Obama +5 vs McCain in NH

This is embarrassing for McSame (4.00 / 1)

NH should be a lock for "the Maverick."

It will be hard for him to convince his donors that he can beat Obama in other swing states, if McCain can't hold NH.

Let's keep driving the Economy and Vets Issues home to NH voters. McSame will start to feel his skin crawl, if he stays down in the NH polls.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM CDT

Especially because the perception is that he should do as well here as in Arizona (0.00 / 0)

Which is wrong, considering the primary numbers, but let the talking heads discuss how dire this is for him.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

13/15 pt swing? Wow! (4.00 / 1)

It must be the Unity '08 effort led by Kathy Sullivan, Ned Helms and the other leaders of the campaigns.

Or maybe the great coverage of the convention.

Or maybe NH voters really do know John McCain.

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 14:02:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

all of the above (0.00 / 0)

d.Providential intervention.

Annie 2012!

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:23:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama rising (4.00 / 1)

I saw that poll as well on Realclearpolitics.com and also saw another poll there as well that puts Obama up by 9 in OH.  Of course I will continue to say that these polls should be taken with a grain of salt.  I remember polls going back to 2004 that showed John Kerry leading Bush by as much as 15 pts. nationally.  So I'm going to say that we just need to keep our heads down and push foward.

---

by: Northwoods @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 13:59:17 PM CDT

I'm not following polls now (0.00 / 0)

The amount of salt required would be bad for my health.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:58:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poll trolls (4.00 / 1)

There is a saving grace with polls.

McSame will undoubtedly be using such metrics to gauge the success or failure of his "message." If progressive can make strong brand arguments against the GOP and, by doing so, depress McSame's poll numbers, he won't know whether to shit or get off the pot.

Obama has, since 2/07, moved surely and steadily, seemingly beyond the influence of poll psychosis. The stint between PA and NC because of Rev.Wright being the glaring exception

At the risk of repeating myself:

NH should be a lock for "the Maverick."

It will be hard for him to convince his donors that he can beat Obama in other swing states, if McCain can't hold NH.

Let's keep driving the Economy and Vets Issues home to NH voters. McSame will start to feel his skin crawl, if he stays down in the NH polls.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Post-partisan blather? (0.00 / 0)

This just feels good to read.

Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman.

The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
-snip

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."

Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."

And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.

"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."
-snip

Much of Hagel's address, hosted by the Ploughshares Fund, was spent weaving between Obama praise and McCain quips. He urged the media, for example, to focus on important policy issues an "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."

Asked whether he would be open to serving as Secretary of Defense in a hypothetical Obama administration, Hagel demurred. But in the process, he praised the Illinois Democrat for being open to a bipartisan cabinet.

"Take me out of the equation," he said, "I do think that the next president and Obama has talked about this, and McCain not as much, I think he is going to have to put together a very wide, smart, experienced, credible, bipartisan cabinet. And that is going to be required absolutely."

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:53:27 PM CDT

I am curious... (0.00 / 0)

As to whether it would be good to have an Obama/Hagel ticket  as VP or if it would be better to reach try to unify the party behind something like an Obama/Bayh or Obama/Strickland ticket.  

Sen Hagel is now, somewhat surreptitiously, becoming, as you said Jack, Obama's Joe Lieberman.  I would expect an endorsement at some point this summer.  If Hagel is not going to be VP, I would certainly like to see him as a cabinet member.  Perhaps Sec of State or Defense.  Let's put our money where our mouth is on the new post-partisan Democratic Party.  

---

by: Northwoods @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:11:13 PM CDT

I don't trust putting (0.00 / 0)

a Republican in a Democratic Cabinet.

Many lifetimes ago, I was helping journalists research the Iran/Contra scandal. It turned out that  there were staff members in Carter's administration who had regular posts, ie, non-political, but were undermining him and paving the way for the arms for hostage deal that happened with Oliver North, et.al.

It was not a coincidence that the hostages were freed shortly after Reagan's taking the oath of office.

Obama should not make that same mistake.

Loyalty shouldn't trump competence, but there will be many who will want to see Obama fail. He has to be vigilant in getting the best people he can trust.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:18:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no thanks (4.00 / 1)

No GOP VP, thank you very much. I'm not ready to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the folks who brought us the last 8 years.

I see little interest in post-partisanship from the GOP. Until there is, it's a big, foolish risk for Democrats to take.  

member of the professional left  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:31:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you. (0.00 / 0)

I would be pretty angry if every Democratic governor and US senator was passed over for Chuck Hagel. It would be a real kick in the teeth.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 19:37:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Unify the Party" (4.00 / 1)

I'm not against that concept. But I've got a few problems with thinking about the Veep choice from that perspective:

1. Despite all the activists who say they could not vote for Clinton or could not vote for Obama, I believe we are already unified in the Presidential race. There are few significant policy differences among the two remaining contenders; the followers of candidates who have already stepped aside are generally not going to boycott the November election.
2. What's the history of "unify the party wings" talk? Which of these pairs really represented clearly different ideologies: Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Quayle, Reagan/Bush, Carter/Ford, Nixon/Agnew? If we look at losing candidacies we might think of Gore/Lieberman and Dukakis/Bentsen as ideologically balanced - though I admit that oversimplifies things.
3. There are a lot of factors other than "ideological balance" that seem higher priority to me. I want a bulldog on the ticket who will scare off - or at least damage - the Swift Boaters. I want someone with the right balance of experience - is that national security, or executive branch? I don't know. And I see a strong case for a womon on the ticket.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]