This is good news. The polls are already starting to move in Obama's favor and this should accelerate that movement. Plus the fundraising potential is astronomical.

Thanks Senator Clinton for being a better Democrat than some of your supporters!

After Obama appointed fired Clinton manager Patty Solis-Doyle to be COS to the VP (how weird an appointment is that?) it's a wonder she even speaks to his campaign.

But then, she's a better person than some of his supporters.

Its fun when you throw out the troll bait and get a strike so quickly.

That must be what passes for clever when stumped. And from what Monte tells me, in this case, "stump" is a compliment.

Corky, Patty Solis-Doyle and Hillary are long time friends. Despite the fact that she was fired from the Clinton campaign I'm guessing they remain friends. Solis-Doyle was ejected because HRC couldn't risk the ire of contributors prior to her suspension of the campaign.

I know you're disappointed and really, really fucking angry but if your not going to vote for Obama then just come on out and say that, support McBush openly and be done with it. At least that would bolster your honesty cred.

And I guess thinly veiled penis innuendo passes for witty rejoinder in Trollsylvania.

Says the Queen of Trollsylvania.

Long Live the Queen!! ;^D

Good for Hilary. I knew she was a Democrat at heart and she will give the Obama campaign an extra boost.
Bill though can stay home. Hey, I loved him but he seems to have sort of lost it.

...and CHANGE is on the way....pathetic.

So far Obam is doing all he can to mend fances and proceed toward a unified convention. He should now begin assembling an informal, no commitment, kitchen cabinet for all of his separate policy initiatives -- national security, diplomacy, ag, economic development, law and order, technology policy, etc. If he can be seen as meeting with and gathering enough diverse and talented experts in all of these areas, it will truly make Obanma a candidate of "change"; a person in a senior role who actually seeks out new and diverse cutting edge thinkers, AND LISTENS TO THEM!

(As opposed to Dopey who hired Grumpy to pick a cabal of ideologues!)

Mark Penn should have been fired instead of Patti Solis-Doyle, and Howard Wolfson and that geezer Harold Ickes should never have been there in the first place.

I doubt that Hillary has animosity to Solis-Doyle, and she can be a good bridge to the Obama campaign.

Corky of course has yet to confront reality. (For about six months now)

Sitdown confronted reality once..... back when he had to change the tires on his house.

Hey, it's waterfront, too...

Watch as Hillary sings Me and My Shadow

I would expect Clinton to put in appearances to help elect Obama. The notion of her wanting Obama to lose so she can run again is a possibility, but if she couldn't win with the hand she was dealt this time around, I question her grip on reality if she thinks she'll have an easier time of it in 2012.

All that said, her job now is to ensure an Obama presidency... campaigning where/when she'll be most effective.

"Obama, Clinton Will Campaign Together"

This reminds me of the time I opened the foil overwrap to reveal TWO spoiled strawberry pop-tarts.

Hillary's gig now is to bring her constituency into Barack's camp in order to re-unify the party before the convention and Spud is think she'll do a swell job there.

Be Well.

"I believe he will win but, he is going to be a major let down for the early Obama supporters."

You are correct, Andrea. This backtracking is appalling and politically foolish as well. But I've been saying all along that Obama is not the progressive some of his supporters think he is, so it's not too surprising.

Nulli - you're right. That's why I chuckle when the right goes into histrionics about how Obama is the most liberal Senator, blah blah blah.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen. "

Not yes we can, more like No You Can't!!!!

But I've been saying all along that Obama is not the progressive some of his supporters think he is, so it's not too surprising.

Posted by nullifidian

For American politics he is about as much change as the system can handle. Trust me, we realize he's not a magic wand or something, but we'll take what we can get.
I was on Hill's side until Obama came out in force so I'm glad to see this.

"For American politics he is about as much change as the system can handle."

For this election cycle, that's probably about right.

"more like reverting back to the old ways once he captures the radical vote....his political pandering to the far left"

What "radical" vote? What "far left"?

Is he going to win?

Is he going to disappoint some people?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Oz--the sampling is a bit out of whack--

Methodology Statement
(6/20/08)
This poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from June 18-19, 2008. Telephone
interviews were conducted with 1,010 adults, 18 or older. Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match
Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density. The overall
margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points for results based on 1,010 adults and plus or minus 3.8
percentage points for 896 registered voters. Voter registration status is self-reported. Results based on smaller subgroups are
subject to larger margins of sampling error.
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:
896 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
231 Republicans (plus or minus 8)
324 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
307 Independents (plus or minus 7)
741 White (plus or minus 4)
139 Non-White (plus or minus 9)


Just on the Repub and Dem folks--they asked almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs in the poll.

(sneeze) Bullshit!

So HIllary will be there winking and nodding--right!--lol

Murphy - can you tell us where you received your degree in statistics?

Because, as we all know, there is no science behind statistics that compensates for raw data interpretation. Oh wait...

San--

Go look at the sample on the link and look for yourself!

They polled almost a 100 more Dems in the poll that Repubs!

The poll is flawed and not a reliable source escept for some fools to post that it's significant.

Is is very nice to see that Senator Clinton is far more gracious than SOME of her more rabid supporters (ie the the H44 and NQ crowd who, IMHO have gone so batshit crazy that they should all be locked up to be honest.

PS) I was over at H44 today, (I know I know I need to get help, it is like a guilty addiction) but the latest post (which was something about why one should not vote for Obama) resulted in 69 comments, yup a whole 69, and those 69 were posted by 19 posters. So we are lead to believe that 18 million people are pissed and yet only 19 bother to post a response to H44? Methinks this entire Clinton supporters for McCain group is a tiny minority of the above 19 who go from board to board to board to post their indignation.

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!! Is this a surprise to anyone , you fucking lefties , using the same old marxist playbook .

It's the voters who have become registered independents (and whose numbers increase greatly every year) who will be the ones who are going to decide the winner of this year's Presidential election.

Err, where's Billy?

How come Bill Clinton has not come out and endorsed Obama yet?

Bubba is still nursing his ego.

Oz--if you are going to have an honest poll at least use the same number of Dems and Repubs.

And if you think Newsweek used that Pew poll to get their number of respondents--then I got some farm land for you in Iowa.

They skewed the number of respondents to the Dem side on purpose to skew the results!

Most all of these polls do the same exact thing.

It's the same as if you wanted a poll of women voters and asked men instead!

It is deceitful, flawed and dishonest.

"They polled almost a 100 more Dems in the poll that Repubs!

The poll is flawed and not a reliable source escept for some fools to post that it's significant."

So again I must ask you - from where did you receive your degree in statistical analysis?

And I will repeat - there is math and science behind statistics that factor things in like numbers in the raw data.

To say the poll is invalid because there were more Dems and Repubs is absolutely absurd and reveals a gross lack of understanding of how such analysis works.

"They skewed the number of respondents to the Dem side on purpose to skew the results!"

Oh COME on! It would be pretty damn dumb to "skew" the numbers they used and then publish them, now wouldn't it. Get a clue.

Murphy spends too much time on Fox where everything is Fair and Balanced. It doesn't matter to her than there are more Democrats than Republicans. And Pew isn't the only one who charts those numbers. If they were polling men and women they would have slightly more women in the poll.

She just hates the idea that Obama might actually get a bump like that. If it went the other way she'd be crowing. It's the absolute definition of intellectual dishonesty when you convince yourself of a lie.

300 million people in this country and this is the best we got? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Heres the solution: 2 TERM LIMITS ON ALL POLITICIANS PUT TO PUBLIC VOTE

"Just on the Repub and Dem folks--they asked almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs in the poll."

And Murphy, the number of self-reported Communists was even smaller. Why did they slant the poll against Communists when you know as well as I that a Commie will win in November??

Or....

you could use common sense and realize that the reason for fewer Republicans is that there are simply fewer Republicans in the general population.

A big DUHHHHH!!!! for Murphy. Not her first and it won't be her last.

So the extra 4 million that Bush managed to get in 2004 is a flubb?

How about all the Operation Chaos that encouraged and did see the numbers of registered Dems rise over the last couple of months? Hmmmmmm??

There are not more Dems than Repubs and you folks know this is a dishonest argument.

And yes San--I took a couple of Stat classes in college and had to use the methods when doing my own Paper.

And you didn't go to page 3 or 4 of the Poll Methodology Statement to see the number of Dems and Repubs polled--they polled almost a 100 less Repubs.

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:
896 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
231 Republicans (plus or minus 8)
324 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
307 Independents (plus or minus 7)


The poll is flawed and deceitful. Why would it be so difficult to poll an equal number of Dems and Repubs?

I'll tell you why--because then Obama and McCain would be shown in a statistical tie--like all the other polls show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ankles Up! Murphy.

itsey bitsey--why even say that --you make no sense.

You need a life!

Zat--thanks for the links--

These too shall pass.

My beef is that Newsweek is in the tank for Obama and skews the poll to claim Obama is ahead 15 points which is dishonest.


Heck in 2004 Kerry was ahead of Bush at this time in the campaign 19 points!