Obama's Lead Over Hillary All But Gone: Poll

[Graybeard]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_Hillary_poll/2008/03/19/81531.html

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:13 AM

 
WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.


The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.


Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.


The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.


McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.


That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.


"The last couple of weeks have taken a toll on Obama and in a general election match-up, on both Democrats," said pollster John Zogby.


Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent, narrower than his 50 to 38 percent advantage over her in February.


"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Zogby said


Obama gave a speech on Tuesday rebuking his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for sermons sometimes laced with inflammatory tirades but said he could not disown him and it was time for Americans to bind the country's racial wounds.


The poll showed Obama continues to have strong support from the African-American community but that he is experiencing some slippage among moderates and independents.


Among independents, McCain led for the first time in the poll, 46 percent to 36 percent over Obama.


He was behind McCain by 21 percent among white voters.


Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.


"And, just the closer he gets to the nomination, the tougher questions whites ask about an African-American candidate," Zogby said.


The March 13-14 poll surveyed 525 likely Democratic primary voters for the matchup between Clinton and Obama. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.


For the matchup between McCain and his Democratic rivals, 1004 likely voters were surveyed. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.




© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
 

[Dee]

I don't believe the democratic party has the nerve to give the nomination to Hillary. The blacks will riot if they do. JMO

[Elijah Gunn]

Maybe now he'll reconsider joining Hitlery as vice president. They just gotta finish fighting it out to see which has the best chance of winning the  general election.
Just heard on the news last night that 70% do NOT even think Obama's pastor is a problem.
Regards, Mark

[Mikey]

Ha!  Neither one of those dumbocraps is gonna do anything except cat-fight each other until one can blame the other for costing the party the election.  Neither will agree to be the #2 for the other.

I think the dumbocraptic party will either give the nomination to whoever takes the most delegates and it looks like billary is the man in this one but I still think there will be a spilt ticket in this election...................

Elijah:  70% of what, the population at the corner bar just down the street from the pastor's church.  It ain't that obama's pastor is the problem for his inflamatory, derisive and racisit remarks, it is just that obama took too dang long to distance himself from the matter, or mouth....and of course, why distance himself now when that same pastor has been spewing black racial hatred for at least two decades (20 yrs) while obama was a congregation member and obama never said anything before.  Oh, OK!  It's been alright for the last 20 yrs but now that I wanna be the Prez, it might not be OK??

Face it, John McCain, former Air Force Pilot, former Prisoner of War, will beome our next president - but only after the Supreme Court affirms the right to keep and bear arms as a individual right as it was originally intended under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

JMTCW.  Mikey.

[gypsyman]

This guy might just be the anti-Christ. Born a Muslim, supposedly converted to Christianity, half white, half black. And that speech that he gave last week, everybody and their brother saying that it was such a good speech. Bunch of hog wash as far as I'm concerned. Dee's right in that the Dem's will probably give him the nod, just out of fear. 'Course with Hilary being who she is, she's not afraid of the anti-Christ, just another bump in the road to her.  gypsyman

[Foggy]

John McCain was a Navy Aviator

[magooch]

I think the best possible thing that could happen to the Dumbycrats would be for the super delegates to give the nomination to Hitlary by a slight margin, at the Dumbycrat convention.  The uprising and riots that should ensue, might just put an end to what that party has become.

[wareagleguy]

Problem with all this is that McCain will be nothing but the same.  I sure hope people wise up and see that the president for the GOP is NOT a president for the people but rather the president for the GOP.  Nothing but a figure head.  The GOP wants to continue the war and McCain isn't going to go against the GOP.

The bottom line is the GOP has become organized crime!

[Buckhammer74]

 Yeah, Mcain was a war hero, as was Bush senior. Bush SR did such a bang- job in office(NOT). He failed to takeout Sadam in his term.

  Lets see 1/2 a TRILLION dollars spent in five years in Iraq. Mcain=4 more years and another 1/2 a TRILLION?

While I respect what Mcain and Bush did in their military service, I dont think we can afford another war mongering war hero.

That leaves Obama or Clinton.

We're screwed any way you look at it.

[rex6666]

I an afraid Dee is right, Clinton will have to beat oboma soundly to get it, ties will go to oboma.

[magooch]

Yeah, Mcain was a war hero, as was Bush senior. Bush SR did such a bang- job in office(NOT). He failed to takeout Sadam in his term.

  Lets see 1/2 a TRILLION dollars spent in five years in Iraq. Mcain=4 more years and another 1/2 a TRILLION?

While I respect what Mcain and Bush did in their military service, I dont think we can afford another war mongering war hero.

That leaves Obama or Clinton.

We're screwed any way you look at it.

Yeah, but what kind of value do you put on the fact that we have not had to endure another 9/11 attack?  It is impossible to know how many trillions it would have cost us and the rest of the world to not engage the terrorists.  Keep in mind that thousands of al Qaida and other terrorists have been killed in Iraq and their defeat there has discouraged and probably prevented untold acts of terrorism around the world.

I find it just a little disingenuous that when a Dumbycrat administration has a war, it's an act of humanity and is totally justified.  I seem to recall that Bill Clinton did some warring on al Qaida and failed to wipe them out.  I'm still trying to remember where and when it was that Serbia attacked us.  I do however remember that Saddam signed a cease fire that he did not abide by and that he was determined to acquire nukes.  And that assertion did not begin with the Bush administration.

The first President Bush never intended to take Saddam out.  The goal was to remove him from Kuwait and that worked quite well.  He had to balance that goal with keeping the majority of the Middle East from erupting.

Keep in mind that we didn't go into either Iraq conflict by ourselves and that both operations were sanctioned by the U.N.  Just because the rest of the world hasn't stepped up to the degree that they should have, doesn't mean that we also should have given in to the terrorists.  I think we saw how well that worked for Spain.

[Buckhammer74]

Yeah, but what kind of value do you put on the fact that we have not had to endure another 9/11 attack?  It is impossible to know how many trillions it would have cost us and the rest of the world to not engage the terrorists.  Keep in mind that thousands of al Qaida and other terrorists have been killed in Iraq and their defeat there has discouraged and probably prevented untold acts of terrorism around the world.


Baloney,

I think you are mixing Afghanistan with Iraq.  I think Bush was 100% right in going into Afghanistan, we needed to hit back. But Iraq was all about stopping Saddam from using his "weapons of mass destruction". Where are those weapons? This war(In Iraq) has done nothing but PI$$ away our soldiers lives, our money, and our reputation.

Also, I fail to see how our presence in Iraq is keeping the many cells around the world from attacking us. You make it sound like Iraq is the be all end all of global terrorism.

The occupation of Iraq needs to stop, not the fight against terrorism.

[Dee]

Buckhammer74, I agree with you COMPLETELY. I have been saying the same thing for over 5 years. Fifteen Saudis made up the majority of the 911 pilots and accomplices, along with an Egyptian, and a Jordanian or two. They were trained in Afghanistan, and FUNDED BY SAUDI ARABIA. Along with Afghanistan, we should have hit our friends the Saudis , if we REALLY want to fight terrorism.
Iraq is a quagmire of never ending fighting. My son has served with the 82nd Air Borne as a Sgt. in Afghanistan once, and Iraq twice, fighting house to house in Baghdad. He says the enemy is ROTATING in and out of Iraq, just like U.S. soldiers. There is an ENDLESS SUPPLY of them coming for an opportunity to kill U.S. soldiers. Fifty percent of the suicide bombers are Saudis.
That the Iraq war is preventing attacks over here is nonsensical, and over seventy percent of the population of America has come to realize this. Then there is that other 20% or so, that live in Bush's fantasy world of dis-information, and love it.

[magooch]

Last time I checked, we are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and have been since before the present war and after-action in Iraq.  But where have we killed most of the terrorists?  That's right, in Iraq.  When the enemy has no particular country, how do you fight them?  In the case of Iraq, it looks like it worked to draw them in and kill em. 

Maybe that wasn't the plan, but what's the difference--it's working.  Maybe you don't think that fighting terrorists in Iraq has reduced the number of attacks here and around the world, but I say it hasn't hurt and it has kept some of the worst of them busy and got them killed.

Some of you talk as though fighting terrorism is electable.  Think again; it is a fight that must be continue until they are all killed, or at least enough of them are killed to discourage those who escape.  And the fight has to be pro-active and not reactive.  We can't sit and wait for them to attack and then figure out where they might have come from.  It ain't easy, it ain't cheap but it is imperative and it must go on for as long as it takes.

[Dixie Dude]

I saw and interview with Bush Senior right after Klinton went in office.  The interviewer asked why he didn't go ahead and take out Sadam while he had the troops and allies.  He said it would take 500,000 men to occupy the country, and that it would take about 10 years of occupation to get a democracy rooted in the country.  He was comparing the 10 year occupation of West Germany and Japan.  It wasn't until 1955 that both those countries had their first free elections and established their own governments, 10 years after WWII.  I've often wondered why Bush Jr. didn't take his own fathers advice.  Defeating an enemies army with our high tech weapons and limited manpower seems easy.  It is the occupation with enough force to cover all the territory to keep down insurgents or keep them out is the problem.  I've lived in a town with a population of 25,000 and a police force of 100.  That is the same precentage of Iraq's 25 million to our 100,000 troops.  We aren't an occupying army but a police force.  They have never had a real democracy, so it will take time to take root.  It seems as if we are in a no-win situation.  We either occupy with enough force to do the job right, or if we get out too soon, and the three factions with insurgents will be fighting each other until another dictator takes over or the country is occupied by Iran, Turkey, Syria, or the Saudis.  Or, we divide the country into 3 countries and let each have self rule.  Kurds in the north, Sunis in the middle, and Shites in the south.  That is how Turkey ruled the area before WWI.  Each of the three areas had semi-autonomous rule. 

[wareagleguy]

A picture is worth a thousand words and this one says it all...

[torpedoman]

With just a little luck the democratic party will self destruct from the inside no matter who they put up to run the other half of the party will be so mad they quit. now for the bad news the republican party doesn't have a decent candidate who supports the things the people want McCain wants amnesty for illegals yea jump thru this hoop and your home free but it still the same thing. Me I'm going to write in Ron Paul because I beleive in voting for who i want to win not who the poiticans want to install in office.

[Gun Runner]

I see clinton and obama still fighting after the final count. This is gonna cause a lot of write in votes for the looser of the party and take away from the winner of the party. Only thing this is gonna do is give Mccain a bigger vote in Nov.

Gun Runner

[magooch]

As I said to an idiot liberal who said after the 2000 election, that Bush stole it--"whatever it takes."

[Buckhammer74]

Man,

 China must be licking their chops at the thought of Mcain getting the presidency, they will get to give 4 more years worth of loans that put us deeper down the toilet.

[Heather]

I think the best possible thing that could happen to the Dumbycrats would be for the super delegates to give the nomination to Hitlary by a slight margin, at the Dumbycrat convention.  The uprising and riots that should ensue, might just put an end to what that party has become.

In a perfect world that is exactly what would happen.

heather