Leaked Obama Ohio Internal Polling Numbers

How many times has an internal polls come out that showed the person paying for it was not doing well? Even if they have to come up with a 4 out of every 5 people who believe in the Tooth Fairy would vote for this candidate...that would be the "good news" that would come out when you are dealing with internal polls.

Then again I'm not a poll person whether they are internal or external, they are entertaining, they create discussion but no matter how much the science is pushed the reality is the poll only really addresses how those asked felt at that time. I'm sure it's cool for those who find their candidate in the "top" end of whatever poll it is, but then as an Edwards supporter, I can't tell you how that feels like to happen on a regular basis.

:-)

The criticism is hilarious because of who it comes from.

Starting with your ludicrous attacks and spin mistating Obama's stance on an Ohio debate, you've done nothing but spin for the Clinton camp. You look for the smallest holes to attack on in any pro-Obama piece. You regularly post hit pieces at the end of the day (usually around 4pm). And you continually claim that you're undecided.

There's a pattern here Modern, any merits notwithstanding.

Before I post anything, I know where you'll stand on it. That's not my fault (or anyone else's). You've pigeonholed yourself by your conduct. 

Jerid, you and Russo went nuts insisting I was lying about the Ohio debates because CNN still had it on their calendar of events. Now we know that Obama never agreed to attend that debate, but instead agreed to a previously unknown offer of a debate with an NBC affiliate in Cleveland. You guys seized on that as "evidence" that I was wrong, when in reality all Obama did was change his mind and agree to two debates: one in Texas and one in Ohio.

Then David Suster from MSNBC said some reprehensible comments about Cheslea Clinton and the campaign said they were "considering" dropping out of the debate, but never actually took back her acceptance.

Then you spent a week calling her a liar for "not agreeing" to a debate in Cleveland that she, in fact, actually had agreed to and has since said she is intending on attending.

I don't consider Obama's campaign on buying off superdelegates, his blatantly misrpresentations about his and Clinton's record on free trade and their health care proposals, or his waffling on his prior commitment to go with public financing in the general if the Republican nominee agreed to as well as "small holes."

Nor did I consider it a small hole to say that your claim that Clinton has been above 50% three weeks before every primary was as ludicrious as your claim that a poll showing her with a twenty point lead and well over 50% should give her "nightmares."

Meanwhile you and Russo have been rushing to post on the front page one ridiculous story after another (the webbanner and former landlord nonsense as but two recent examples).

I've said that I'm leaning towards Clinton, but not 100% decided.  As I've told you privately over the phone, there have been times that I've come very close to coming out for Obama, but I have my reservations.  If you think you can see into my heart and call me a liar, do so.  God knows my life here would be easier if I did support Obama.  But I came here to be a voice, not an echo.

I know it drives you nuts, but your spin on this polls is no different than what the Blackwell campaign said in 2006.  Truth sometimes hurts. 

And what the f*ck does when I post have to do with anything?  Tell me, Jerid, when my deadlines are so not to offend you.  This is the second time I've seen you whine about me posting at 4 p.m.?  What does that have to do with anything?

In the end, you reflect what concerns me most about Obama- that any criticism should be rejected out of hand, "any merits notwithstanding."

You need to defend statements like this: "The other, while very eloquent, is very vague when discussing his plans."

Otherwise you and your blog come across as a Hillary echo chamber.

that's about the only thing you posted I agree with. I don't know anyone, even on the GOP side, who wants aggressive war in Pakistan.  I don't think BS posts like this are helpful to those of us who want to elect a Democrat to the White House. We know at this point that the Dem nominee is going to be either Barack or Hillary, and though it might be nice to have an objective discussion on the relative merits of both candidates for those of us who haven't voted yet, I don't think we are served in the long run by hurling accusations like this.

I would like to hear more from both candidates about their plans for the war in Afghanistan, their regional policy for maintaining our access to the oil until we can break our dependency on it, how we deal with China, and other matters of life and death.  But that's not part of the marketing strategy of either team.   

The specific quopte you're looking for is:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Which part of this is wrong?