Wednesday, April 9

Obama Gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania

*Updated with new link and more details*

A few months ago, Clinton was a good 20 points ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania. The latest polls show her with only about a six point lead.

I think her 'being under sniper fire' exaggeration may have hurt her along with the story she had in her stump speech about the uninsured pregnant woman. Clinton claimed the woman was denied treatment and later died. That anecdote was pulled from her stump speech this week after the hospital came forward and said the woman had insurance and was never denied coverage.

What do you think? Vote in my sidebar poll and let me know if you think Clinton's "misspeaks" could be the beginning of the end for her.


Anonymous said...

It is strange and revealing that the person boasting about experience (foreign policy) and endurance (3 a.m. calls) has been subjected to sniper fire during one of those experience enriching foreign travels. When unmasked, she blames it to lack of sleep! Are we to believe then that the 3 a.m. calls will be taken without adverse effects on her diminished judgement?

Hands-Free Heart said...

Although her exaggerations may have swayed some voters, I really don't see that as the primary cause of the changes in the polls.

Pennsylvania is following a similar trend of many states that have already voted. As the candidates come to campaign, Obama gains some and Clinton loses some in the polls.

Clinton is well-known in every household, so registered Democrats who do not follow politics closely would naturally choose her because they know her. They don't really think to look closely at other less-known candidates until the starts campaigning in their state, when local media expands their coverage. Something in the media coverage attracts their attention, and then they do seek to learn more about the other candidate(s). Also, voters are more likely to actually pay attention. because they know they will vote soon.

I think this would happen in any close race where one candidate is well-known and the other is not. Some of us may think of Obama as well-known because we are following the news so closely, but there are many out there who really don't pay attention to the election coverage until it gets close to their turn to vote.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes just sometimes the good guy wins!To quote Gandhi," First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!" I support Obama because I believe that an honest man, with integerity, morals and ethics would be a breath of fresh air in politics!

Anonymous said...

I am an Obama supporter, but I feel called upon to inform you that the hospital story is not as egregious a misrepresentation by Clinton as the sniper fire story was.

Apparently, the woman seeking treatment had insurance but was in debt to her own hospital, which required her to pay down her debt before getting treatment. The hospital where the woman died was a second hospital. They are the ones who have stated that the woman had insurance and that when she came to the second hospital, she was treated. Unfortunately, she died. This is a very sad story, but the problem is that the woman in question was overwhelmed by medical bills, even though she had insurance. This, too, signals a real problem with our medical system.

I would class this story as "misspeaking" on Hillary's part, not exaggerating or falsifying information. She remembered some details incorrectly. Right now, Hillary's statements are subject to extraordinary skepticism by the press.

I am more concerned about who has paid Bill Clinton so much for "speaking engagements." To whom is he (and his wife) beholden, should they return to the White House? Lobbyists, corporations, foreign governments? The Clintons should answer questions about who has been enriching them for the last 7 years. This is a serious political question.


blogger templates | Make Money Online