Buckeye State Blog - Quinnipiac Release First Ohio Prezzie Poll - Comments

They both suck.

JeanLR — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:50:22 -0700

Ok? :-)

But seriously, I will repeat, I am NOT attacking Hillary. I am simply stating the obvious truth. It is advice, not an attack. An attack would be calling someone an "unadulterated egotist"...

As for Kucinich's position on abortion, he is making the decision based on consideration of the role of the government in this issue. I'm "pro-life" too, but politically this issue leaves me to support "pro-choice" policy.

here's what he said on Meet the Press, Feb 2003:
KUCINICH: I think that the Democratic Party will support candidates who have the ability to be able to grow and evolve, and you can look at people who believe in what life and try to find ways of supporting their concerns, and look at people who want to support a woman’s right to choose and say that their concerns can be supported, too. One of the problems in this country is that we’ve created a split that says we cannot reconcile people on this issue. And I think there’s a way to do it, and anyone who wants to be president of the United States has to be a healer, not a divider."

And I am NOT saying that someone "can't be President simply because they voted for the Iraq War resolution". What I am saying is that, in fact, this issue will not leave Hillary, and her problem is not so much that she voted FOR the resolution, though, you must admit that this decision points to a problem of JUDGEMENT, KNOWLEDGE, and FORESIGHT; Her problem is that she is still blaming BUSH for HER decision.

Here is what Hillary said in October 2002:

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

Here is what Bush said in the speech she refers to:

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Here's what Kucinich was doing:

In August and September 2002, Congressman Kucinich held several press briefings airing various aspects of the conflict with Iraq that were not receiving due attention in the mainstream media. The briefings received nationwide media coverage and covered such aspects including the humanitarian toll on the Iraqi people, the vested corporate oil interests that may be coloring the Administration's actions, the economic burden that a war would place on the U. S., the consequences for Middle Eastern and international attitudes towards the United States, and the jeopardy of our status as a legitimate and just role model in international politics. Distinguished speakers included Scott Ritter, former senior UNSCOM inspector, Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian coordinator, and Ambassador Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

In June 2002, Congressman Kucinich, along with 76 other signers, sent a letter to President Bush urging a Congressional authorization for war for use of force, prior to any U.S. military involvement. The Administration had been attempting to strip Congress of its Constitutional powers by denying its authority to declare war.

full text of Kucinich's comments in the House October 3, 2002:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm

If only people had listened to him instead of Bush...............

Here's what Kucinich said in contrast to Bush's claims, he knew, I even knew and I'm a big dumb nobody!

From Meet the Press, Feb 23 2003:

"...But I would say that up to this point, that no case has been made that would justify this nation going to war against Iraq. And it has to be said, that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, to—there’s no credible connection between Iraq and al-
Qaeda, 9/11, and there’s no connection between Iraq and the anthrax attack on this country, notwithstanding the anthrax that Secretary Powell held up before the united Nations. So I don’t believe that the case has been made for war. There is a case for continued inspections and U.N. involvement...."

~~~
It is HER problem, not mine, not Kucinich's. I desparately want her to solve the problem right now.

An argument that the Resolution was "going to pass anyway" did not persuade her 23 colleagues in the Senate.

Kucinich -- He's in it for himself

Himself — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:51:13 -0700

Who's representing the interests of the people in the 10th district? Dennis the menace has ZERO chance of winning the nomination and only slightly better chance at affecting the platform. It's all about ego and getting a sweet suite at the convention.

Which is exactly my point about Dennis

modernesquire — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:13:14 -0700

"The point I was making about Hillary is that I love her, but she is in danger of allowing her considerable talent and passionate work on behalf of many issues that are important to us all be undermined by her seeming disingenuous."

Which is exactly my point about Dennis' politically convenient flip-flop on abortion and saying one thing about running for President and then saying another a month later. What, exactly, changed in that month that Dennis suddenly realized that "nobody else was doing the work" he felt was needed. Pelosi was on record saying that a Democratic Congress wouldn't defund the war to end it before Dennis said he wouldn't run for President.

You want to attack Hillary because of her vote for the war, but give Dennis a complete pass after years of supporting the pro-life position. Doesn't Hillary deserve the same break?

Do you want Hillary go back to giving Bush a blank check? To support his escalation policy?

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to say a certain candidate can't be President simply because they voted for the Iraq War resolution. Fact is, even if they hadn't, it would have passed on a party-line vote anyways. We're there, and what matters now is how we can get out and not burning everyone in effigy for getting us in.

I'm sorry if you confused my criticism as about merely being about the horse race. It was meant as a deeper criticism of Dennis than that. Only an unadulterated egotist would have the guts to continue to run after lying to his constitutents that he would be more focused on the needs of his district rather than a fools-errand of a Presidential bid with numbers like this in his geopolitical base. Character matters as much as their stance on the issues.

What does Dennis add to the primary? Does he have a base that will impact the platform or the other candidates? Unlikely as the other candidates are already talking about getting us out of Iraq and universal health care. Frankly, the criticism you give to Hillary applies in equal measure to Dennis. And no, I'm not supporting Hillary's campaign yet, either.

It's not about Iraq anymore

Susan — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:09:40 -0700

It's Iran and Syria. Congress is behind the curve as usual. Wake them up. Tell them to get to work.

We can't afford to reward the bad judgment of anyone

Susan — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:02:51 -0700

who voted for the IWR, no matter how "sorry" they are now.

They were warned by Wes Clark and others that invading Iraq was a bad idea and would have terrible consequences. A handful of Senators (like Kennedy and Wellstone) chose to pay heed and voted against it. The others should never be allowed anywhere near our troops.

I'm undecided...

Retired in Ohio — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:00:09 -0700

but I am sick of the anti-Hillary stuff. What's the reason for HER negatives? Bad wife? Bad mom? Came out strongly for health care? Whitewater? Nothing there. I think Edwards, Obama, and Hillary would all be strong nominees.

McCain? He's self-destructing on the surge in Iraq. And my God he's over seventy year old. Guliani - what's his accomplishments? Besides he won't have a prayer in the GOP race since he's too liberal on social issues. Most of the others in the GOP are too socially conservative. People are getting sick of gay-bashing.

Unless things change, the GOP will be hard pressed to steal the 2008 election like they did the last two. Could be a 55-45% blowout - even in Ohio! Name any blue state that will go red? I can name several red states anxious to go blue!

The big issues in 2008 will be people's growing dislike of Bush and the war in Iraq. If you think they hated Clinton, you ain't seen nothing yet unless things change dramatically.

I want Hillary to say

JeanLR — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:29:40 -0700

I want her to say "I trusted the untrustworthy, and I will not ever make that mistake again. Now here's what I will do to fix it."

And what did I write that was "Clinton bashing"? You are not reading that in my posts, what I said was she should have known, she could have known, she didn't know and neither did a lot of others. Does that absolve her of responsibility?

She cannot solve a problem she won't admit exists. I'll say it again, it's not Bush's fault that he conned her into trusting him over her collegues in the Senate who did not.

John Edwards came out loud and clear and said "I made a mistake" in voting to give the President those powers. Hillary has said, "The President misused the powers we gave him and I regret that".
How can she regret what someone else did? That's what I mean about getting real. Edwards got real, Hillary needs to as well. As Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice......won't get fooled again!".
I'd like the assurance that Hillary learned from her mistake, but she will not admit making one.

It's not about "loyalty"

JeanLR — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:19:18 -0700

It's about her making a mistake of thinking that her claim that she "didn't know" will make the issue go away. It will not~ I didn't wish for this, I don't want it~ it is a plain fact.

You guys read past what I'm saying to reiterate your assertion that Kucinich "has no chance"~ maybe he has no chance at all and everyone hates him personally and doesn't respect him or think he's funny looking, it does not change the fact that Hillary either didn't know what 126 House democrats and 23 Senators knew, or that she chose to trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz instead of trusting Kennedy, Wellstone, Byrd and the rest.

As for abortion issue, Kucinich voted "pro-life" and ran as a "pro-life" democrat, now he votes "choice". Is that a flip flop? Ok, so what? Do you want him to go back to voting "pro-life"?

And he wouldn't have to run for President if someone else was doing the work he feels is needed~ He said he had "no intentions" of running again, so what? I guess he's a liar. What a terrible human being he is, perhaps we should gather stones.

You guys are confusing a logical argument regarding a political message with with the poll-driven horse-race. We all know how important poll numbers are, right Democratic Presidential nominee Howard Dean? Oh yeah, I forgot.......

I'm talking issues, you guys are talking about superficialiaities. Just to be clear, the point I was making about Hillary is that I love her, but she is in danger of allowing her considerable talent and passionate work on behalf of many issues that are important to us all be undermined by her seeming disingenuous.

That's what I mean by getting real, now you guys try :-)

Edwards in the lead!!!

Lorraine_Bieber — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:34:12 -0700

....in the BSB something-other-than-straw poll.

Come on, doesn't that count for something? This is Ohio, you know. "As Ohio blogs go..."

I wouldn't call the pending

PoliticalOutcast — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:50:40 -0700

I wouldn't call the pending attacks on Shrillary 'swiftboating'; the difference being that the attacks on her will be legitimate.

Jean please

King — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:20:33 -0700

you can't honestly believe Dennis has a chance.

The man thinks we should legalize drugs and we can grow hemp and use it to drive and power our country!

Who's his campaign manager going to be Cheech & Chong?

He is a nice guy, but has no business remarking on things he has no clue about, such as national security, terrorism, Al-Qaida, etc.......

He should limit his remarks to things like, this is a pretty tree let's save it. In all honesty, the man could do wonders around here at home.

God knows we need someone with some half good ideas around Cleveland. The missing in action Mayor, Frank Jackson, is going to bankrupt the region with his visions of bike paths in the projects.

King

yeah

redenemy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:06:58 -0700

it'll be dirty alright. This round's gonna be fun kids...

Jean, seriously

modernesquire — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:10:08 -0700

Dennis has only 2% of the support in his own home state and his unfavorables outweigh his favorables in Ohio. Ken Blackwell had a better polling numbers.

And Dennis isn't the only candidate to have been against the war from the beginning, either: in this election (Obama?) and in the last (Dean?)

I admire your loyalty, but you seem to want to believe that Hillary deliberately conspired with Bush to go into Iraq, yet cut Dennis complete slack for his 180-degree turnaround on abortion when he decided to run for President (speaking of politically convenient positioning). Or his statements during the 2006 elections that he had "no intentions" of running for President, only to announce a month after the election that he was running.

good point, red

bryan — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:53:51 -0700

looks like you've aged a bit, though.

Nominee Hillary

DanS — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:47:15 -0700

If Hillary gets the nomination, I forsee a swiftboating the likes of which John Kerry can only have nightmares about. We'll see ads, editorials, news stories rehashing Whitewater, Monica, healthcare. There'll be so much of it that it will simply out-mass anything her campaign can put out, and she'll be consumed in a massive spin cycle flameout, watching as McCain or Giuliani simply rises above it all.

Quinnipiac Release First Ohio Prezzie Poll

Jerid — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:41:05 -0700

Update:The link to the poll is fixed.
Back to Con Law...

And it's a doozy.
I won't have time to analyze till around noon, but here is a highlight from their release:

CLINTON INCHES AHEAD OF GIULIANI, McCAIN IN OHIO, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;

BUT SHE HAS HIGHER NEGATIVE RATINGS

And here are some numbers for you:

In general election matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:
• Sen. Clinton squeaks by Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 – 42 percent;
• Clinton inches by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 46 – 43 percent;
• Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 52 – 31 percent;
• McCain edges Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 41 – 38 percent;
• Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards edges McCain 44 – 41 percent.

From the Dem Side

Gore 6%
Kerry 6%
Biden 2%
Edwards 11%
Obama 13%
Richardson 1%
Clinton 38%
Clark 1%
Kucinich 2%
Someone else 1%
No vote 1%
Won't vote 1%
N/A 17%

Big winners on the GOP Side

Guiliani 30%
McCain 22%
Romney 4%
Gingrinch 11%
N/A 19%

You can download the full poll here.