I know that the "netroots" does not represent all voters, but every poll on every liberal magazine or blog gives the lead to Edwards. None of my friends, democrats, republicans, independents, and one libertarian are supporting Clinton. I'm finding it hard to believe the numbers. I'm getting a sick feeling that the corporate media is trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy.

Blue state supporters of Hillary must not have gotten in touch with what her high negative numbers mean. As a Democratic activist in Texas, hearing poll results like this scares the bejeebers out of me. Even a good many Democrats here have negative feelings about Hillary -- a visceral repugnance, not just mild distaste. A state party leader told me he believes that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee all the East Texas Democrats in the legislature can kiss their seats goodbye, which would hurt Democrats in Texas for a generation by decimating the party here and throughout the South. (With legislatures in charge of drawing boundary lines for congressional districts, even incumbent Dems in Congress are vulnerable, as Texas Democrats saw under Tom DeLay's tenure.) I took his words seriously, but checked his perception with a female district judge, someone I trust and know is progressive. She too says Hillary would be disastrous for Democrats in Texas, and probably in other red states as well.

If Hillary is the nominee, some of the most effective negative ads against her probably won't even be swiftboat-type ads. No, they'll just run pictures of times she was caught with a remarkably sour look on her face. Two occasions stick out in my memory. One was during a State of the Union speech during Bush's first term. The other was during the 2004 Democratic National Convention as Howard Dean began to speak. As Dean supporters began to roar, cameras turned, catching Hillary and Chelsea sipping wine in a private box as a most unlovely look crossed Hillary's face. Howard Dean is beloved by many and is much respected by red state activists grateful for his "50 State" strategy after years of the DNC sucking money out of Democrats in red states without reinvesting any of it in building up the party in our states. Sneeriing about Bush will kill her with independents and disaffected Republicans, and sneering at Dean will be turn off others. Put those together and I believe she's unelectable, no matter how much apparent disarray the GOP seems to be in. Remember who controls most of the airwaves in this country. They'll have endless opportunities to rant and rave and bash.

I wish Hillary's supporters would pause and take stock. But of course the corporate media is very fond of Hillary and Bill since Bill supported the 1996 Telecommunications Act which allowed vastly more consolidation of their industry. So they'd love her to be the Democratic nominee (if not necessarily President), and you can bet negative pieces on her will be few and far between--until after the nomination. (Perhaps Rupert Murdoch's meeting with Hillary not long ago should alert the grassroots.) As fond as Big Media is of the Clintons, they still prefer Republicans because the GOP is even more open-handed about giving away the public airwaves to their great profit than was Bill. If Hillary were to be the nominee, you can bet they'd be glad to put up with her--if they can't get someone even better for their bottom line. With a Republican president they wouldn't have the slightest worry that healthcare reform would be enacted, where a Democratic president - even one so cozy with big corporations- might pose a risk. I suspect they are hoping Hillary is our nominee, but will turn on her in the end. As we saw with Dean, the MSM can shut a campaign down in short order if they want to.

enough with the conspiracy theory talk. you're setting yourself up for failure when you imagine the media is going to decide the next election and there's nothing you can do about it. are you saying there aren't unflattering pictures of every candidate? that's a lame argument, and it just feeds into all the tired cliches already in play about hillary, whether they're legitimate or not. i support her, and i fully accept the fact that she isn't smiling in every picture ever taken of her.

Many in the media support Senator Clinton due to her pro Israel position. Obama believes in being unbiased with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has some religious advisors who support the third world people in their struggle of ending apartheid and the occupation. Unfortunately, this a big turn off to some. His father was an African Muslim and Obama has Muslim roots. The LA times and NY Times are owned by Zionists.

Judy: Comments like yours are the reason why so many blogs and sites are going to real-name registration for comments and why we are considering doing the same. First, your facts are just wrong. The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, and say what you will about it (and we've said plenty), it is a publicly owned company. If you have a 401K, YOU might own a piece of it. The NYT is also a public company, though majority controlled by the descendants of the Ochs family, who are, in fact, Jewish. That does not, however, make them "Zionists." I'm sure Senator Obama would be the first to call such coded hate mongering for what it is.

Forget the Zionist nonsense and the great conspiracies.... Obama is a great guy, I like him a lot, but he is coming across as someone truly lacking experience. He started well, honest, no BS-ing. Clinton has a certain presence that is undeniable. She is intelligent, that is for sure, she has a better machine and a great deal of experience in campaigning.

Whether that suffices to win the nomination and the election next year is questionable. The Reps will be going on their usual gross assaults next year, swiftboating, etc... And I am not sure that the bulk of US voters have the time or inclination to educate themselves in a hurry. The stupendous dumbing down of the nation over the past 30 years has left us more open than ever to dictatorship. Just look at what the boy-king has gotten away with. Half the people don't even realize when they are being screwed, and when they do, they vote for the screwers and hate those who would get them out of the mess.

If Clinto wants to win, she will have to be extremely aggressive. Kerry WANTED to lose, his campaign is textbook how not to do it.

As for the polls? Come on. It's a bit early.

.
The Monopoly Media

"Only eight corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Viacom (formerly CBS), General Electric, Yahoo, Google, and MSN — now control most of the U.S. media, and some of them have close connections to companies making weaponry for the U.S. military."

And they tell us what to think . . . but it’s not a matter of patriotism, it’s a matter of money.

The preferred business of Big Business is war. When you consider the extreme profits generated by war, no other business enterprise is really worth pursuing. Why settle for millions, when for a lot less effort or competition, you can make billions? Consumers are fickle, new products are invented and companies heavily invested in roller-skates lose out to skateboard companies.

War profiteering is the only guaranteed road to obscene profits, and that’s why the Monopoly Media loves war.

The Monopoly Media doesn’t love war critics, and they don’t like Dennis Kucinich in particular. They see him as a troublemaker who threatens never ending wars, and their never ending obscene profits. As a general rule, they don’t like Democrats either, but they hedge their bets in every election by backing the most war supportive Democratic candidates available. Especially now, with Republican candidates soiling themselves in public, they’ve spotlighted Hillary and Obama as the leading Democratic candidates least likely to interfere with their profits.

.

The New York Times bragged about AIPAC on July 6, 1987(20 years later it is even more powerful) as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence presidential candidates , to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."(see The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt) Judy is right about Obama. You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for world people's struggles.

Wow Latasha! Direct from the Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

On Obama's religious outreach website, faith.barackobama.com, Rev. Wright Jr. is listed, who has said,"Zionism has an element of white racism.", Rev. Smith is listed who received the community award by the Nation of Islam, Rev. Pfleger is listed who has allowed Farrakhan to preach in his church. Is it any wonder that Obama doesn't thrill Jewish people like he does Muslims?

Seems like an awful lot of MoJoBlog discussions have been getting turned into anti-Jew rants lately.

Am I alone in suspecting there's maybe ONE neo-nazi type posting this BS, using numerous, mostly female names as cover?

I agree gvc. Some Obama supporters(e.g. Judy and Latasha) are just poor losers, that they have to stoop so low. Not to worry, Senator Clinton is on a roll.

One mustn't confuse anti-semitism with a healthy concern about a foreign powers sway with our government and media.. Zionist policies are tabu to discuss here in America, whereas in Israel the people often criticize them. For sure, detractors of Israel's destructive side, it's unwarranted and ill conceived invasion of Lebanon for instance, will not get the support of the US media, ever! What more proof that our media is pro-Zionist?

The ever increasing US funds that pay for Israel's military also gets invested in a hugh machine to influence people in America, buy the media and help create an intelligence network here. why wouldn't they? It guarantees ever greater rewards.

Those of you that post the illusion that criticizing Israel is anti Semitic just don't understand the very secular and non Jewish nature of Zionism.

Obama's father was not an African Muslim, he was a Kenyan, of Luo descent, Barak is a common name in the community without religious affiliations. It is derived from a Kiswahili word meaning blessing.

Hillary is winning because she was part of the 8 great Clinton years which brought us peace, prosperity and a balanced budget. Americans want that time back and they trust that the two-fer can do it.

cdt typed: "One mustn't confuse anti-semitism with a healthy concern about a foreign powers sway with our government and media"

One doesn't. Nor does one readily go for conspiracy theories. One CAN discern between criticism of a nation's leadership, and criticism of all followers of a particular religion. One MAY just believe that the Founders gave us good advise when they said "avoid tangling alliances"..., ALL tangling alliances.
However, when people come on a message board with cut & paste postings from a site that describes itself as follows:
"The NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK is a pre-eminent source of information and discussion concerning Jewish guilt."
Then it's time to call them out on what they are. And I said anti-JEW.
I won't use the word anti-Semite because it is imprecise, as this hatred is aimed only at Jews, and Not all Semitic peoples Are Jews. Semitic groups include Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Akkadians, Hebrews, Phoenicians and their descendants. The term is also used to refer to those who's native tongue is one of the semitic languages, the most commonly spoken one being Arabic.

Obama/Clinton '08

I agree with the first comment above, which says: "None of my friends, democrats, republicans, independents, and one libertarian are supporting Clinton." That's my experience also.

I had a eureka moment reading the frightening article in the current issue of MoJo about Hillary and her connection to the religious Right. Is it possible that this constant media barrage of Hillary's success in the polls, her being consistently outfront and better funded than the other candidates is generated by the very same colossal right-wing machine that installed Bush in the presidency?

Does it matter to these very religious and very radical fundamentalists whether a Dem or a Republican is in the White House? I don't think so anymore. They'll put their formidable weight behind anyone who believes in leaders inspired by a Christian god of their own invention. It is truly horrifying.

Where do they do this California polling? In Orange County? I don't know ANY of my democratic friends who are supporting Hillary. Not one. Of course no one ever asks us who we are voting for, we don't have land lines. We like Obama. A lot.

The Obama I saw yesterday at the debate was a puffy eyed tired young man who received alot of money to sell something to the public it didn't want.

Imagine my surprise today when the media with one voice declared him the winner. One said they were going to turn his lack of experience into his greatest virtue. This has all the ear marks of Karl Rove. Obama will not get the nomination. Democrats are not buying what he is selling but I think he going to run as an Independent so they can sneak another Republican in. All this money being paid to a 2 year Senator is not for his good looks. I think there is an agenda.

Hillary is not connected to the religious right. She is a known quantity. I guess the deal is attack her from the left and from the right and see what sticks. She is leading in the polls. If they didn't poll you call them and ask to be included. They may have missed you because they were only polling Democrats.

Susan you are one of the best at opposition research. You really have a knack for it. But saying you are a Democratic Activist isn't that going a bit too far but then you right wingers never know when to call it quits. Why not sell Giuliani or Romney or poor McCain God knows he needs help. You still don't get it. We Democrats like to vote for the people we choose. We will decide who is the best candidate. But A for effort.