RSS
December 20, 2007
Obama Makes Gains in California, Clinton Still Ahead
With less than seven weeks to go until the California Primary, Hillary Clinton still has a substantial lead in the polls among likely Democratic voters. However, her closest rival, Barack Obama, is starting to make this more of a contest than the front-runner might have anticipated, making this a murky race whose puzzle will be completed Feb. 5.
Momentum in California is with Barack Obama, who finished 2nd with 30 percent, his strongest showing to date, in nine SurveyUSA pre-primary tracking polls. Clinton led by 37 points two months ago. Today, she leads by 19 points. [SurveyUSA]
Obama's rise may be fueled by a number of factors, including his strong polling in Iowa and a number of gaffes the Clinton campaign has recently made.
More info after the jump, plus a poll for you.
1. Obama's rise in California is partly due to his strong recent showing in Iowa. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Obama with 33 percent support of likely Iowa caucus goers, while Clinton had 29 percent. Pollster.com puts Obama up just two percentage points ahead of Clinton.
2. Another factor in Obama's rise stems from public reaction to a few gaffes at the Clinton campaign. Last week, Clinton fired an aide, Bill Shaheen, for commenting on Obama's drug use he admitted to have dabbled in as a teenager.
Speaking to a Washington Post reporter, Shaheen warned Republicans would use Obama's drug history to cast him as unsuitable for the presidency. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, "one of the things they are certainly going to jump on is his drug use," Shaheen said. "It'll be 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them?' "
There is a perception among Iowan's that Clinton is "just ugly," leading the American Spectator to declare "Hillary Will Lose Iowa."
This preceded a Dec. 12 Iowa debate in which Obama was asked how he would handle foreign policy issues.
"I wanna hear that," Hillary Clinton jumped in.Everyone laughed, then Obama got the better of it: "Hillary," he said, "I'm looking forward to you advising me, as well." [Salon.com]
She wasn't laughing so much after that.
Now it's your turn.
Hillary Clinton Flickr image via lauren victoria burke; Barack Obama Flickr image via The Electrician; Photo illustration by Jeremy Oberstein.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
Wake Up LA!! These two candidates are part of the NWO master plan. They will keep the war going and not care about America. They are both for the NAU.
The only way to turn this country around is to vote for Ron Paul.
Don't see him as your classic Republican. He is a great person who understands that this is a 2 party system and this is the only way toward victory.
Stop the mega mass media blackout of Ron Paul.
Before you vote..do America a favor and look at what a person who cares about this country and its people and the Constitution is saying first. Don't fall into the trap set by the Bush administration.
[ report this ]
lol ron paul
[ report this ]
WAR RON PAUL!!!! Do it, baby! LMFAO!!!!
[ report this ]
In case anyone was wondering what 90039 is talking about, NWO is the New World Order and the NAU is the North American Union. Apparently, the fear is that the US will enter into a European Union-style agreement with Canada and Mexico that will erode some of our national sovereignty.
It's pretty standard conspiracy theory stuff -- the Trilateral Commission is involved!
[ report this ]
Maybe Clinton is part of this NWO you're referring to (I still think of that wrestling league), but i'm pretty sure Obama has been clear that he won't keep the war going and that he 'cares about America.'
Ron Paul would be a viable candidate if his foreign policy wasn't completely isolationist. It's a nice thought but it's simply not possible anymore.
Paul needs to moderate his message a bit (or at least fake it) if he wants even a slim chance of winning.
[ report this ]
Clinton should and will win.
[ report this ]
I was originally undecided between voting for Barack Obama or Ron Paul. But since I'm a registered independant and the Republican Primary is a Closed Primary, I can ONLY vote for a Democrat.
[ report this ]
so obama rules on laist.
[ report this ]
I'm confused. I thought LAist just endorsed Lohan/Spears. They do after all have more international experience and exposure than our current president did when he was first elected.
[ report this ]
lol at marc calling Ron Paul an isolationist.
Did you not see John McCain try to pull the same move at the CNN debate in FL?
[ report this ]
lol at marc [5] calling Ron Paul an isolationist.
Did you not see John McCain try to pull the same move at the CNN debate in FL?
[ report this ]
lol at marc [5] calling Ron Paul an isolationist.
Did you not see John McCain try to pull the same move at the CNN debate in FL?
[ report this ]
McCain endorses the war in Iraq, has from the beginning, and doesn't really want to see it come to a close anytime soon. How could he possibly be an isolationist?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Paul mention that he wanted to pull out all our troops stationed overseas (including places like Osaka, Germany, and Italy)?
[ report this ]
No, what I'm saying is that John McCain attempted to label Paul an isolationist at the debate last month, not that he himself is an isolationist. Removing troops does not sound like isolationism to me, merely a response to the financial strains the war has put on us. He is of the opinion that we as a nation simply cannot afford to "police the world" any longer, that we are not in the business of nation building, and that we can no further afford to fund this war on borrowed money which is accruing at a rate somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 billion dollars a month. In other words, the fact that removing troops seems like isolationism is only a side effect of his true reasons for wanting to withdraw - finances. Aside from the moral and ethical problems with continuing a war based on lies, what it really comes down to is money.
[ report this ]
Well said Tony...My bad for misinterpreting your post.
There is some part of me, though, that would be very interested in seeing Paul make a solid run at it. It's just a travesty that he can raise $6 million in one day and still get zero coverage from the press.
Hopefully he'll actually get some camera time in the next debate, instead of seeing this ridiculous war to decide who worships the right religion (romney, huckabee, etc.)
[ report this ]
No worries on the misinterpretation. The three headed comment sometimes bears a cryptic message. Being in the realm of the internet makes me forget that Ron is not actually the front runner at times, but you're right, he does receive zero coverage, unless it's in the form of ridiculous hit pieces like the Cavuto interview about the white supremacist and christmas a few days ago. In any case, The 6 mil should add to his time at the next debate.
Now if we could only generate the same kind of interest in Kucinich!