03.12.08
Hillary Clinton up 20 and also down 6 in PA
A new Strategic Vision poll of Pennsylvania reportedly has Hillary Clinton up big over Obama.
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary
Clinton: 56%
Obama: 36%
So, Hillary Clinton is the most electable Democratic candidate for President, right? After all, being electable is all about winning primaries in significant states.
Well…
Pennsylvania General Election: Clinton v. McCain
Clinton: 42%
McCain: 48%
Pennsylvania General Election: Obama v. McCain
Obama: 44%
McCain: 47%
We report, you decide.
But in all seriousness, this shows that whoever is the Democratic nominee, whether it is Obama or Clinton, is going to have some work to do in Pennsylvania.
xstryker said,
March 12, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Great point, Matt. Ohio’s another example – Hillary wins by 10, but according to SUSA, both Clinton and Obama beat McCain 50-40. And Ohio is supposed to be the jewel in her tiara as far as electability goes. Her whole strategy is based around Ohio and Florida. Oh, Hillary, forever fighting the battles of the past while Obama creates the map of the future.
Pedro said,
March 12, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media – except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.
simra said,
March 12, 2008 at 8:40 pm
pu hillary i was going tovte for you but youu said shame on u Obama (who by the way has soooooooo many better plans than you) npw your ok way before you were before. i’m just a 9 year old girl by the way.
dee said,
March 12, 2008 at 9:11 pm
John F Kennedy lost Ohio in the 1960 Democratic primaries to go on to be elected President.
I suspect the Penn’s poll numbers could change when voters are better educated about Hillary’s greatly exggerated claims to experience (former Clinton staffer, Greg Craig puts it perspective) and her claims to fight special interests when she has collected more money from special interests than any other candidate! Her chaotic campaign is an indication of how she would run the country
She holds the coveted #1 spot on Judicial Watch’s 2007 Most Corrupt Politican list. She has blocked access to her income tax returns until it is too close to the Penn. election to scrutinize and has a complaint currently filed against her for filing false financial documents with the US senate. And yes, she did take $190,000 worth of government property (including furniture and china) when the Clintons left the White House.
Most distressng however is her betrayal to the Democratic party. Her efforts to divide the party and to elevate McCain’s stature over Obama shows she has only her own interests at heart. She is very bad for this country.
Randy said,
March 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Now that’s what I call an Upside-Down Poll!
With over a month before the PA Primary… things will change.
However, that is interesting never the less …
xstryker said,
March 13, 2008 at 8:24 am
Pedro: Interesting, haven’t heard about that case. I’ll have to research it (I always double check the validity of things before I believe them – in this internet age, you have to). It’s shameless of Hillary surrogates to talk about Rezco when Obama hasn’t been accused of doing anything illegal, especially considering all the shady donors that the Clintons have been associated with (Marc Rich anyone?).
Simra: Adorable. Stay in school.
Dee: Judicial Watch is not a credible site, it’s just a bunch of looney right-wing nuts. Just because someone says something bad about Hillary doesn’t necessarily make them worth listening to. I’m pretty sure that “stole from the White House” story is phony, too, so you should go check the facts at http://www.snopes.com. More concerning to me is Hillary’s failure to learn a lesson from her 1993 Health Care fiasco, the pardon of Marc Rich, and the willingness to tolerate Geraldine Ferraro’s open racism (oh, she’ll reject the words, but not the person).
Randy: Donate, phone-bank, and keep your fingers crossed! I think we can turn this around, but it’ll take a lot of hard work.
Frustrated Democrat said,
March 14, 2008 at 7:58 am
These numbers would be useful IF everything were reported on in the Media. Vital information is being suppressed by the Media.
The Clinton’s are named defendants in a Civil Fraud Case connected to Campaign Finance irregularities and have not disclosed the appeal of the case. There will be a trial date set on April 24th, just 2 days after the key Pennsylvania Primary for the Fraud Case Paul v. Clinton in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff says he will call Gov Rendell will be a witness in the case. From what I understand, this case began when prior to Sen. Clinton’s 2000 New York Senate campaign.
Peter Paul 13 minutes Google Video “Hillary Uncensored”
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7007109937779036019&hl=en
It may be helpful to view the videos, listen to the radio interview and view the documents on http://www.hillcap.org and the Los Angeles Superior Court first before reviewing the information below. I did not have the benefit of finding the information in this order, so I hope that I have reduced the research time for you.
Los Angeles Superior Court of Appeals: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org
Then click on Civil Case Summaries and enter case number to see case history.
Case Number: BC304174
Los Angeles Superior Court Public Information Office at (213) 974-5227.
http://www.hillcap.org
ABC 20/20 piece on Clinton’s and Peter Paul
1) Part One: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s
2) Part Two: http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVb1ioV010U
3) ABC piece:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X2wlUEXAshg
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html
http://www.peterfpaul.com
This radio interview is a pretty controversial– and scary.
Reese Hopkins of WRKO in Boston interviewed Peter Paul on February 7. 2008.
The interview is one hour twenty-four minutes long.
You will need to type in this lengthy URL below to listen: http://wrko.podzinger.com/viewMedia.jsp?e=18341182&s=PZSID_0001291673Reese+Hopkins&start=0&num=10&col=en-all-pod_wrko-ep&filter=0&dedupe=1&ft=true&expand=true&match=query,keyword=4&index=3&il=en&res=183486869