i know who wants so badly to be smart but lack common sense . That is if you actually believe what you protest.
ps. nobody wants to scroll thru a page of nonsence man . keep it short ,thanks.

ki houston (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 6:24 PM)"

You can't even use spell-check, so where do you get off telling intelligent people anything?

I have been posting here for about a week.

You obviously don't read much because you can barely spell or construct a simple sentence. (I'm sorry, but that seems to be the truth.)

That nonsense (that's how you spell that one) is called, "information", it's what intelligent people tend to use when they are trying to make a decision, be it on a TV set, car or political candidate.

Someday, you too may learn to use this nonsense; Until then you'll be the person represented by what you have written above. I do feel sorry for you.

Please take note that NEVER do I attack Senator Obama,  who seems to be a fine man, or any of the other candidates. Everything I post is factual and includes attribution. Please take note of the type of rebuttals, and who authors them.


Van

Hey Van,

Enough.  We got it. You're smart.

Hillary wins the nomination, and the Democrats lose - top to bottom - in next years election.

Yep Paul is full of opinions, and he has a good imagination.  Some times Paul Miller is not quite sure, he may have heard or seems to remember this or that, he assumes. Maybe you can figure it out if he 'splines it to you.
Yep all bad Clinton all the time, forgets to just tell us about Obama, his choice, and why it is the best choice.

Yep Paul is full of opinions, and he has a good imagination.  Some times Paul Miller is not quite sure, he may have heard or seems to remember this or that, he assumes. Maybe you can figure it out if he 'splines it to you.
Yep all bad Clinton all the time, forgets to just tell us about Obama, his choice, and why it is the best choice.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):