Good news, bad news for Hillary

Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:09 AM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray
A new RT Strategies/Cook Political Report poll has both good news and bad news for Clinton. Let's start with the good news: A whopping 78% of Democrats and Dem-leaning voters believe that she has as good of a chance as any Democratic nominee of being elected president. That's up from 60% who thought that a year ago, and 46% who said that in August 2006.

The bad news: She narrowly leads Giuliani in a head-to-head contest, 46%-43%, which is within the poll's margin of error. Yet she trails him among independents, 37%-48%, which happens to be a crucial bloc of voters for Democrats. How crucial? In 2004, per the exit polls, John Kerry -- who lost the presidential election -- won the independent vote by just one point (49%-48%). But when they took control of Congress last year, Democrats won the indie vote by 18 points, 57%-39%.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think the un-independence of the congress is a drag on the Democratic presidential candidates.

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:19 AM)

You guys are worse than Van with your polls!

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:38 AM)

Dems need to wise up. Hillary Clinton is not the candidate most likely to win against the top Republican contenders for the Presidential nomination. The Democrat most likely to win against any of the top Republican contenders is John Edwards. The Dems ignore this fact at their own peril. With Hillary as the party nominee they may lose both the Presidential election and the US House and Senate majorities. The media has consistently failed to report the polls that indicate that Edwards runs best aginst the Republicans. Dems ask yourself why?

Fired up and going for Edwards in Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:40 AM)

If Hillary is so weak among independents or non-Democrats, how do you explain that she tied Giuliani yesterday in two polls from Tennessee and Georgia: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/three-states-that-were-not-close-at-all.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM)

Let me get this straight?

The Cook poll shows:

1. Hillary is +6, Obama is unchanged, Edwards is -4.

2. Hillary beats Giuliani by +3

YET, this is bad news for Hillary?

Get a clue, dude!

JoeCHI (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:54 AM)

it has already been demonstrated how meaningless the major polls are, as I have stated before people are so dis-enchanted with the constant bombardment of what they know to be 'paid for numbers' if a pollster does contact someone for real they will not give an honest answer just to see the media look stupid when their predictions come up lame. maybe it would be time to discuss some meaningful differences between the candidates instead of money in coffers and bogus poll numbers, but that would be counterproductive for the clinton machine I suppose, alas looks like the drivel will continue until the now sputtering clinton monstrosity gasps for it's last breath.

First read have you no shame? have you counted how many posts you have put out today that are about hillary? Will there even be a first read after hillary’s defeat? Or maybe posts about why she should have won?

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:01 AM)

So much for the MSM/MSNBC/Chris Matthews manufactured “Hillary Slipping” storyline. Her lead in national polls is still double digits – ARG has a new poll out today showing her +25 over Obama, the CBS/NYT poll has her up over Obama in NH by 15% and her position has not weakened in Iowa.

Bet any Dem or GOP candidate would gladly trade poll positions with Hillary!

csh, IL (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:04 AM)

while they're attacking Hillary, she's attacking the problems facing America...

Hillary in 2008!!!!

Mark Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:10 AM)

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:11 AM)

Just came back from NH and these polls don't reflect the truth about what is going on there. Furthermore, this illusion held by this majority of Democrats, that Hillary is more electable in Nov. 2008, is just that, an illusion. She is without a doubt, the least electable (has the most negatives) of all of the major Democratic candidates. If one thinks the negative feelings that she is able to incite among Democrats (here on First Read) is extreme, just wait and see the vitriol that she is able to arouse among Republicans and Indies. Rightly or wrongly, she carries a past that doesn't sit well with the center of the nation, let alone the right. The negative ads that she will inspire will be intense. The heat that she talks about being able to stand, will become thermonuclear. This is not the candidate who the Democrats need to nominate. We are not out to further polarize this nation.

The reason the NYT poll is bad news for Hillary is that marching into this debate on Thursday night (tomorrow), the inevitability factor is gone. The idea of the coronation has been swept away and the momentum has shifted. The next 6 weeks will be a true battle.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:24 AM)

The BAD NEWS for Hillary:
She has to debate this Thursday.

If Edwards and Obama keep the heat on, she's GONE !!

Gov. Spitzer has abandoned the Spitzer-Clinton plan for drivers licenses for illegal aliens

She may have been caught push polling, as per First Read

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest and unethical

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:28 AM)

Yes, First Read is really waving the "Hillary" banner today! Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Even when several topics are covered in a post, the headline has to focus on Hillary!

Chuck in Denver (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:31 AM)

Maybe I'm missing something...but those of you are saying this is good news for Hillary, I'd like to know what you're reading?? What good is being the democratic nominee if she goes on to lose the general election? I'm not saying she cannot change minds, BUT one could argue if the nominees are Clinton and Guiliani they virtually erase each others negatives. Then it becomes about likeability....I think he could have her beat on that one.

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:33 AM)

Unless and until there's a national primary, any 'national' polls intraparty are worse than meaningless. The polls that matter now are Iowa, NH and SC. If Obama wins Iowa and does respectably well in NH, he builds support in SC among some who might like the idea of his candidacy, but are afraid that he can't win. If he wins two of the first three, those hopes of an inevitable Clinton nomination start going fast, and the Republicans will have come up with a new strategy for the fall, since as Obama pointed out last Saturday, they can't use a lot of the same attack lines they used on Kerry and WOULD use on Clinton.

The 90s are over, as are the 60s. Let's have those who still wanna fight about Vietnam era 'values' questions go off into a corner somewhere and hash it out, and let the rest of us get on with the business of rebuilding a badly damaged country.

Marcus, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:35 AM)

csh, IL: '...So much for the MSM/MSNBC/Chris Matthews manufactured “Hillary Slipping” storyline. Her lead in national polls is still double digits

The ONLY poll that counts is the IOWA CAUCUS !!
That's the poll that will affect the NH vote
Those two will affect South Carolina

If Hillary loses in Iowa and NH, watch how quickly her poll numbers will evaporate !!

If Hillary tanks in the debate, your polls mean NOTHING !
She better brush up on her debating techniques !!

Don't let the boys pick on you, Hillary !!
Don't let the boys 'Swift Boat' you !
Maybe Bill should warn them ahead of time !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:42 AM)

Looking ahead to Nov '08 is a necessity for democrats right now. I live in Ohio and can tell you that Hillary Clinton can not carry this state, which is historically a must-win for dems. to get to the White House. The polls showing her unpopularity among independents reflect why this is true; the "swing" voters in the swing states will swing right if Hillary is the nominee. And no, I don't think she can do or say anything to change that. People who disliked her in the '90s are not going to change their minds. Edwards-Obama is the ticket that can win!

Lisa, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:47 AM)

Lewis of Cincinnati writes: What good is being the democratic nominee if she goes on to lose the general election?

She will join the ever expanding line of northeast liberals that didn't win. Hillary can have some nice conversations with Kerry, Gore (he's been there long enough, he qualifies), and Dukakis about what could have been.

D. Carey, Cleveland oHIo (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:07 PM)

Polls predicting the Democratic nominees have mostly been wrong. Surveys taken in November 1971 predicted the Democrats would nominate Edward Kennedy or Edmund Muskie. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern.
In November 1975, the polls predicted Kennedy again. The next year, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter.
In early November 1979, the polls predicted Kennedy would defeat Carter for the Democratic nomination. He didn't.
In 1987, Jesse Jackson was the Democratic front-runner. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was the Democratic nominee.
Mario Cuomo led the Democratic field in November 1991. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton.
Howard Dean was well on his way to getting the Democratic nomination in November 2003, until John Kerry took it away from him.
Only twice have polls the year before correctly predicted the Democratic nominee. Walter Mondale in 1983 and Al Gore in 1999. Both won the nomination the following year. And both were current or former vice presidents.
ps...In 1984, Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro ticket lost big(he only carried his home state and DC). We know about Al Gore in 2000.

Marbw (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:15 PM)

First she sends a civilian to the Iowa Democratic Party Veterans Caucus Forum in August (all other candidates sent veterans - Dodd showed up personally), now she blows off the IDPVC Four Points of Honor platform priorities press conference (no surrogate, either...not even a civilian this time)? She doesn't seem to have a problem using veterans to promote herself, she just doesn't seem to want to meet us. What does Hillary have against veterans?

DesertStormVet, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:26 PM)

DesertStormVet (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:30 PM)

Which candidate lent his campaign some $6 million prior the Iowa caucuses? I Forgot.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:37 PM)

As a Democrat, Hillary will not get my support in the general election if she gets the nod. She is too polarizing and is Bush-Lite in her views. So, keep fighting Hillary, IN THE SENATE.

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards '08

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:37 PM)

The good news hidden within the bad news is that Hillary still beats Rudy after 20+ years of nonstop Clinton-bashing and a $50M Republican witch hunt at public expense. Meanwhile the general public's knowledge of Giuliani is extremely limited. She's still not my favorite candidate (that would be Edwards) but I now believe she can take the election if nominated.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:39 PM)

Good news? She continues to lead in the polls.

Bad news? She is losing ground.

Worst news. She continues to be married to Bill.

Sasha Collins, Toledo Ohio (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:54 PM)

She is tied with the canidate from the party that has had power for 6 years the press is romanticly involved with them and they spin the news at thier own channel they have a war that they declared won in 2003 they claim the economy is kicking your safer with them,if you vote for hilliary the terrorists will attack like they attack with Bush, and they are tied with hilliary,What have they got that anyone is buying nothing.They never even set up a sucsessor for the head of the party what a bunch of macaroons

kenn (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:59 PM)

This poll is a joke. Take the same poll 10 times where independents are clustered in the country. i.e., the east and west coasts, and Hillary creams this guy. Let's get serious --- Rudy can't win his own city or state, cops and firefighters think he's a lying blowhard, and he's an absolute dud from Washington to California on the west coast. I would love to see where those "registered" independent voters came from in that poll. Maybe Alabama? South Carolina?, South dakota, Jesus Land?

Mike From the "Left Coast" (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:02 PM)

Hillary Go Home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve Albany NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:05 PM)

Hillary Go Home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve Albany NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:06 PM)

Mitchell,NY I concur with your assessment of the polarization factor. Just thinking about the torture of 4 years of ultra-divisive politics if HRC is elected makes my head hurt!!!

Marbw, thanks for the info on polls NOT accurately predicting the nominee. Despite what many polls seem to reflect, ONLY THE VOTE COUNT MATTERS!

Jerry, you saying libs ONLY care about electing a woman is as stupid as me saying cons don't care about the issues, they ONLY care about electing an old white man who will keep the status quo. If you've read even a fraction of the posts here, you would know that your statement is not accurate.

Lisa, Fort Worth TX (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:12 PM)

The Iowa caucus will come down to a tight battle between Obama and Edwards. I don't know who of the 2 will emerge on top, but I know that as January 3rd drwas near, Iowans will send a message to America that style/name cannot match up with substance. JMHO.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:20 PM)

In order to have a woman attempt to win the White House, the libs will pretty much put it all on the line and sink or swim on Hillary Clinton. No matter how bad she screws up or how bad all the press looks, people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. They do not care about the issues, they don't care about the choices, they want a woman period.
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:11 AM)

Jerry since you are a republican why are you worried what liberals do? So scared of Hillary?

Poor Jerry, i know as a Republican, you want to make sure Hillary doesnt become the Dem nominee. Did you do lots of wrong things in last year? Fearing that Hillary will bring out all your bad stuff out? And some of the Republican cronies alongwith you might be in jail?

Even Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay have acknowledged that no one can beat Hillary if she is Dem nominee.

Republicans like Jerry are so afraid to see that happen.

Sandy, San Fran (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:32 PM)

I have a diehard Clinton hater (also leans strongly Republican) in my home who has complained about Hillary for more than a decade decrying that the world was coming to an end if Hillary was elected president. Well, now this same "hater" has actually been listening to what she says. Not only has he admitted how intelligent and thoughtful she is, he also said that a lot of her positions make a lot of sense and he appreciates the thought she puts into her ideas on the issues, even if she doesn't have a full solution worked out for them at the time. He now says he's really starting to like her and will vote for her in the general if she is the nominee.

Tiffany Portland, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:41 PM)

Polls do not predict the inevitable, if dems want a repub president serve up Hillary with all her negative baggage for them to feast on. Be prepared for a review of all the scandals involving the Clintons. Be prepared to revisit the rental of Lincolns' bedroom and Air Force One for campaign donations along with Willie Horton " revolving doors" type ads showing the Clintons accepting campaign donations from Chinese officials and the pardon of an FBI fugitive who funneled more than one million in campaign donations to the Clintons. If dems are intent on forfieting the White House, serve up Hillary.

Ellis B. Kingman, Az. (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:01 PM)

Yo Tiffany, Tell you in home friend that thanks to the voters that he won't have to vote for Hillary because she won't be the nominee.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:03 PM)

I am a liberal Democrat and I don't think Hillary can win the Presidency, although she is not unlikely to be the Democrat's candidate. Most Republicans hate her. My own support for her would be lukewarm at best. Her negatives are quite simply too high for her to be a viable candidate and I say that although I would be happy to see either a woman or a black man (or woman) elected President. She is simply the wrong candidate. I am sad to say that I do not think a black could be elected President at the present time. There is still too much racism in the hidden hearts of Americans. The Democrats must take their second tier candidates more seriously and that is a shame, since I really like the idealism that Obama reflects. He is the true candidate of core Democrats. That said, I believe that Edwards or Dodd are likely to have a better chance of winning the General Election. If Democrats are serious about winning the next election they need to take a good, hard look at not just their own preferences, but a candidate that stands a decent chance of winning. It is not just, but this is not a just world.

R Pearce, Topeka, KS (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:11 PM)

The MSM is so hellbent on Hillary winning the nomination and Presidency, they have no choice BUT to bombard us with meaningless poll numbers from any and all organizations, who for all we know, pick their numbers like the lottery does.

The only poll numbers that matter from now until they clean up the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul after the Republican convention are the state-by-state numbers beginning with Iowa and New Hampshire. Stop worrying bout how your precious Hillary does against Guilliani. Both have current issues within their campaigns that may very well derail any chance at their respective nominations.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:46 PM)

<<while they're attacking Hillary, she's attacking the problems facing America...

Hillary in 2008!!!! >>

Constantly playing the "change" card and the "Dubya f---ed the place up" card, what exactly is she "fixing?" Well, other than who gets to ask questions at her forums...

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:48 PM)

Macaroons. Good description of present POTUS and cabal. Actually, that fits most politicians today.

Flat-earther, Georgia (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:10 PM)

Be aware people all you democrats out there. You will play right into the republican hands. Why? They do not want Hillary to be the nominee because they know she can win. They will not vote for Obama they will eat him alive. Don't ever believe the polls that say that they are ready for a black president. That will not happen you are more likely to have an hispanic president before a black one. Wake up people!!!

blair, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:19 PM)

I have to challenge the veracity and reliability of a poll that gives the independent vote to Giuliani. Where was the poll taken, what part of the country, and are these true indpendents or Liberterians and/Conservative Party members who call themsleves independents.
Either way, The Democratic party should be choosing its' own candidate(s) according to what the concensus of its' membership is. Not according to what it thinks will please people outside the party.
That's absolutely outrageous!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:23 PM)

while they're attacking Hillary, she's attacking the problems facing America...

Hillary in 2008!!!!

Mark Iowa

Really Mark, please help me out here, please provide anything Hillary has actually done to help the American people. Just one piece of legislation, something concrete she has actually done. Bill did a lot, and he was a great President, but what has Hillary done? You won't, nor will even one Hillary supporter, take the bait, because Hillary has no actual record to point to. And if she actually was "behind the scenes" in her husbands administration's accomplishments (as opposed to the failures we know she was involved in) she won't provide proof of that involvement.

If you can't back up how great Hillary is with facts, isn't it time to re-evaluate her greatness?

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:44 PM)

Sara asks -> Really Mark, please help me out here, please provide anything Hillary has actually done to help the American people. <-

Hillary is the liberals "cause". She is the savior. Hillary is a religion to the Left. She is the "Choosen One".

There is no other way to describe Hillary. Other then being the battered wife of a president, she's done squat in her life.

John Seru, Lansing MI (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:55 PM)

The media is so hell-bent on Hillary winning the nomination, that they have run almost twice as many positive stories about Obama, and almost three times as many negative ones on Hillary.

Candidate positive negative
Clinton 26.9 37.8
Obama 46.7 15.8

source:THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY—INVISIBLE NO LONGER
A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign
October 29, 2007

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy

http://www.journalism.org./node/8187

When Hillary wins, it will be in spite of the MSM's coverage, NOT because of it.

How many more times will the same lies be repeated by those who call Hillary a liar?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:56 PM)

R Pearce, Topeka, KS

Actually Biden is a better general election candidate than either Dodd or Edwards.

Think about it, at every debate who do the other candidates always say is right? The answer Joe Biden. Who was talking about Pakistan at each debate (not just the one on 10/30)? Biden. On 10/30 who explained why the Iraq vote on 9/26 was wrong, and included the problems this vote caused Pakistan, before martial law was imposed? again Biden. Who did both Mushareff and Bhutto call before talking to Bush? Again Biden.

Who authored the Violence aginst women act? Biden. Who authored the legislation that put 100,000 new cops on the street? Biden.

Who prior to 9/11 warned against our countries misplaced security priorities, where we were obsessed (both in time and money) with development of a national missile defense system, which if it even could work, would only protect against our least likely security threat. And at the same time we were completely ignoring our most likely security threat, which comes from terrorism? Again that would be Biden.

When did Biden first start speaking out on our countries failure to take the risk of a terrorist attack seriously? If you answered on 9/10 at the National Press Club, you would be right that Senator Biden spoke before the press club less than 24 hours prior to our attack, and among other things he said our greatest threat comes not from a nuclear war head, but from a terrorist group using the hull of a ship coming into our ports, the belly of a plane, or in the vile of a backpack in a major US city. However that was just his last speech on the subject prior to 9/11. Since at least 1999 Biden, while Bill Clinton was still President, was speaking out regarding our countries ignoring terrorism as the greatest threat to our nations security.

Biden is by far the best candidate running for President. And if Democrats have the foresight to nominate Sen. Biden then Rudy, Romney, Thompson, or whoever the GOP nominate, will be toast!

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:08 PM)

Van,

You realize that this study looked at the first 5 months of 2007? I think we can agree that a lot has happened since May.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:09 PM)

John Seru, Lansing MI

Damn, before I read your post, I actually thought someone could find one thing Hillary has done!

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:10 PM)

The left is mad at hilliary for taking a nuanced position on things nothing as black and white as DEAD OR ALIVE (he is still alive) BRING EM ON(THEY HAVE BEEN COMING SINCE YOU ASKED)The right hate her for her librielyness(corbert)She wants to destroy america ,she sounds just about where you should be to run things in the middle,all you hear is people with that crap about working together ,they always say it when in the minority,but they dont mean it .Its their way or the highway well lets see if hilliary can make the difference.If not dont vote her in a second term ,like you wish you had done with Bush .Now ,just how much better off all the maimed and dead would be in iraq if we had gottemn out 2004 and not the spring of 2008 when he announced we will begin removing troops,TIMETABLE moroon

kenn (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:34 PM)

To Jesse in Burnsville Mn;
I am also a Democrat, and I will vote for the Republican candidate if Obama were to get the nomination.
Might as well vote for the people who INVENTED the anti-Clinton rhetoric, as opposed to Obama who parrots it.
I can tell you right here and now that NY will move into the red column if Rudy is the nominee against Obama.
Social conservatives will not vote for Obama, so you can count the south and the midwest out too.
I hope true Democrats wake up and reject the Neo-Con rhetoric and hate speak coming from Obama. He's actimng exactly like the right wing did in 1998. He can't/won't win the election. The only thing he would do is serve the White House up to the G.O.P. on a silver platter.
Hillary can and will win. Anybody who says differently isn't being honest. They're just trying to get you to reject her in favor of the candidate they support. (Standard, Neo-Con tactics)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:41 PM)

Run that by me again: the bad news is that Sen. Clinton leads Giuliani 46% to 43%? If that's bad news, us Hillary supporters hope you keep it coming. George Bush beat John Kerry by 2.4%. He beat Al Gore by minus 1%. Compared to the two Bush victories, this poll shows Hillary winning by a landslide over Rudy. But of course, the media spin must be applied to these facts to suit the current narrative. Why not just report the facts and let us figure out for ourselves how good or bad they are?

Dazed and Confused in DC (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:53 PM)

Dazed and Confused in DC (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:54 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=466049