February 4th, 2008


Obama surges ahead in latest polls!

CBS has a new national poll, asking likely Democratic voters nationwide who they support:
Hillary Clinton  -  46%
Barack Obama - 49%

And in today's Zogby polls:

46% Obama, 40% Clinton
47% Obama, 42% Clinton
48% Obama, 31% Clinton
New Jersey:
43% Obama, 43% Clinton

Pollster John Zogby: "A very big single day for Obama in California (49%-32% over Clinton) and Missouri (49%-39% single day). In California, Obama has widened his lead in the north and pulled ahead in the south. He leads among Democrats and Independents, liberals and moderates, men (by 21 points),among whites, and African Americans. He holds big leads among voters who say Iraq and immigration are their top concerns. Clinton holds a big lead among Hispanics (though Obama has made some inroads), women, voters over 65, and has pulled ahead among those citing the economy.

"In Missouri, Obama leads two to one in the St. Louis region, and has solid leads with independents, voters under 50, and African Americans. He also leads among Missouri women. Clinton leads among whites and has big leads in the Kansas City and southwestern region.
"New Jersey tied in the single day as well as three-day. It is razor thin close in all regions. Obama has 12 point leads among Independents and men, while Clinton is up by 12 among women. Obama has a 25 point lead among young voters, while Clinton leads among older voters." 

A poll came out in New Mexico, which gives Obama the edge, 48% to Clinton's 42%. The sampling size is a bit low though, so take that with a grain of salt. Still though, it indicates quite a shift. Perhaps Barack Obama can attract latino voters after all?! He's also recieved endorsements from the major papers in that state.

The latest Quinnipiac poll for New York gives Hillary Clinton a 53% to 39% lead among likely Democratic primary voters in New York, a gain of 14% for Obama as compared to the previous Quinnipiac poll. Of course, the question is, how accurate all of this is, especially considering that a lot of Obama's supporters do not fit the description of "likely voters". 

And yes, there's more bad news for Hillary.

And, perhaps unsurprisingly, she appears to be doing to herself.

Now, I'm no great fan of Matt Drudge, but he gets a metric buttload of readers per day, many of them from people eligible to vote for Obama on Tuesday. Look at his top headlines for this morning...


PAPER: 'Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut': Clinton's eyes filled with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye...

Garnish wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance...
Clinton's Claim Of 35 Years' Public Service Questioned...



(So, you think perhaps he has a favorite in the race?)

Sludge Dredge Drudge is right about one thing though... it looks bad. Here was Hillary's quote about getting people who don't want her health insurance plan to pay for it.

"I think there are a number of mechanisms . . . going after people's wages, automatic enrollment. . . "

Garnishing wages?! Yeah... that's gonna sell well in middle America. Envision the sound of a million shotguns being racked, all at the same time.

I really, really don't get how someone who is supposedly politically savvy can say such a thing. She's just Darwined her health insurance plan with that quote, and she isn't even elected yet. 

If you're a voter who really *needs* affordable healthcare, can you realistically vote for her now?


A Gore endorsement?

The American spectator reports:

"Former Vice President Al Gore has asked his staff to begin laying out plans for an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama if he performs well in the Super Tuesday primaries. "[Gore] doesn't see the utility of endorsing Obama until the endorsement would actually mean something and give Gore an opportunity to be the kingmaker," says a former aide with knowledge of Gore's thinking." 

Keep in mind that this news is coming from someone who announced the Kennedy / Kerry endorsements before they happened.