Polls Show Obama Closing in on Clinton

Exactly. I noticed that too after coming back in. It would appear that the AP edited the headline. I wonder if Clinton Newsvine spokesman Cliff Potter got to them. ;>0

In fact, Bill, the current AP headline:

Clintons' Address Black Voters' Concerns

is completely ungrammatical!

Why is "Clintons'" in the plural possessive? Doesn't make a bit of sense!

I am everywhere, monitoring everything, omniscient and omnipresent. Searching out all misleading and inaccurate headlines. Watch out. I am on patrol.

How do you feel about this one Cliff?

Clinton tagging wages, to Clintons Address Black Voters' Concerns, to Polls Shw Obama Closing in on Clinton.

Absolutely insane.

I am on the paytroll.

fixed.

The AP appears poorly organized with numerous dilettantes involved many of whom are in their twenties.

After reviewing its genesis and continuing play in the MSM and elsewhere, I am beginning to feel that it is not worth writing about, despite my hours of work.

I wouldn't trust the same government that maintains our roads and bridges to maintain anyone's healthcare.

I would not trust a company who makes a profit off not paying out benefits to maintain anyone's health care.

Here's a comparison of the various Democratic candidates health insurace proposals from BCBS which already provides the coverage for federal employees.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country view health insurance and medical costs as some kind of "free lunch" fantasy.

I would not trust a company who makes a profit off not paying out benefits to maintain anyone's health care.

That's the quandary we find ourselves in. Is it better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous government mismanagement or to cast our lot with corporations out for profit? As surely as the sun rises in the east, any government program would be mismanaged a little or a lot. Any corporate program would be driven by profit and decisions would be made based on the bottom line impact. The question is how much do you trust your government to do things that are in your best interest? How much do you trust those who are motivated by profit to do things that are in your best interest? Who do you trust more?

DbZ

The problem with this is that people like to complain and go to the doctor for things that they should never go for. Many lonely people will go just for the care and concern focused on them. This is what overwhelms the system. This is why catastrophic health care, with personal responsibility for day to day health care is so important. People who are able to make deals directly with doctors with their own money help to foster competition. I talk to many doctors who would much rather do this as the insurance companies are getting worse and worse at paying their bills. With the tax free medical savings accounts providing money for these negotiations competition will start to drive down medical costs in the system. If you reach retirement age and have money left in your account it goes to your retirement.

That is a rational system.

It is the intrinsic nature of government to be incompetent in most things, you are not going to change it.

Somebody's going to look on the top articles of the day and think "why would something so process-oriented get so much attention?"

I don't know, there's a certain newsviner out there who likes to complain about nonsense stuff like this, so I'll try to do nothing but laugh at the oddness of the change.

Well I can't say that this persons nitpickiness isn't warranted. It seems as though someone sat down and said "hmmm... this makes Clinton look bad and doesn't really drive an interest to the minority Democratic demographic so I'l change it to be something positive and add the spin that way"....

I really wish that once you put in your headline on Newsvine you were stuck with it. Think before you act... its that simple.

there it went again... the same article different idea about it from the article. WTF

I really wish that once you put in your headline on Newsvine you were stuck with it.

Here I agree with you 100%: this is what, the 3rd different title on the story since it went up?

...this is what, the 3rd different title on the story since it went up?

That's why I usually don't comment on AP articles. Sometimes changes in both the headline and the text of the article itself can make the comment thread totally irrelevant.

I'm seeing the headline change right before my eyes, what's up with that!

It's not a Newsvine thing. The AP does this constantly. The headline has changed again as witness its morphing on the website of the Times.

For example, what polls does this article discuss? Should the headline be changed due to this, or is it important to promote a false statement. For that matter, what is false any more. And who cares? Apparently, the headline and its message do not matter for many of us. Just read above.

By the way, two of the three authors are from Connecticut and Illinois. I know. I know. They are merely reporting the facts.

The funny thing about Camelot is that it was all smoke and mirrors. He was a rich, priviledged slut who, among other things, abandoned Cubans to die in a botched invasion, attempted assassination of Castro via the Mafia, considered a fake attack on a US airliner as a prelude to invade, an attempt to throw a Brazilian election to get rid of a president they disapproved of, spending millions to do it, pondered backing a coup in Haiti, up to and including the potential murder of its leader, fomented riots in Guyana to force another leader from power (spending millions more), and used the CIA to spy on Americans. And that's just for starters.

So yeah, if Obama is like that, well then, kindly, thanks but no thanks.

Touche.

No Chasing, Obama is not like that. He is like Kennedy in the "We're Going to the Moon" sense. He will have the ability to inspire America to have the will to stand up to auto manufacturers, oil companies, and energy producers in the fight against Global Warming. He will inspire other nations and enable a dialogue to resume between old enemies and new ones. Barack has the magic and the brains to move this country forward and face the problems that have been left largely untouched over the past 30 years.

Magic and Brains, that is what Obama has, not devilish plans to overthrow governments and spy on his own citizens.

Magic and Brains, that is what Obama has, not devilish plans to overthrow governments and spy on his own citizens.

I don't know that, and I don't feel that I've been given enough time to figure that out, or that Obama has had enough time to make his intentions well and truly known - and that's only if he's inclined to make them known in the first place. After all, when Kennedy illegally spied on Americans, he didn't exactly tout it in the press. Didn't stop him from glorying in "Profiles in Courage", however, which seems to more more than a little familiar, at this point.

No, I simply do not know that Obama is not like the "bad" Kennedy, and only like the "good" Kennedy. One can only, dare I say it, have the audacity to hope that (apologies). I don't truly trust any politician - no qualifiers on that - and he's simply no exception.

That being said, knowing what we know about Kennedy, that if he were President today, pulled the crap he pulled, and got caught doing it, so that he would likely therefore be as vilified as Bush, I hardly consider any comparison to him to be flattering, nor any endorsement by his "clan" compelling.

Watch out for those from Illinois. They appear biased.

Well, Chasing, I noticed Barack four years ago, and I've been finding out all I can about him ever since, so ... I feel I've had enough time.

And Cliff, if people from Illinois are biased, people who know Barack best, who have had him in their state senate, are biased for Barack, that should tell you something. It should tell you that he's done a lot to help their state, and they know it, and now they want him to do the same thing for our country.

Cliff:

32.15 - Chasing - Please note that the same people who attack you for your statements about hate, which are quite dangerous in their contexts, also claim that the press is pro-Clinton. That this is insane is plain to any observer. A word of caution, tread lightly because there is no doubt that some Obama supporters are very dangerous.

Your victimhood is dangerous. Your cries for pity are long and loud, decrying being the only supporter of Clinton's that hasn't been harassed into silence. And why don't you define how Obama supporters are "dangerous"?

Well, Chasing, I noticed Barack four years ago, and I've been finding out all I can about him ever since, so ... I feel I've had enough time.

I respect that; I'm just not in that boat with you. I'd like to think that while you and I obviously disagree on this, that we at least respect each other's opinions (to whatever extent). Clearly I support your right to favor whichever candidate you prefer - it wouldn't be a Democracy (or Republic, for you nitpickers), otherwise.

To any extent, I fully respect your opinion. Personally, I was creating "Obama '08" images for my websites two years before he announced he was running. From what I've seen so far, you are fair in your assessment of Obama. It does not appear to me that you think he's some evil demon, but merely an unknown. That I can respect. My girlfriend's mother thinks he's the anti-christ ... she's kind of racially prejudiced, though.

1:............. His entire campaign is built on the color of his skin, not the dire issues that we face today in this country.

That's a ridiculous assertion. he has done his best to keep race out of his campaign, it is others who have brought the issue to the forefront. He is running a post-race campaign and anyone who looks at it objectively can see that.

2:............. Everyone knows that if in-fact he becomes the elected democratic Nominee, the republican party will literally chew him up and spit him out like a worn out wad of tobacco.

Well, to quote someone for which I have zero respect: "Bring 'em on!" Obama will crush them.

3:............. We need a president with leadership skills, not someone who's skill are limited to being good at feeding off the breast of Oprah.

Oprah's endorsement is far from his most impressive endorsement.

Obama's campaign holds not one ounce of substance. He cries for "CHANGE", something that he himself can not even define. America needs real change, not empty words.

You have obviously not been to his website and read through all of his issues and the well thought out plans to fix this country. You have obviously not read either of his books, the most recent in which he lays out very clearly what kind of change is needed and the kind of change he will bring. Just because you don't know what he means by "change" doesn't mean he doesn't know what he means by it.

who would show him how to lead,

He already knows how to lead. By contrast, I'm still waiting for someone to show George W. Bush how to lead.

1:............. His entire campaign is built on the color of his skin, not the dire issues that we face today in this country.

What statement, comment, speech, or literature are you referring to when you make this assertion? Please provide a single source wherein Obama asked people to support his blackness... The fact that he could travel all around the Country, giving hundreds of speeches to thousands of people, and yet all you have seen and recalled was his color says far more about you than it does about Obama or his supporters. Really unchained, that is asinine. That would be like me claiming that Romeny's whole campaign is built on his Mormonism or McCain's whole campaign is based on his age.... You only accurately described your personal bias, you obviously didn't actually listen to the candidate.

2:............. Everyone knows that if in-fact he becomes the elected democratic Nominee, the republican party will literally chew him up and spit him out like a worn out wad of tobacco.

Everyone knows that, except of course for the other 250 million people who live here in America.

3:............. We need a president with leadership skills, not someone who's skill are limited to being good at feeding off the breast of Oprah.

Wow, so gaining an endorsement is akin to feeding from someone's breast? To which other candidate does this standard apply? Is John McCain feeding off of Swartzenegger's breast?

Obama's campaign holds not one ounce of substance. He cries for "CHANGE", something that he himself can not even define. America needs real change, not empty words. We need a president ready to lead, not one that requires hands on training. If in-fact this ever came about, ask yourself who would be his mentor, who would show him how to lead,

So Obama has been crying? And he needs someone to mentor him and teach him how to lead? Obama is a US Senator, a Graduate of Harvard University and the former editor of the Harvard Law review, but still he can only 'cry' for things he wants and he can't be trusted to lead unless someone else (someone white and male perhaps) steps in a 'teaches him how to lead'? I understand your discomfort at the prospect of an Obama Presidency. I understand your vitriol and your "color aroused" commentary. You see, your view and perspective is what we need to "change". Sorry for "crying" to you unchained... I'll save some tissue for you for after the elections..

A friend of mine married a Frenchman and has lived in France for the last 6 or 7 years. She has given birth to 2 children while there and has only positive things to say about the healthcare system there. I suppose it's just like some of the Better Business Bureau reports that I've read about some of the businesses that I patronize. I've always gotten wonderful service from some of the same businesses that others have written hateful complaints about. It largely boils down to expectations and perspective.

I'm not sure that Virginia has the number of African-Americans you think it does (about 20%), and quite a few more Hispanics (and Asians) than it used to, and am quite sure that Hawaii contains quite a few Asians also, who have skewed (so far) toward Hillary. She is favored to win Ohio - I don't know about Pennsylvania or who is favored to win that - and you've forgot one other place: Texas. She's likely to win there, too, and it ain't small potatoes.

I haven't heard her described as "inevitable" by anyone reasonable in a very long time, and we all know that Obama has surged. But has the surge crested? Did she stem the tide is Massachusetts? Only time will tell.

It is indeed possible the tide will continue to grow, and with the upcoming month of good news for Obama (and it will be a month of good news), perhaps voters in Ohio and Texas will rethink things, and flip his way. It could happen. I just don't know that it's likely.

Also, I think you overstate Missouri: he won it by a single percentage point, and they split the delegates there evenly (30 each).

This thing is going to a brokered convention; might as well get used to it, now.

Well, Missouri is a bellweather state. There is only one time in the last 100 years that they have not picked the President. That's nothing more than coincidence and superstition, but people make a big deal out of it.

Clinton donated 5 million to herself, and Obama has raised over 5 million online just since the polls closed last night. People, not just his campaign, are predicting another 30 million dollar month for him.

He has a distinct advantage, in all of the small contests leading up to next month, only Maine is expected to go for Hillary.

Also, after last night, Obama is expected to pick up more superdelegates than Clinton. Both campaigns are expecting that.

Also, after last night, Obama is expected to pick up more superdelegates than Clinton.

I haven't heard that anywhere, and superdelegates go where the wish, so no-one can say that with any certainty until it happens. That having been said, I'm sure quite a few fence-sitters will finally come down on Obama's side.

Clinton didn't do as well as she was expected to, say, two months ago, maybe even a month ago, but she did better than many expected her to do as of yesterday. So frankly, in my mind, it's a wash. And she may have had to loan her campaign money, but then again she also won in rich CA and NY, so I'm sure more will come pouring in in no time.

With delegate-rich Ohio and Texas looming, she's still got reason to think she'll come out on top, in the end. Problem being, "on top" isn't likely to be enough for either to secure an automatic nomination - ergo the brokered convention.

Such a thing would be exciting but could be poisonous. It's possible, in that situation, that neither will be the nominee. It's possible that Clinton's "machine", long in place, will swing it to her. Or it's possible that Obama-mania will sweep the crowd, and take him into the general election. Edwards will undoubtedly swing his 26 delegates behind someone, or he may use them as the seed which makes him the nominee. In truth, I expect, in that situation, that Obama will actually come out on top. But who can say?

The only thing we know right now, for sure, is that we don't know anything.

The only thing we know right now, for sure, is that we don't know anything.

That is very true. We don't know what will happen, but it's fun debating chances and supposing who might win and who we think has the edge.

Superdelegates can also change their mind. There is nothing holding them to their current positions, unlike the pledged delegates. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

What I see as being significant and something that is ignored by almost everyone, including the media, is the fact that Obama has not excepted any campaign contributions from any lobbyist or corporate sources, all his donations come from grass root supporters giving what little they can afford, and in these hard times just a million dollars equates to a whole hell of allot of people gaving money, people who vote. Corporations can't match that kind of support. Hillary is not getting anywhere near this magnitude of support. This is why I'm so sure Obama will take the Democratic nomination hands down, and that he will be our next President. So cool.

I know! It's hard to believe that the media is not picking up on that. I've been getting tired of people talking about Obama's "Corporate Sponsors" and I wrote an article dealing with that issue and attempting to explain it to those who were misinterpreting the information that was out there, much of which was intentionally misleading.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Truer words were never spoken.