McCain 45
Obama 41

Perhaps Barack will make an appearance in Alaska and steal those 3 electoral votes.

“There are very clear, dramatic, important differences between McCain and Obama,” Giuliani said, describing those differences as “one wanting to be on offense, the other wanting to be on defense.”

Giuliani said he believed Obama’s inexperience was evident because he likened how the U.S. should handle terrorists to how those accused in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were prosecuted.

“These are not isolated criminal acts,” Giuliani said. “They are a loosely defined conspiracy and an act of war. For Sen. Obama to suggest ’93 is the best example of how to deal with this is a good example of him wanting to go on defense.”

Apparently, Giuliani’s presidential bid ended so quickly that none of his opponents got to dive into his own record and past remarks, so Obama’s campaign did that today:

In an e-mail, entitled, “Giuliani v Giuliani: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Case,” the Obama campaign points out that in 1993, Giuliani said at the time, per the New York Times, March 5, 1994: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’”

Also from that day’s Times: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said he hoped that the verdicts would lessen tensions rather than increase them. ‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”

Kaboom!

Seems Giuliani still isn’t ready for prime time. But it could have worse for poor ol’ Rudy. He might have had to deal with this hypocrisy if he had become the nominee. Instead, he’s just another second-tier surrogate for John McCain (R), who is shaping-up to be one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history.

If 90 percent of those polled have already made up their minds, though, that’s a good thing for Barack because I still believe he’ll get more traction the better known he becomes.

::

I posted this under the wrong thread. Here it is againg:

“If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider. The people who really matter come November – independent voters – turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket,” – Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Who knows if those numbers will hold. Add them to the numbers in the big swing states and some of the southern states. If they all hold, it will be a huge landslide.

Huge.

Know hope.

There was a growing consensus during the Democratic primary season that Obama was going to struggle with Latino voters — due to the exit polls, his race, and McCain’s immigration stance. In fact, in that now-famous conference call in which Hillary Clinton indicated that she would be open to serving as Obama’s running mate, that response was spurred by concern by New York Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D) that Obama was going to have trouble with Latinos. But it looks like that CW — at least right now — was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.

You think? Really? Stereotypes like Latinos won’t vote for black candidates? Claims (fed by the Clinton campaign) that people who voted for Clinton in the primary wouldn’t vote for Obama in the general? All of it ratified by a clueless media who just repeated the latest bullshit talking points from Lanny Davis and Karl Rove?

That “new survey” cited above is this one, but there are plenty of state-level surveys that similarly show Obama poised to absolutely crush McCain with this demographic.

Obama’s lead among Latinos is consistent among those born in the U.S. and those born abroad. Among U.S.-born Latinos, Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 26 percent, and among foreign-born Latinos, 64 percent to 21 percent.

Likewise, Obama does well among Latinos across many states. In California, he leads 66 percent to 20 percent; in New York, 65 percent to 20 percent; in Texas, 61 percent to 22 percent. Combining data in the four southwestern states expected to be key battlegrounds — New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada — Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 31 percent among Latino voters. In Florida, where about half of Latino voters are Cuban-American, Obama has 43 percent to McCain’s 42 percent. The poll’s margin of error is 3.5 percent.

Again, that CW was always hogwash, no matter how much Republicans, Clinton partisans, and the press wanted to believe otherwise. Whether the actual hard data makes a dent in the CW remains to be seen. Remember, people still claim Bush speaks fluent Spanish (when he absolutely does not).

In one of the bigger surprises of Election 2008, early polling shows Barack Obama as potentially competitive in Alaska.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Alaska voters finds John McCain earning 45% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate while another 6% are not sure (see video report). This is the third straight poll showing Obama within single digits of the presumptive GOP nominee. A month ago, McCain was up by nine. Two months ago, it was McCain by nine.

Barack Obama has substantially widened his lead over John McCain in Maine since capturing the Democratic presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Maine voters, Obama now leads his Republican opponent 55% to 33%. In May, Obama enjoyed a 51% to 38% lead, but a month earlier was only ahead by eight points.

Similarly, Obama’s favorability ratings have jumped considerably over the past month. The percentage of voters who view him favorably has risen six points to 63%. He is viewed unfavorably by 34%. McCain’s numbers have remained steady. He is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 45%.

they honestly think they’re ‘ that slick’. They really do. They’ll never own up to it.

As AngryBlackB$(%ch says:

” The shit ain’t subtle, and you ain’t slick.”

But, folks believe they are slick.

I do know why. And I’m not saying I disagree. I almost posted that story earlier on the “angry black woman” thread to prove a point.

I expected the author to at least come out and say why, in their words.

SurveyUSA:

McCain: 43%
Obama: 52%

removed without explanation…

oh, you’re so funny.

come on, Brother.

You know why it was removed.

Check out the comments in this article.

Here’s the picture that was initially in the article, but has since been removed without explanation.

IMO it would be better for him to stay in the Senate. Don’t run again. I’m a big believer of “If they didn’t want you the first time…” It just seems like the people running over and over again start to get regarded as jokes. Plus he would still be the only black person in the Senate.

Whoever is the next President (McCain or Obama) is going to be blamed for Bush’s screwups, especially if it is Obama.

If Obama loses, does he run again in 2012, stand for reelection in the Senate, or just go home?

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama’s proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq.” A precipitous withdrawal, he said, “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others” — enemies of the United States — “would celebrate.”

That’s not from a neocon, a warmonger, etc.

How is that the “right thing” to do? At the end of the day, the bill still isn’t passed.

Dhimmicrats have become famous for this: attach something to a war funding bill that they know will get vetoed, and then use it to throw Republicans under the bus.

How is that sort of posturing helpful?