Rasmussen (a formerly well-respected polling group, announced that it would no longer poll on Hillary Clinton - meaning they won't poll on "Hillary )s. McCain" or include Hillary in any more presidential polls) because "Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination." Which shows yet another "objective" source being biased and trying to tell Hillary when to bow out. If Obama and the DNC have not told her to bow out, how dare anyone else? It's not over until, it's over!
Among Democratic supporters across the country, 47% say that if the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus was being held in their state today, they would choose Clinton, while 40% would vote for Barack Obama.
Rasmussen is forgetting that caucuses disenfranchise: the elderly and people with children, because those groups are less likely to be able to attend a several hour-long caucus. As a mother of a 21 month old, I can't imagine attending a caucus. Either my husband or I could attend but certainly not both.
Also, caucuses do not allow anonymity - for example, if your union or boss endorses someone, and you don't stand for that person at the caucus, you risk your job.
Also, who are they to say it is over just when the polls are showing that Hillary is leading Obama amongst democrats?!?
The problem for Obama is, the more the public finds out about him the less they like what they see. It appears that many have buyers remorse for every having voted for Obama.
Did the liberal main stream media do what they set out to do from the outset and hide what Obama is about to the voters and present only this happy, joy, joy facade of Change.
The question for the Democrats is ... does anyone really think Barack Obama would be leading Hillary Clinton if all was known about Obama, his wife and Reverend Wright from the outset? The answer is a resounding, NO!
Leave a comment