AFL-CIO Democratic Candidates Forum - Huff Post , Daily Kos Bloggers Score It For Barack Obama

I missed the AFL CIO Democratic Candidates debate to have dinner with my Mom and friends, but figured that I could get a great recap via the Huff Post Live Blog, and I was not disappointed.

The Huff Post writers seem to give Senator Barack Obama the best marks with Senator Clinton and Dennis Kucinich close behind.

And this is reflected in a Daily Kos poll , where Barack Obama is the winner, but followed by John Edwards, and then Senator Clinton.

Rudy Giuliani's Daughter Backing Barack Obama - Member of Facebook Group

Here's the whole story from SFGate

Giuliani's Daughter Backing Obama

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Monday, August 6, 2007

(08-06) 13:00 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The daughter of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani has signaled she's backing Democrat Barack Obama for president.
According to her Facebook profile, Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter, Caroline, belonged to Democrat Barack Obama's Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." She left the group Monday morning after the online magazine Slate sent an inquiry.

Her profile can be viewed by Facebook users who have access to New York City's Trinity School or Harvard University networks. Caroline, who is Giuliani's daughter with his second wife, Donna Hanover, recently graduated from Trinity and will attend Harvard in the fall.

Slate posted a screen shot of her profile, which uses a slightly different last name. She lists herself as having liberal political views.

Giuliani, campaigning in Iowa, declined to comment on his daughter's political preference.

"My daughter I love very much," he told reporters outside an Italian restaurant in Clear Lake. "I have great respect for her, and I'm really proud of her, and I don't comment on children, because I want to give them the maximum degree of privacy.

"The best thing to do, if you want to ask the press to leave the children alone, the best way to do it is not to comment on them one way or the other, except to say you're very proud of them, and you love them very much, which I do," he said.

The Obama campaign did not have any comment.

Giuliani, a leading Republican candidate, has asked for privacy to deal with strained relationships in his family. Son Andrew, 21, has said their relationship became distant after Giuliani's messy divorce from the children's mother and his marriage to third wife Judith Nathan.

"There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife," Andrew Giuliani told The New York Times earlier this year.

In May, Giuliani attended his daughter's high school graduation but kept a low profile, sitting in a last row balcony seat with his wife and leaving without speaking to his daughter, the New York Daily News reported.

YearlyKos - Hillary Clinton Says She Takes Lobbyists' Money - Barack Obama Fires Back

Senator Hillary Clinton came to the Yearly Kos convention to be around some friends -- including the Daily Kos which has taken $5,000 in weekly ad revenues from her -- and annouced controversially that she takes money from lobbyists, saying they represent "real Americans."

Wow.

Tell that to the millions of Americans who can't afford health care because of the health care lobby that gives money to Senator Clinton. How is she supposed to reform the American health care system with this track record? Fortunately, Senator Barack Obama didn't let her brazen comments go without an excellent rebutal, one that sent the crowd into a frenzy. Think I'm kidding? Look at this video:



Since then, her comments are the talk of the Blogsphere and Vlogsphere, too. And the vast majority of them are not favorable, as can be seen by this Huffington Post article . I think we've reached a turning point here, and it may be that Senator Clinton's biggest campaign wound was self-inflicted. We're in an American where people seem to want a fair and level playing field for all, and the presence of lobbying money rings fowl to many today, as lobbyists are seen more as the reason problems persist, rather than the agents of change.

Finally, Senator Clinton said that her presence at the convention brought a dose of reality. Really? As if Bloggers are off in a fantasy world, I guess.

Study: Young Americans Have "Warmest" Feelings Toward Barack Obama

The Democracy Corps study on young people and politics that reveals Republicans to be alienated from America's youth (18 to 31) also shows that Senator Barack Obama has earned the "warmest" feelings of America's young voters.

The study question goes like this:

"Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold."

Here's the resulting graph results:

Barack Obama's Call For A Change In Diplomacy - AP News

This article refers to the fact that Senator Clinton's shifted her position on this topic.

Obama Calls for Shift in Diplomacy - AP
By MIKE GLOVER 07.28.07, 1:25 PM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa -
Democrat Barack Obama cast himself Saturday as the leader the United States needs for it to stand up to and engage renegade nations such as North Korea.

'We need a president who'll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that's what it takes to protect our security," the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. "That's what I'll do as your next commander in chief."

Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have had a running argument since clashing in last week's debate over how far the United States should be willing to go in its diplomacy with countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

After a viewer asked the candidates if they would be willing to meet with those nations' leaders, Obama said it was a disgrace that the U.S. won't hold talks with them. For role models, he invoked late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan for their Cold War diplomacy.

Clinton, who has criticized the Bush administration for not engaging Iran and Syria directly, said she would not meet in the first year of her presidency with the leaders of those five nations, before knowing what their intentions were. After the debate, Clinton called Obama naive.

On Saturday, Obama said he would be willing to meet - without conditions - in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of those nations, contrary to "the chattering class" in the nation's capital who "want to focus, like they always do, on who's up and who's down."

Defending his position, Obama cited Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address saying that the nation must never negotiate out of fear, but also never fear to negotiate.

"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values."

Obama said his campaign was about "turning the page on a failed foreign policy and having the strength to engage our adversaries and protect American interests around the globe."

When dealing with renegade nations, Obama said, the Bush administration has mistakenly been led by a "guiding diplomatic principle" that it can punish a nation by refusing to talk.

"I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don't believe in your values, we don't believe in your human rights violations, we don't believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we're willing to talk," Obama said. "We shouldn't be afraid."

Hillary's Flip Flop - Video Evidence By YouTuber "lovingj1"

YouTube's Nathaniel Krefman On Barack Obama and "A Call For Change"

Mitt Romney Either Forgot He Supports "Age Appropriate" Sex Education Or Figured No One Would Research A Fib

At last night's CNN / YouTube Debates Senator Barack Obama said in response to CNN;s Anderson Cooper's question about his views on teaching age-approrpriate sex education to children and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's criticism of Obama on the matter, "Well, Mitt Romney supported age-appropriate sex education, so I don't know what the problem is."

Well, I do. Romney either forgot he did in 2002, or figured that no one would catch him telling a fib. That's a big mistake in an Internet society.

According to Jonathan Martin over at Politico.com, Romney "himself once indicated support for the same sort of sex-ed approach -- "age-appropriate" -- that Obama backs."

Martin reports that, "In a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he filled out during his 2002 gubernatorial run, Romney checked 'yes' to a question asking, "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"

Wow. It's also not the first time Romney was caught with his hand in the cookie jar on this subject, as Martin writes that Romney's support for age-appropriate sex education was caught by a rival campaign. But in the case of Obama, Romney's apparent fib didn't stop him from broadcasting it on his YouTube page. But now that the cat's out of the bag, Romney should appologize and come clean.

Shame on you Mitt. Not a good start toward the White House.

TED SORENSEN - President Kennedy's Aide Compares JFK To Barack Obama - From New Republic Online

Is Barack Obama the next JFK?

Heir Time

by Ted Sorensen
Post date: 07.19.07
Issue date: 07.23.07

t first glance, the Democratic nominee for president in 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy--the millionaire Caucasian war hero for whom I worked for eleven golden years--seems notably different from the most interesting candidate for next year's nomination, Senator Barack Obama. But when does a difference make a difference? Different times, issues, and electors make any meaningful comparison unlikely. But the parallels in their candidacies are striking.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy and I embarked on a period in which we traveled to all 50 states in his long, uphill quest for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination. He was, like Obama, a first-term U.S. senator. But he was not yet 40 years old, making Obama, already 45, a geezer by comparison.

At the time, Washington pundits assumed Kennedy had at least two insurmountable obstacles. The first was his lack of experience, especially compared with the senior statesmen also seeking that nomination-- Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, and Stuart Symington. Kennedy acknowledged that his age and inexperience would turn away some voters. Obama, though older than Kennedy, is similarly dismissed by some today. But Kennedy noted in one speech that "experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going."



TED SORENSEN - PHOTO

Kennedy's second major obstacle was his heritage. Some said he had lost his chance to be president of the United States the day he was born--or, at least, the day he was baptized as a Roman Catholic. No Catholic had ever been elected president of the United States, and the overwhelming defeat suffered by the only Catholic nominated for that position, Governor Al Smith of New York in 1928, had persuaded subsequent Democratic leaders that it would be hopeless ever to risk that route again.

The conviction that no Catholic could win was greater, in that less enlightened era 50 years ago, than the widespread assumption today that a black presidential candidate cannot win. The subtly bigoted phrase most often repeated in that election year--by former President Harry Truman, among others--was that 1960 was "too early" for a Catholic president, that the country was "not ready," and that Kennedy should be a "good sport" by settling for the vice presidency. No doubt Obama will hear--or has already heard--similar sentiments about the color of his skin.

Even some Catholic religious leaders--who thought Kennedy was not Catholic enough, having attended secular schools and expressed disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy on church-state separation--opposed his candidacy. So did some Catholic political leaders who thought his candidacy might raise unwanted controversies or produce an unwanted rival to their own positions (much as Al Sharpton and Vernon Jordan may not initially welcome an Obama candidacy). But, in time, Kennedy's speeches and interviews strongly favoring traditional church-state separation reassured all but the most bigoted anti-Catholics. In the end, despite his ethnic handicap, Kennedy proved to be less divisive than his major opponent, fellow senator Hubert Humphrey. Obama may prove the same.

In addition to their similar handicaps, Kennedy and Obama share an extraordinary number of parallels. Both men were Harvard-educated. Both rose to national attention almost overnight as the result of starring roles at the nationally televised Democratic convention preceding their respective candidacies: Kennedy in 1956, when he delivered the speech nominating Stevenson and subsequently came close to winning an open-floor struggle for the vice presidential nomination with Estes Kefauver; Obama in 2004, by virtue of his brilliant speech to the convention that year in Boston.

Both also gained national acclaim through their best-selling inspirational books--Kennedy's Profiles in Courage, published in 1956, and Obama's The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006. Both men immediately stood out as young, handsome, and eloquent new faces who attracted and excited ever larger and younger crowds at the grassroots level, a phenomenon that initially went almost unnoticed by Washington leaders and experts too busy interviewing themselves.

Kennedy's speeches in early 1960 and even earlier, like Obama's in early 2007, were not notable for their five-point legislative plans. Rather, they focused on several common themes: hope, a determination to succeed despite the odds, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and confidence in the judgment of the American people. In sprinkling their remarks with allusions to history and poetry, neither talked down to the American people. JFK was so frank about his disagreements with the leadership of his Catholic "base" that one Catholic journal editorialized against him; Obama was equally frank and courageous with the Democrats' organized labor base in assessing the competitive prospects of the American auto industry in Detroit. Both were unsparing in their references to the "revolving door" culture in Washington.

On foreign policy, both emphasized the importance of multilateral demo- cracy, national strength as a guardian of peace, and the need to restore America's global standing, moral authority, and leadership. Both warned of the dangers of war: Kennedy motivated by his own harsh experience in World War II, Obama by his familiarity with suffering in all parts of the world. Both were cerebral rather than emotional speakers, relying on the communication of values and hope rather than cheap applause lines.

Perhaps most tellingly, both preached (and personified) the politics of hope in contrast to the politics of fear, which characterized Republican speeches during their respective eras. In 1960 and earlier, cynics and pessimists accepted the ultimate inevitability of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, much as today they assume a fruitless and unending war against terrorism. Hope trumped fear in 1960, and I have no doubt that it will again in 2008.



lthough President Kennedy became the breakthrough president on civil rights, health care, and other liberal issues, he was not the most liberal candidate for the nomination in 1960. His emphasis on the importance of ethics, moral courage, and a multilateral foreign policy made him--like Obama--hard to pigeonhole with a single ideological label. His insistence that the United States "must do better" in every sphere of activity, including its cold war competition with the Soviet Union, caused some historians to mistakenly recall that he "ran to the right" of Richard Nixon on national security issues, forgetting his emphasis on negotiations and peaceful solutions.

JFK's establishment opponents-- probably not unlike Obama's--did not understand Kennedy's appeal. "Find out his secret," LBJ instructed one of his aides sent to spy on the Kennedy camp, "his strategy, his weaknesses, his comings and goings." Ultimately, Kennedy was both nominated and elected, not by secretly outspending or out-gimmicking his opponents but by outworking and out-thinking them, especially by attracting young volunteers and first-time voters. Most of Kennedy's opponents, like Obama's, were fellow senators--Johnson, Humphrey, and Symington--who initially dismissed him as neither a powerhouse on the Senate floor nor a member of their inner circle. That mattered not to the voters; nor does it today.

Above all, after eight years out of power and two bitter defeats, Democrats in 1960, like today, wanted a winner--and Kennedy, despite his supposed handicaps, was a winner. On civil rights, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the race to the moon, and other issues, President Kennedy succeeded by demonstrating the same courage, imagination, compassion, judgment, and ability to lead and unite a troubled country that he had shown during his presidential campaign. I believe Obama will do the same.

Ted Sorensen worked with John F. Kennedy for eleven years, first as his senatorial assistant and then in the White House as his special counsel and adviser. He is presently working on his memoirs, to be published in 2008.

Barack Obama Has 1,900 Donors - DesMoines Register

Obama campaign touts 1,900 Iowa donors
JASON CLAYWORTH
DESMOINES REGISTER STAFF WRITER

July 18, 2007

Nearly 1,900 Iowans have donated to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, according to information from the Federal Election Commission and the campaign.

The majority of Iowa’s donations were small. Of the 1,864 Iowa donors, 1,737 were less than $200.

In total, Obama, a Democrat, has raised at least $58.4 million in the first six months of this year, more than any other presidential candidate of either party.

The number of total donors to Obama’s campaign exceeds 258,000, which is more than twice that of any other presidential candidate, Obama campaign officials say.

“Each donation to this movement is a show of commitment to the idea that we can change our politics …” said Josh Earnest, Obama’s Iowa spokesman.

The second quarter financial reports of presidential candidates were released this week. In the past three months, Obama raised $32.5 million while national Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, raised $26 million. In total, Clinton has raised $52.1 million.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, also one of the Democratic frontrunners, raised more than $9 million in the second quarter, raising roughly $23 million so far.

Obama’s campaign sells presidential merchandise like T-shirts, key chains and hats and each one is counted as a donation.

Tommy Vietor, the Iowa press secretary for Obama’s Iowa campaign, acknowledged that no other presidential candidate has listed individual sales but said that is likely because other companies process and sell the merchandise.

Obama’s campaign sells the merchandise on its own and are, therefore, required to report it, he said. He said “it’s a tiny, tiny piece” of the total amount raised. Almost all of the merchandise is sold online. In total, less than one-half of 1 percent of the total raised has come from merchandise purchased online, Vietor said.

“There is no trick involved. It’s a way you can show support for the campaign,” Vietor said, later adding: “This gives average Americans a way to support the campaign and show their enthusiasm, and the fact that we've sold so many items is a testament to the excitement we've generated.”

Upper-Income African-American Donors back Obama Over Clinton

This is a little-reported story I found at the USA Today.

Upper-Income African-American Donors back Obama Over Clinton
June 13, 2007

Orlan and Zina Johnson pose with Barack Obama during an April 2007 event at the Columbus Club that raised more than $400,000. Obama has received nearly double the number of contributions from zipcodes with high concentrations of wealthy African Americans than his closest Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, USA TODAY analysis shows.


"I think (Barack Obama is) the right guy at the right time. The fact that he's African-American is part of it. But at the end of the day, he's got the educational pedigree, the intelligence. He's got the skills, all the things you'd like to see in your leader."

— Democratic contributor Orlan Johnson

USA TODAY compiled this analysis using campaign contribution reports of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Federal Election Commission and from demographic data supplied by Claritas, a marketing information firm.

ZIP codes were included if they contained a larger share of black households than the national average (13%). A ZIP code also was included in the analysis if its black median household income topped the comparable national figure of $31,000. USA TODAY also studied subgroups of ZIP codes where black median household incomes topped $50,000 and $75,000.

By Fredreka Schouten and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama is surpassing rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in campaign contributions from areas with blacks of above-average income, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The Illinois senator has received more than double the number of campaign contributions from ZIP codes with sizable concentrations of upper-income blacks than Clinton, according to the analysis of first-quarter campaign records.

FIRST-TIME DONOR: 'He's the right guy at the right time'

Obama collected more than 2,200 donations from ZIP codes that ranked above average in both the share of black households and black household incomes, the analysis found.

Clinton received 1,000 donations from these areas. Overall, Obama raised nearly as much as the New York senator did in the first quarter from all sources.

Polls show the former first lady attracts more support from women and lower-income workers than her party rivals. Obama does better with independents and higher-income voters. The analysis is another sign that economics drives their support as much as race or gender.

Black voters are crucial to choosing a Democratic presidential nominee. In South Carolina, host of an early nominating contest, blacks account for nearly half the voters in the Jan. 29 Democratic primary. Obama is seeking to be his party's first black presidential nominee.

Obama's early success raising money from blacks is a sign of how much he has energized them and the challenge posed to Clinton, who is aggressively courting black voters.

Although blacks "can be excited about and loyal to politicians of other races … people lean toward members of their own group," said Carol Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University. She said the donor patterns are a "reality check" for Clinton, whose husband was popular among blacks.

Minyon Moore, a senior Clinton adviser, said it was "natural" that Obama would appeal to black donors. "We're not ceding that ground," Moore said. Clinton "has a great deal of support in the African-American community."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign is "proud of the level of support we have achieved from all groups."

US voters are ready to elect a black or woman as president: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Large majorities of US voters say they are ready to vote for an African-American or a woman for president, according to a poll published Friday by Newsweek magazine.

About 92 percent of respondents were willing to vote for a black presidential candidate, while 86 percent said they would cast a ballot for a woman, said the poll on Newsweek's website.

However, smaller majorities of voters believed the country was ready to accept a black or woman president.

When asked if the United States was ready for a black president, 59 percent said yes, while 58 percent said the country was ready for a woman in the White House.

Two-thirds of respondents, 66 percent, said that there was a some chance they would vote for Senator Barack Obama, a black lawmaker in his first term. And 62 percent said the same when asked about Senator Hillary Clinton. Both are Democrats. No Republican woman or African American has entered the campaign.

When asked about a possible Hispanic candidate, 81 percent said they were ready to vote for one, but only 39 percent said the country was ready for a Hispanic president. That represents bad news for the only Hispanic candidate so far in the race, Democrat Bill Richardson.

In a head-to-head competition, the poll showed Clinton leading Obama 56 to 33 percent.

The Newsweek magazine poll was conducted by the Princeton Institute July 2-3 among 1,002 persons at least 18 years of age. The overall margin of error for the survey is plus or minus four percentage points.

The election for US president will be held in November 2008.

Senator Barack Obama Raises A Record $32 Million!

I think this is proof of the success of the Barack Obama for President movement. It's the perfect counterpoint to all of the weird poll numbers and Anti-Barack Obama behavior on the part of CNN to name one major media problem. Now, CNN's forced to report good news about Senator Obama. Period.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama outraised Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by $10 million in second-quarter contributions that can be spent on the Democratic presidential primary contest, aided by the contributions of 154,000 individual donors.

Obama's campaign on Sunday reported raising at least $31 million for the primary contest and an extra $1.5 million for the general election from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.

Clinton's campaign announced late Sunday that she had raised $21 million for the primary. With general election contributions added, aides said her total sum would be "in the range" of $27 million. Candidates can only use general election money if they win their party's nomination.

Obama's whopping amount ensures his place as a top contender for the Democratic nomination. It steals the spotlight from Clinton, his main rival. And it establishes the two of them as the fundraising juggernauts of the entire presidential field.

"Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race," Obama said in a statement Sunday. "That's the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it's just the beginning."

The Clinton campaign would not divulge its number of donors.

Meanwhile, Democrat John Edwards raised more than $9 million from April through June and relied on nearly 100,000 donors during the first half of the year.

The fundraising total met the campaign's stated goal but was about $5 million less than what he took in during the first three months of the year. The campaign has said it is on track to raise $40 million by the Iowa caucuses in January.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was at Edward's heels, with his campaign reporting more than $7 million raised. But Edwards' six-month total was $23 million, compared with more than $13 million for Richardson.

"Democrats are clearly engaging the public and expanding the donor base," Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said Sunday in reaction to Obama's fundraising.

He said the aim of the Edwards campaign was to attract more contributors by holding more small donor events to build a grass-roots network. "We feel we are exactly where we need to be," Edwards adviser Joe Trippi said. "This is not a money race, it's a race to win the nomination."

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., on Sunday reported raising $3.25 million in the quarter for his presidential campaign, bringing his total raised this year to $7.3 million. Dodd last quarter also transferred $4.7 million from his Senate campaign account. His campaign said he had $6.5 million cash on hand at the end of the quarter.

The figures that some campaigns released Sunday are estimates. Details of how much the campaigns raised and spent in the latest period will not be available until the candidates file financial reports with the Federal Election Commission by July 15.

While several Democrats revealed their total sums, Republicans were not expected to announce their figures until Monday or later in the week.

For Obama, vaulting ahead of Clinton in the money race is an important achievement. Despite broad public interest in Obama's candidacy, he trails the New York senator and former first lady in national polls. Polls show the contest to be closer in some key early states and Obama is leading in South Carolina.

Obama aides on Sunday downplayed the polls, but the campaign has begun running biographical ads in Iowa to better acquaint voters with the candidate.

"While voters have a distinctly positive feeling about Barack, they don't have a great depth of knowledge about his life and history of leadership in Illinois and Washington," campaign manager David Plouffe wrote Sunday in an e-mail to supporters. "As we educate voters about Barack, we have strong reason to believe that our already impressive support in the early states will solidify and slowly build later in the year."

In announcing their fundraising totals on Sunday, the Obama campaign moved to ensure that his success would dominate the political news cycle as Clinton embarked on a three-day tour of Iowa with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The campaign trip is the first time the Clintons have campaigned together in the state.

"Hillary has had a couple of good weeks, but there's nothing like killing momentum for Obama to come in with these unbelievably high fundraising numbers," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who is not aligned in the presidential contests.

At this point in the campaign, fundraising figures can act as an easy measure of candidate strength and create tiers of contenders based on their ability to amass money.

Other financial tallies can be as telling. That includes a campaign's spending rate, the size of the average donations and how much money can be used in the primary races and how much could only be tapped for the general election.

Several leading candidates in both parties have raised money for both the primary and general elections. The total numbers are misleading, however, because general election money cannot be used unless the candidate becomes the nominee. Early in the year, Obama raised more than Clinton in primary dollars.

Clinton aides have said she would raise "in the range" of $27 million in the April-through-June period in both general and primary election dollars.

Only Republican George W. Bush, in each presidential campaign, raised comparable amounts in the second quarter of the year before the general election. The single-quarter record is $35.1 million, by Bush from April through June in 2003. Clinton captured the first quarter Democratic record with $26 million, covering the first three months of this year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account in the first quarter.

Among Republicans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign has said he will fall short of the $20.7 million raised in earlier in the year.

Rudy Giuliani was expected to exceed his first quarter total of $16 million. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was struggling to match the $13.8 million he took in during the first quarter.

Hillary is 44 - Anti-Barack Obama Blog Is Down - May Have Come From Clinton's Staff

Hillary is 44 - Anti-Barack Obama Blog Is Down - May Have Come From Clinton's Staff

UPDATE - Hillary is 44 Must Shut Down

An anti-Barack Obama blog called "Hillary is 44" and specifically designed to float negative information about Senator Barack Obama is down.

I learned about the blog from this post over at the Beltway Blogroll:

...an anonymous supporter of Clinton getting some attention for a blog that is unfriendly toward Obama. The site, dubbed Hillary Is 44 because of its goal of seeing her elected as the 44th president, has been online since mid-April but is getting noticed now because it merited a critical mention in an OpinionJournal column about Clinton by Peggy Noonan. ...Noonan provided no evidence to support her suggestion that Hillary Is 44 is somehow part of the Clinton campaign, and the site includes a statement that it is not affiliated with Clinton's presidential team. But the Obama incident earlier this year shows that some connection, however remote and perhaps unknown to the campaign, is plausible.

It also wouldn't be the first time that purportedly independent blogs have caused problems for their preferred candidates. Such blog scandals surfaced last year in Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas and Virginia.

Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, noted of Hillary Is 44, "The anonymity of the site raises a legitimate inference that there is some connection to the campaign."

Well I went to the site Hillary is 44.org , and it's down. What this means is anyone's guess. My read is that someone from the Clinton campaign feared being outed and took it down.

Senator Barack Obama Outworks Senator Clinton in Senate - Stats Prove It

For all of those who pick at Senator Barack Obama for having little experience, he sure is a hard working Senator.

Since he entered the Senate in 2005, Barack Obama's sponsored 152 bills according to the Library of Congress , or about 76 each year. GovTrak says that his record of getting those bills out of committee is "average" but overall his record is miles ahead of his presidential challenger, Senator Hillary Clinton.

According to GovTrack, Senator Hillary Clinton has sponsored 308 bills since 2001, or about 44 each year. That breaks down to one sponsored bill every 8.29 days.

By contrast, Senator Barack Obama has a rate of one sponsored bill over every 4.8 days.



In other words, Senator Obama sponsors an average of one bill each week, where's Senator Clinton sponsors an average of one bill every two weeks.

When it comes to getting those pieces of legislation out of committee, again, Senator Obama tops Senator Clinton. Senator Obama's "out of committee" rate is considered "average" according to GovTrack, but Senator Hillary Clinton's rate is not just ranked as "poor" but "very poor."

This raises the question of how effective Senator Clinton will be as president if she's not successful in getting bills out of committee.

CNN Shows It's Anti-Obama Bias Again Today - Issues Don Lemon To Do Hit

CNN -- every working to downplay the shining star that is Senator Barack Obama along with the USA Today -- has shown it's anti-Obama bias again today. In a segment on the appearance of Senator Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson at the "Take Back America" rally, CNN devoted over 30 second to Richardson's more reasoned statements, while giving Senator Obama just 10 seconds and showing him in what were obviously closing statements of excitement.

Then, anchor Don Lemon is instructed to read a teleprompter which reports that Richardson crticized all the presidential candidates, "including Obama."

CNN's presidential coverage is just plain biased and terrible.

June 17th USA Today / Gallup Poll Rigged - Redone To Place Clinton Ahead

Question: Why are you a Democrat? Click for answers here.

OK. Get this. Just get this. Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama was tied -- that's right, tied -- with Senator Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Presidential race in the then latest USA Today / Gallup Poll. Now, USA Today / Gallup didn't do a poll in May, and certainly not two weeks apart, but this new one says that Senator Clinton has a large lead.

What?

The critical eye would have a question. I've got several. But the bottom line is the second round of polling was rigged. Why? Because someone didn't like the outcome and doesn't want Senator Barack Obama to win, so they immediately ordered another poll and worked to obtain results they wanted to see.

The poll effort was rigged. That's right, rigged.

You can't even find the poll on the Gallup website. How in the hell can you explain the supposed "double-digit lead" Senator Clinton has, but then she's behind in South Carolina? That observation about the black vote being the reason is pure bull shit.

Don't believe it because there's no proof for it.

This is what the USA Today's "Gallup Guru" , Frank Newport, reported in his blog - the smoking gun, in part, is here:

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Clinton, Obama, immigration and Russian attitudes

New polling data from several survey organizations – including pending data from Gallup -- make it clear that Sen. Hillary Clinton is maintaining or strengthening her lead for the presidential nomination over Sen. Barack Obama among Democrats. Our early June USA Today/Gallup poll showed the two tied, as discussed here and here. But that finding apparently did not signify a significant change in the structure of the race. The latest polls from the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal/NBC show Clinton in her accustomed role as leader when Democrats are asked whom they want to be their party’s nominee. It looks as if the June 1-3 USA Today/Gallup poll either picked up a short term change, or as noted here, was a function of unusual sampling which happened to pick up Democrats who were more pro-Obama than the underlying population.

We have a Gallup poll now in the field, with results to be reported early next week. Preliminary indications are that this poll will find Clinton back in her typical leadership position as she has been for the most part this year.

What? In other words, Whoops! We can't believe the outcome, so we've got to talk to a new set of people and get the outcome we want. We can't -- just can't -- be forced to report that Senator Obama is tied with Senator Clinton.

What the Gallup Guru does not explain is why they did a new poll so close after the first one, and without having done a poll two weeks before?

I'll tell you why. Because USA Today and CNN are reporting these polls and don't want Senator Barack Obama to win the Democratic race for the White House.

They don't want a president who happens to be Black, and so they're trying to engineer a win for Senator Clinton. First, CNN consistently focuses on the race issue, then reports any small seemingly negative information about Senator Obama. Any positive information is either downplayed or avoided altogether, or rigged, as in the case of this polling process.

I think the USA Today, CNN, and Gallup all should appologize to Senator Barack Obama. I seriously doubt Frank Newport just decided to do a new poll -- the USA Today paid him to do a new poll because they didn't like the outcome of the first one.

That's crass. Noam Chomsky was right in his classic work "Manufacturing Consent" -- the old media (USA Today) is trying to manipulate the public.

They have to explain the South Carolina poll as well as why the Mason-Dixon pollsters shared their error data, where the USA Today / Gallup Poll people did not. One can argue that the latest USA Today Gallup Poll has a huge margin of error considering the games they play with these polls. This is totally irresponsible on the part of USA Today and Gallup.

CNN's Anti-Barack Obama Stance - Fear Of A Black President

CNN's so afraid of a Black president they've given to actually either hiding the truth or just plain giving their negative impressions.

Let's take CNN's Jacki Schechner's take on the YouTube Barack Obama page, where she issues critical comments which really are not her telling the news but giviing an opinion. It's the first time I've seen her do this, rather than just be a journalist and keep her ideas to herself.

But CNN's people are so afraid of Barack Obama's success, they'll do anything. I mean whatever it takes to misrepresent his position and popularity. I watched the Situation Room yesterday and CNN's Wolf Blizer took time to not tell us that Senator Obama was tied with Senator Clinton, but that an averaging of past polls shows Clinton ahead.

What!

Anything to avoid reporting Barack's success.

This is a total crime. We've got to take steps to make CNN behave fairly. It's obvious they're not going to play fair, so we've got to make them do it!

Let's roll!

Senator Hillary Clinton's Poll Lead Due To Women - Washington Post

According to the Washington Post , Senator Hillary Clinton's poll leads -- until recently -- came due to her support from "less educated women" where Senator Obama fared better with women with higher education.

It will be interesting to see if this remains as we get more into the debate season.

Gallup Poll - Senator Obama Ties Hillary Clinton In USA Today / Gallup Poll

In a USA Today / Gallup Poll conducted June 5th, Senator Barack Obama has tied Senator Hillary Clinton. According to Gallup, "The poll was conducted June 1-3, 2007, and almost all of the interviews were completed prior to the Democratic candidate debate held in New Hampshire on Sunday, June 3. Republican candidates will debate one another in New Hampshire on Tuesday night, June 5...

The poll asked Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party who they are most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president next year. Obama and Clinton are now tied, with 30% supporting Obama and 29% supporting Clinton. Seventeen percent of Democrats support former Vice President Al Gore for the nomination, and 11% support former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. No other candidate registers better than 3% support.