Obama's 'bump:' Polling gain on McCain

The real bumb will come when he picks Clinton as VP. If not I predict a slide.

is there a reason gallup is going with "registered voters" instead of "likely voters"? history shows Republicans 'underpoll' in gallup's registered voter numbers compared to likely voters.

also dave leip's excellent atlas of elections indicates (only) ~65-75% of registered voters actually vote.

does it just take longer in the election cycle to determine who is a 'likely voter'?

As someone who voted for Kerry last time around I can say that at this point in that election Kerry was crushing Bush in every poll. He had a 20pt lead at this point. A 6pt leasd after all of the fawning articles and attention Obama has gotten is pretty insignificant. If that is the only bump he gets from the nomination process than I think the McCain camp will be very happy. If the GOP can get Bush reelected and win by 3 mill votes there is nothing that they can not do.

Obama will NEVER be President without Hillary Clinton on the ticket..Everyone knows she won the popular vote. Everyone knows the media shunned her while building up every little thing Obama did or said. Yes the media was sexist and totally partial to Obama..She can bring in the votes he cannot touch and also the women's votes that he will never get...Without HRC on his ticket a vote for Obama will be a vote for McCain..His well oiled machine and stragegist can only do so much..His rhetoric will only carry him so far..Together they can Bring our Soldiers Home ..

If Obama picks HRC as his running mate you can bet the bump will go sky high! Sorry John but I disagree with you as do millions of voters!

Who cares about this poll or that poll, when the only poll that counts is in November !! In that one, I predict, it will show an elected Senator Obama to the Presidency of our United States of America, not the Corporate States of America !!!! That Presidency, of the Corporate States, belongs to Senator " Questionable Conduct " McCain and his army of Lobbyists!!!! Keep on track, Senator Obama, you have that Republican herd on the run !! Ride that train right into our White House, January, 2009, President Obama !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Without HRC on his ticket a vote for Obama will be a vote for McCain..His well
Posted by: kaye c. | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Earth to Kaye, Earth to Kaye, this ground control calling!

1) Hillary lost, get over it

2) Obama is a Democrat and McCain is a Republican

3) A vote for Obama would be a vote for a Democrat and a vote for McCain would be a throwaway vote for a lockstep Bush Republican.

I am fearful of a Clinton VP presence. All of the baggage and Bill argruments make sense to me.

I hope that Sam Nunn and Ed Rendell are carefully considered.

Hey kaye c: I'd be absolutely fascinated to know how "everyone knows" Hillary won the popular vote when the numbers I've seen have her losing in the states that actually *counted* the popular vote, and when several caucus states which Obama won handily never provided ANY popular vote totals, because they never counted them in the first place, because the primaries *aren't decided* by popular vote. So let me guess, you're one of those people who were screaming about disenfranchisement when Florida and Michigan were penalized for deliberately and clearly breaking DNC primary rules, but you've got no problem completely ignoring the votes of four entire other states that actually voted according to the rules by making this ridiculous popular vote argument?

Let it go already, it's over, and Obama won by every measure.

As for the media being totally partial to Obama, ever heard of Wright? Everyone else in the country has, since the supposedly Obama-loving media plastered him on every television screen, computer monitor and newspaper in the country for *weeks*. Yeah, they were *totally* propping Obama up... give us a break.

poor kaye, he just won't give it up. the media did everything they could to destroy obama and they failed. rezko, ayers, wright... endlessly for months and he was still able to crush hillary. hillary is exactly what the media reported her to be, a divisive, polarizing career politician that brings out the worst in people. obama's team knows this, which is why they will avoid her like the plague. with her on the ticket, the rabid right will stop at nothing to prevent her from seeing the wh. and just how does obama need pro-war hillary to help end the war? you are just silly.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

This bump will be the smallest lead Obama has. It's only going to grow bigger.

might be interesting to poll our active duty troops in Iraq and see who they side with. My hunch is that it is not with Obama

John McBush already peaked with his poll numbers and it's only going to get worse from here on out for him and his GOPer pals.

Some of McCain's problems are:

-called recession
-called Iraq
-called corruption
-called failed ideology
-called, in popular parlance: "you've HAD your chance, Republicans"

It'll be fun to watch him drag along the Bush/Cheney agenda for the next few months and drag down his doomed buddies in congress while he's at it.

might be interesting to poll our active duty troops in Iraq and see who they side with. My hunch is that it is not with Obama

Posted by: Patriot | June 9, 2008 3:53 PM

My hunch is they'd support the candidate working to bring them home the soonest.

might be interesting to poll our active duty troops in Iraq and see who they side with. My hunch is that it is not with Obama

Posted by: Patriot | June 9, 2008 3:53 PM

Try again!

Barack Obama and Ron Paul have received more donations than anyone else (McCain) from members of the military:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

The presidential polls this early are not very reliable. If after the Democratic Convention Barack Obama gets a big bump in polls that McCain can't overcome after the GOP convention, that would be more suggestive of the outcome in November.

Patriot, Patriot. I think not. My "hunch" is that they support Obama by a high margin---you think they want to stay there with no end in sight? I think NOT! Obama WILL BE the next President of these United States! How anyone can, in their right (no pun intended) mind vote for McSame, is beyond all logic and intelligence. I'd like to think that the American people learned their lesson by voting for Bush in '04. I'd also like to think that American people use logic, reason and intelligence to find out truths instead of believing everything they hear, just because it is said.

Hi Vinny! The democratic nomination was pretty much decided. It makes a big difference that the winner of the primary race was not decided until the primaries were over. Usually, the democratic presidential nominee is decided long before now. As for Kaye, with or without Hillary on the ticket Obama will do well. Surely, you must have forgotten about Rev. Wright and Rezco. That was the news for weeks on end. Obama had to fight off attacks not only from McCain but also from Clinton. They both ganged up on Obama. That is the reason why people were saying that Clinton staying in it was only helping McCain. I think that Obama did pretty well with those odds. The primaries are over move on. I think that the polls will be better for Obama when people stop focusing on what is happening with Clinton and start focusing on gas, jobs, bringing our troops home. You know things like that. Now that the race is only between the two of them instead of 3 people, we can really start to make some progress. I think that Obama will get a bigger "bump" over McCain.

The more relevant poll tracking is to compare Obama's day-by-day numbers versus the articles the Swamp does on Obama's poll numbers.

Track that and you'll find that when Obama is trailing, Swamp articles on polls disappear. When Obama is ahead, Swamp articles on polls revive.

No wonder the latest Rasmussen Poll finds that only 17% of Americans believe the media attempts to tell the truth, and that even Democrats believe the media is just an Obama cheerleading squad.

Patriot I know a few troops who came home just days ago that would disagree with you. They are the ones that know first hand that this war is not about "freedom, nukes, terrorists, etc". And they don't have any desire to leave their families again to continue to fight a war they don't believe in. If they vote for McCain they will be sending themselves and their brothers back time and time again, then off to Iran. This is not something that most want.

Kaye c..You keep posting over and over that a vote for Obama will be a vote fo McCain. I don't get it. This line of thinking may work in the primarys, but it doesn't work in the general election. You may have to use your own brain for postings now that the Clinton camp is no longer sending you their talking points.

Who would have believed that Americans would elect the most liberal senator as president. Fact--Obama cast more liberal votes than the Senate Majority Leader. I didn't realize USA had swung that far left. Everyone loves to bash W on his low poll numbers. Can someone please research for me the correct date when Congress had a higher approval rating than President Bush ? Be honest now ! I think it's been YEARS.

Patriot
you wrote: "might be interesting to poll our active duty troops in Iraq and see who they side with. My hunch is that it is not with Obama"

So what? What is your point?
Others above have taken issue with you as to what the troops would say. Still, so what? It is human nature to want your sacrifice to mean something. In this case -- wrong place, wrong enemy, false reasons, ever changing definition of winning -- The only admirable thing about this criminal enterprise is the noble service of our troops.

Let's get them out of Iraq alive and then ask what they think. We sure did not ask the opinions before we sent them over (again and again).

" Bruce ", what are you doing with that Republican pollster ? Get yourself a real one, not that it really matters !! Polls are for the pollsters and the also-ran !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Obama will NEVER be President without Hillary Clinton on the ticket..Everyone knows she won the popular vote. Everyone knows the media shunned her while building up every little thing Obama did or said. Yes the media was sexist and totally partial to Obama..She can bring in the votes he cannot touch and also the women's votes that he will never get...Without HRC on his ticket a vote for Obama will be a vote for McCain..His well oiled machine and stragegist can only do so much..His rhetoric will only carry him so far..Together they can Bring our Soldiers Home ..

Posted by: kaye c. | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

I love kaye c's posts...i really should have collected all of them from the start. kaye c...if you had a brain, you would understand 1) hillary only has the popular vote because she (and her machine) counts michigan 2) if barack was on the ballot, he would have the popular vote 3) hillary only fought for michigan after she saw she was losing 4) HILLARY IS A DEMOCRAT...BARACK IS A DEMOCRAT.

you are a total idiot if you vote for mccain. please prove me wrong by voting democrat.

Nothing like some poll numbers to bring out resident poll cherry-picker Bruce. Bruce, do us all a favor and be sure to post every single poll matching McCain against Obama from now until November. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Notice a trend?

To those women who are thinking of voting for Obama or McCain might enjoy reading this article researched by a British Journalist.

It is a long article but very well researched and not biased.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Why do Republicans continue to think US soldiers are dumb enough to vote for the party that is responsible for 4000 US military deaths and cuts the benefits of those who survive?

Track that and you'll find that when Obama is trailing, Swamp articles on polls disappear. When Obama is ahead, Swamp articles on polls revive.

No wonder the latest Rasmussen Poll finds that only 17% of Americans believe the media attempts to tell the truth, and that even Democrats believe the media is just an Obama cheerleading squad.

Posted by: Bruce | June 9, 2008 4:12 PM

Yes RNC Brucie,
Maybe if you try hard enough you can come up with some "real" polls that show the Republic Party winning everything...YES!

Try looking on Rush or Fox Noise channels website, I'm sure there are millions of Republican "McCainiacs" out there who aren't being polled by the evil liberal Swamp:
-
http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/InsultComicDog/?action=view¤t=McCain.gif

He is not the most liberal. I saw a website that averaged 6 or 7 groups that rate senators. Obama voted the way liberals wanted him to an average of 82% of the time, about the same as Hillary, pretty much in the middle of the pack of democrats in the senate. McCain voted with the conservatives like 95% of the time, one of the most conservative senators. I don't have the exact numbers here but I saw them on electoral-vote.com

They also called John Kerry the most liberal senator too and it wasn't true then either. Far from a FACT.

It sure is fun to talk about Hillary being the VP nominee but I really don't think it is going to happen.

There is too much at risk for Barack if he does pick her. I know her supporters want to see her "keep fighting" but they will have to realize someday (maybe after his second term) that she actually did not win the nomination and she doesn't get to be on the ticket if she doesn't win.

Kaye C, ya gotta get over it. McCain is another four years of Bush. So if that's what you want then good riddance. McCain is a fossil with no ideas. He supports everything Democrats are opposed to with the possible exception of immigration reform. Obama is clearly brighter. Republicans I know are A) not wild about McCain and B) not all that opposed to Obama. They feel they can work with him. I think many in the republican party feel they need to break with the Bush policies and expect to take a beating in November. Long term they may be looking at 2012. Obama 2008

To all off you uneducated guessers, McCain leads Obama in the polls of military members. Nice try though. fact is Obama is the most liberal candidate to run for president in decades and this country does not elect liberals. I like the checklist somebody put on why McCain can't get elected. problem is everyone of the reasons applies to Obama.

I too just returned from Iraq.

Real Patriot: your're telling me that because 44 military folks donated to Obama that he is wildly supported ? I think not

Sharon- you are very, very wrong. most that are there want to see the job completed and we see the progress. too bad you cannot see much of anything

cuchanu- I am one and I know firsthand that the vast majority of active duty troops in either theater think Obama is a joke

Tom S- my point is that the folks that seem to think we are "occupying Iraq" know nothing. the truth is that the only foreign soil we have ever OCCUPIED is where our soldiers graves our. period.

2044 ODA

fact is Obama is the most liberal candidate to run for president in decades and this country does not elect liberals. I like the checklist somebody put on why McCain can't get elected. problem is everyone of the reasons applies to Obama.

Posted by: Oops | June 9, 2008 5:00 PM

Fact is McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and he has voted with Bush 100% of the time so far in 2008.
That would make John McSame one of the most radical neocons in Congress.

God I hope McCain wins. I'm so sick of the Obama Cult fest. Nothing like the media shoving a candidate down your throat!

In 1988, Dukakis had a 20 pt lead at this point over Bush 1.

I expected to see a 10 point lead, at least, for Obama at this point.

I'm surprised it's only 6 pts. Considering that primary evidence shows that Obama consistentely OVERPOLLED by 5-7 pts I would say this race is dead even.

too just returned from Iraq.

Real Patriot: your're telling me that because 44 military folks donated to Obama that he is wildly supported ? I think not
Posted by: Patriot | June 9, 2008 5:07 PM

You didn't just return from Iraq and you're not even close to being a 'Patriot"...whatever that means anymore.

You're hiding behind your keyboard just like all the other tough-talking Repubs so famously do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs

The last time there was any significant difference between McCain and Obama in the daily tracking poll that Gallup has been running this year was April 27-May 2, when it was McCain who drew the support of 48 percent, Obama 42 percent, the opposite of where they stand today.

My mother and many others went through the Great Depression and looking around at all of the BAD NEWS that we hear EVERY DAY on the tv, in the newspaper, on the Internet, and on the radio, it sure seems to me that is where we're heading again. Anyone who can't see has got to be rich and just doesn't CARE or blind...such as our beloved prez, who said, in essence: I had no idea gas prices were that high! I'm sure many people who are still alive that went through the Great Depression can also see where we're headed!!! The religious right's record of voting on all of their personal issues has helped get us where we are today!!! I hope you self-righteous judgmental people are happy!!! You people have missionaries who go to impoverished countries to teach the word of God, (which includes "judge not, lest YE be judged) - well, you won't have to send them far one of these days unless we get a president who is FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE WE'RE HEADED TOWARDS A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY STATUS OURSELVES...BUT THERE'S ALWAYS PLENTY OF MONEY FOR WAR...NO PROBLEM!!!!

All of us long time Conservatives need to take our party back from the deficit spending Neocons who have effictively ruined our Republican Party.
John McCain who is just like George Bush, is NOT the answer.

Bob Barr for President!
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?gclid=CLWjvfn855MCFSWlQAodHlXoVQ

This is a nominatin bump as Silva said. It will go away. This is still pointless, though, as the electoral votes will decide the presidency and not the popular vote.

p.s. Eddie, it is biased. There's no new information in that article and the writer in the first paragraph says Barack Obama "represents the future of this country." The Guardian's fishwrap over in England. If the article weren't bias (which it is) the writer would've insisted on an appropriate headline such as "Carol McCain endorses her ex-husband." Somehow they always forget to note that Carol has endorsed his campaigns for the past 20 years, don't they?

Hey Mary, I'm glad you're so concerned about the economy. You must vote for McCain if you're that devoted to avoiding another depression. You do realize what the promised Obama tax increases would do to our economy, don't you? After all, you understand basic economics, right?

I think Clinton would be the nominee if she hadn't lied about Bosnia. People want to know their leaders will tell the truth. No one believes a liar, even when they're not lying! I voted for Clinton, but I"m kind of relieved she is not the nominee. I don't think Obama should choose her as running mate. I do, however think he should select a qualified woman, ie Diane Feinstein or some other respected female in government.

Uh Patriot, our active duty troops in Iraq favor Obama by a wide margin. The vast majority are ready to come home, after completing multiple tours of duty. We need to bring them home to their families now.

It's painfully obvious by reading the
comments after pro-Obama articles that the GOP is posting under the guise of 'disgruntled Hillary supporters'. All have the same message and very often the exact same language. It's a good strategy
for sheep but most of us can see through the little game. McCain
is as divisive as hell and doesn't
have one decent idea to move
the country forward. He'll run on the same tired fear tactics that have given us Dubya and his band of
liars hiding behind the flag.

By Labor Day Obama will up by 15%-20% points, due in large part to the number of normal Republicans that will flock to his campaign after they realize that McCain is not Presidential material.

Hey Mary, I'm glad you're so concerned about the economy. You must vote for McCain if you're that devoted to avoiding another depression. You do realize what the promised Obama tax increases would do to our economy, don't you? After all, you understand basic economics, right?

Posted by: Jeff | June 9, 2008 5:45 PM

No Jeff, but I'll bet Mary has seen the economic destruction that Bush and Cheney's policies have been having on our country...and the one's McCain want's to continue using...
Trying to scare people with what "might" happen if Obama wins when we already know what McCain want's to do (more BushCo), won't work this time, Jeffy.

Posted by: kaye c. | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Kaye c., I know plenty of people have been jumping on you over this, but perhaps this site gives an unbiased answer of the popular vote, Clinton vs Obama.

Clinton wins popular vote ONLY if you include Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and even THEN she wins only by a small margin. Check this out:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_clinton_win_the_popular_vote.html

Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" experience.
3. "Vision and mission" for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies, " first U.S.A Centric" than any other country [ ies ] centric.

In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities.

The need of our next movement and generation is a change. The Change in " past Washington and its Leadership". A change we can believe in and not the seductive, deceptive, and confusing slogan of "leader we can believe in" [? Effexor ?".

Our Greatgrand Nation has to address many present and future challenges and start with new clean "Slate and Senator".

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Our Greatgrand Nation is needs the CHANGE at every level and for long time.

I am sure Senator Obama with the help of Senator Clinton and her supporters, can deliver that CHANGE.

Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas

To Patriot: Welcome back from Iraq. Hope you don't have to return anytime soon (or ever for that matter). To you and all those who still support this war (not too many at this time I suppose), here's a simple question that I have, one that I normally ask anyone who comes to me for budget and project approval: What's your success criteria? Can you clearly define them?

And just a bit more: What made GW, DC, DR and all the neo-cons think that they could turn a centuries-old civilization that's been only under a monarchy or dictatorship for eons, to into a western-style democracy overnight? Did the Iraqi's come begging to the US asking them to implement democracy? They were probably much better off with Saddam than Bush!

This war has gone from WMD to remove Saddam to War on Terror to democracy to "I've lost track of the reasons".... How many more American and Iraqi lives do you want to see lost before we get out of there? You'd think that the trillion dollars we've spent there would have been of some use to the millions that are losing their jobs and homes? I can understand the urge for our soldiers to finish the job that they started BUT at what cost? 4000 more American lives? A few hundred thousand Iraqi lives? Sometimes you have to pull the plug on a project, cut your losses, learn your lessons and come away wiser. This, is one of those times.

Oh, Johnny, there's no "might" about it. This WSJ piece shows everything that "did" happen every time the capital gains tax was increased. Obama has said he'd double it (more than it's ever been increased at one time in our history). The result would be a huge sucking sound as the Dow hits the floor as investors everywhere scramble to take their money out of the market. I mess stress to you, John, how there is seriously no "might" involved. It's a certainty. If you don't believe me look at the charts included in the story of what happened every time this tax was increased.

http://s.wsj.net/article/SB120847505709424727.html

From the WSJ: "The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

"Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President."

John E.,

Isn't Jeff a hoot!

Bill Clinton left Dubya a budget surplus. Dubya managed to turn that into $9 1/2 trillion debt, an economy that's tanking. And the cure for this is a Republican candidate who wants to keep it up?

Jeff wrote on June 9 at 5:45p:
Hey Mary, I'm glad you're so concerned about the economy. You must vote for McCain if you're that devoted to avoiding another depression. You do realize what the promised Obama tax increases would do to our economy, don't you? After all, you understand basic economics, right?

Jeff, you're either

one of those millionaires that benefited from Bush's tax cuts OR
have no clue as to what the facts are behind Bush's tax cuts and who benefited from them OR
you fully know and are a hard-core far-right neo-con fanatic and don't care OR
you work for Fox News and have no problems with lying straight to people's faces

Before you start with your scare tactics this time around, I'd advise you to go check out who exactly would see the tax increases under Obama's plan. FYI, it's the rich and the wealthy (oh dear! ain't that a travesty! they want us rich folks to pay more taxes !!! Ooooh...!! )

Clearsite, when did I mention Bush's tax cuts? Obama has said he'll increase the capital gains tax to 28%, doubling it from its current rate. He claims this isn't a tax on the middle class even though millions of middle class americans own stock.Do you know the reason WHY Clinton left Bush with a surplus? Because he recognized how to stimulate and cut the capital gains tax to 20%.
Charlie Gibson correctly pointed out that every time the rate has been increased since 1962 (Kennedy was also a supporter of a low capitals gain tax) investors have pulled there money out of the market and the government revenues from the tax have plummeted.
It's all right there in the WSJ article (with charts), I'm sorry if the truth doesn't fit your political agenda but you can't argue against the results of 40 years of increases and decreases in the capital gains tax.

Hey Jeff!! Don't believe everything that appears in the WSJ. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch now. Yes.. the same guy who own's "fair and balanced" Fox News.

Obama's Capital Gains Tax increase is not for everyone; only for those that make more than $250,000 a year. Maybe you do and that clearly means that you're relatively unaffected by the recession (it's not a slowdown like Dubya would like you to believe).

McCain an extension of Bush

Texas Executions:
GW Bush Has Defined Himself, Unforgettably, As Shallow And Callous
by Anthony Lewis

BOSTON-There have been questions all along about the depth and seriousness of George W. Bush. They have been brought into sharp focus now by a surprising issue: the way the death penalty is administered in Texas. In his comments on that subject Governor Bush has defined himself, unforgettably, as shallow and callous.
In his five years as governor of Texas, the state has executed 131 prisoners -- far more than any other state. Mr. Bush has lately granted a stay of execution for the first time, for a DNA test.

In answer to questions about that record, Governor Bush has repeatedly said that he has no qualms. "I'm confident," he said last February, "that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts."

That defense of the record ignores many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death penalty cases. Lawyers have been under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or been drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not "obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel's wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep."

This past week The Chicago Tribune published a compelling report on an investigation of all 131 death cases in Governor Bush's time. It made chilling reading.

In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.

In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.

Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials.

Asked about the Tribune study, Governor Bush said, "We've adequately answered innocence or guilt" in every case. The defendants, he said, "had full access to a fair trial."

There are two ways of understanding that comment. Either Governor Bush was contemptuous of the facts or, on a matter of life and death, he did not care.

At the heart of the problem is the Texas way of providing lawyers for defendants too poor to hire their own, as most are in death cases. There is no state system. Judges assign lawyers -- often lawyers who have contributed to their election campaigns.

"The State of Texas is a national embarrassment in the area of indigent legal services," a committee of the State Bar of Texas says in a report just approved. Again, Governor Bush has shown no concern about this reality. He vetoed a bill, passed by the legislature, that would have let Texas counties set up a limited public defender program for the poor.

Capital punishment, long favored by a majority of Americans, has become a national issue again because of concern about the fairness of its administration. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a Republican, imposed a moratorium on executions in that state after 13 men on death row were shown to be innocent. Pat Robertson and other conservatives have called for a national moratorium.

The most complete study ever done of the death penalty process, by Prof. James S. Liebman and others at Columbia University, was published the other day. It showed that two-thirds of death convictions or sentences were upset on appeal for such reasons as incompetent defense lawyers or prosecutors who bent the rules.

To all this George Bush is seemingly indifferent. Or perhaps not entirely. If he were not running for president, it is doubtful that he would just now have granted his first stay of execution. Next week Gary Graham, convicted of murder on the testimony of a single witness who said she saw him at night from 30 to 40 feet away, is due to be executed. Will Governor Bush care?

Also, Clearsight, you don't know me or anyone on this blog. Before you go accusing other people of trying "scare tactics" you might not want to base your whole argument on classist "soak the rich" rhetoric. Your anger has no basis in reality, just like your candidate Obama's economic plan.

How can Hillary's supporters possibly claim that there was media bias against her, when, a week after losing, they're trying to sell her as the inevitable veep (the same way they tried to ram her down our throats as the inevitable president)? Hillary lost - so why is every single article about her? Dear God, I hope Obama is smart enough not to include her on the ticket!

Is it possible that the Bradley Effect exists here - where some whites say they will vote for a black but won't? Given Bush's miserable record, the Dem candidate should win easily, but not sure with a black (well, biracial) candidate. We'll see.

Good to see the Hillary supporters are slowly moving to our camp. Welcome.

I agree with Tom S. at 3:39 PM.

Both Clintons are loose cannons more interested in themselves than getting the Dem nominee elected.

Their egos and bad behavior would dominate the campaign.

Read Peggy Noonan's column in the Wall Street Journal last Friday.

Doug Zook said "Bill Clinton left Dubya a budget surplus. Dubya managed to turn that into $9 1/2 trillion debt, an economy that's tanking. And the cure for this is a Republican candidate who wants to keep it up?"

And this is why so many people blame the Republicans. Zook has his facts wrong and a big part of it is this thinking goes unchallenged in the media.

Fyi, Clinton's "surplus" was a budget surplus and not the debt. The debt under Clinton was sky high too. For those who are uninformed, the national debt is the accumulation of budget deficits. So Clinton's surpluses, which were because o fthe intenret bubble and y2k spending, only made a dent in the debt.

Also, before Clinton left office, the economy was going down. The internet bubble was bursting long before Bush came to office.

Then 9/11 happened and the economy went down even further.

The Democrats wanted to raise tax rates and Bush cut marginal tax rates across the board. This is why the economy picked up so much steam and why it's been doing so well. Yes, recessions happen, but raising taxes when things are down (like the Democrats always want to do) is always wrong.

From my vantage point, and I'm someone who reads a lot, the Democrats couldn't be more wrong on most issues and I get mad when I see the newspapers basically continue to push the Democrat's party line without much context or opposing news that gives us (the reader) enough information to make a judgment.

The fact is the government has been collecting record amounts of taxes, even with the marginal tax rate cuts! This little fact is never reported. The Democrats say that Bush cut taxes on the rich and the opposite is true: he cut marginal tax rates and the revenue went up! The rich are paying more taxes than ever.

Here is an article that shows how the Bush has been right and the Democrats have been wrong. Why won't the Tribune include this important information?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

There is NO WAY Obama will win the election with Clinton on the ticket. Here's why:

1. She may bring her base with her, but she'd also push away many more Independents and mobilize Republicans that were by all measures luke warm to John McCain. As much passion as she inspires into her supporters, she bring out abhorrence in those groups.

2. If Barack Obama wants to stay as scandal-free as possible, he won't let a Clinton within 50 feet of a V.P. nomination.

3. Bill Richardson is a much better choice. If Obama can win out west and get the Hispanic vote, *some* swing states may be expendable.

4. Hillary Clinton would be the star of as many anti-Obama ads the RNC can churn out. Lord knows she went negetive enough in the primaries.

5. Sen. Jim Webb is a better choice and would net him Virginia.

6.Barack Obama is campaigning in typically Republican states. This is a brilliant strategy since it makes McCain spend money defending Republican turf, but it would be all for naught if Republicans hate Clinton as much as they do. (See reason 1)

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton would have a major role in an Obama administration. My guess is Sec. of State or a division in charge of regulating health care. The vice presidency would not work, though.

TruePatriot- thanks. I guess the success that I saw was fewer of us getting killed; especially as new brigades of Iraqi troops were trained by coalition troops. we now have support in areas that we would not have even considered entering 2yrs ago when I first arrived. while I've just recently returned the one thing that I have noticed is the lack of coverage by media on this topic alone. you'd think that given the amount of time devoted to how showing how "bad" things are that they would at minimum allow the successes to be shown which at this point far outweigh the negatives

Hey "Jeff wrote on June 9 at 5:45p:", the rich are already paying a huge portion of taxes.

I'll bet that you didn't know that the top 1% pay 34% of all taxes and that the bottom 50% only pay 4% of income taxes. You didn't know this did you? I'll bet that most people think the numbers are reversed - that the bottom 50% pay 96% of all taxes and that the rich get a break - of course, this is incorrect.

So to answer the question on which group Obama is going to tax, the answer is he's going to redefine "rich" and start taxing more people. With the top 1% paying 34%, he's going to have to drop down into the groups of people who have Sub S corps and LLC's who run their business income through their personal taxes.

(That's anothing thing the media never explains.)

So once Obama drops into those ranges, people will lose jobs. The reason I know about this is because it's my case a I know a lot people who employ many other people and their company taxes flow through their personal taxes. So raise those tax rates and some people will lose jobs and some businesses won't expand.

This flies in the face of trying to build up businesses so more people can work.

If Obama gets in, he will be a disaster. Heck, anyone with this thinking would be a disaster. Obama will be Jimmy Carter's second term! Yuck.

Uh Patriot, our active duty troops in Iraq favor Obama by a wide margin.

Posted by: Marty | June 9, 2008 5:48 PM

Thank you Marty for cutting and pasting from "Stats I Made Up" magazine.

Give us all, and your imagination, a break. McCain is the clear choice in this coming election. Obama doesn't have enough experience to run a vacuum cleaner.

Dear guys, I am from the country where Obama spent his childhood for several years. I believe you guys know that the decisions of the president of US have a worldwide impacts. Media can lie and those lies worth the life of many you never think. Vote for John McCain, may God bless him!

As a Reagan Democrat, there's no way in hell I'll vote for Joint McPain for President.
Sorry, but if Obama-Clinton are a ticket, McPain will need a pair of Depends...

What is going on this day, June 9, 2008, is hurting America and the current President in the White House is doing nothing about it and is not being held accountable for the suffering.

All of this suffering has happened on President Bush's clock, the high gas prices, foreclosed real estate properties, high prices of homes, the war in Iraq, young folks commiting suicide because of lost jobs, cannot take care of their families, just bad, bad, bad.

I ask the question is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator McCain, and any of President Bush's men/women in his current administration suffering the same way the average Americans who are not a part of their inner circles are suffering.

I do not want to lose sight of the real problems that were created by this President. While folks are hurting, President Bush is gone on a farewell trip to Europe.

While Americans are concerned about buying gas at $4.39 to get back and forth to work or just to go to the grocery store, our current President is not doing anything about it.

If I just stopped working on my job, I would be fired.

Yes, it is a very sad day in America and folks are hurting right now on June 9, 2008.

Barrack Hussein Obama had better enjoy his freedom now. When Rezko rolls, both him and Blago will be wearing prison stripes! Maybe Hillary will get a second shot?

Interesting...little bump. My bet is Obama will not select HRC as his running mate...thank you Michelle, and that will be his downfall in November. Without HRC, Obama goes down.

KGoldberg:Even kindergartners are color blind, and if some people in this country of ours won't vote for a president who's not white that doesn't say much for the ones with that attitude!! They will only be hurting themselves (unless they're RICH!!!) AND THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!!! WHO CARES WHAT ETHNICITY SOMEONE IS IF THEY CAN REPAIR OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD AND NOT COME ACROSS AS BIG BULLIES??? What do they propose we do...become a Third World country by following someone's failed policies just because they're WHITE????...SO THEY'RE WHITE...BIG DEAL!!! DOES THAT MEAN THEY AUTOMATICALLY MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT?????

TP: YOUR DISLIKE FOR SENATOR OBAMA IS COMING THRU LOUD AND CLEAR, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GONNA GET YOUR WISH!!!!

TP: As far as a "second shot", from what I understand, Clinton has an investigation going on HERSELF...(ABOUT HERSELF!!!).
WAA WAA... it keeps coming out on WGN that Obama's not even INVOLVED in the Rezco mess!!!!

American Hurting Right Now, your despair is misplaced. For one, the price of gas is mostly due to DEMOCRATS.
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to INCREASE the production of American-made oil and gas. 86% of House DEMOCRATS have historically voted AGAINST increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

And for those that blame speculation, it's pretty hard to have speculation when one is awash in the oil.

As for the war, there are very good reasons for it. It's about the Mideast and dealing with Militant islam and it's infestation in Europe too. WMD was just one small piece.

Home prices are coming odwn.

American hurting right now: He's not doing anything because he PLAIN AND SIMPLE DOESN'T CARE...JUST THE WAY PEOPLE IN NEW ORLEANS SUFFERED RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES ON THE EVENING NEWS DURING THE KATRINA SPECTACLE!!!

TP: WHY DON'T YOU WORRY ABOUT ALL THE INNOCENT IRAQIS AND THE 4000 DECEASED SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN INSTEAD OF SOMEONE'S BUSINESS TRANSACTION????

For his farewell (THANK GOD!!!) AND I MEAN THAT...I don't believe in taking God's name in vain...why didn't BUSH go to Iraq to show HIS SUPPORT FOR THE TROOPS??????????

To those women who are thinking of voting for Obama or McCain might enjoy reading this article researched by a British Journalist.
It is a long article but very well researched and not biased.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Posted by: EddienTexas | June 9, 2008 4:31 PM

Thank you for providing this link. Can't believe everybody gets all up in their shorts about Wright, Rezco, Michelle, Bill Clinton, yet NOTHING is said about this. And I've also read about McCain calling the current wife the c word in public. If this isn't an indication of character, I don't know what is.

America isn't going to vote for more of the same tax cuts for the super rich and deficit spending economic policies that Bush and Cheney have been ruining our country with the last 7 years. These are also very same stupid economic policies that McCain want's to continue using.

I love how the Republic Party screws up things so badly and their only answer every election time is "yes we messed up bad but don't worry because next time we'll do better".

There won't be a "next time" for the Republic Party this time around...

We know that Bush were making mistakes, but what is the strong reason that Obama won't? What come to our mind is who is the influence behind Obama. For the sake of minorities in the oppressive countries (in honour of religions I'm not mentioning details), vote for McCain. Anyway, this is just an opinion as you guys have the beautiful freedom of speech without fear.

John E @ June 9, 2008 10:49 PM:
You are a product of the mainstream media. Read this on th effect of Bush's tax RATE cuts. Taxes collected went up. You wouldn't know this is you just read the Tribune with all their Associated Press stories.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

John McCain may whine that he's not running for Bush's third term, but anyone with half-a-brain (not Republicans) knows that McCain IS running for Bush's third term:

McCain, for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies.

...and McCain's campaign co-chair, Lindsey Graham, agree's that McCain IS running for a third Bush term:

June 8, 2008:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said the tax policy and the healthcare policy were essentially, Senator Graham, John McCain is calling for an extension or maybe even enhancement of the George Bush policies.

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yes, absolutely.

John E, you need to relax a bit. "Tax cuts for the super rich....." Do you want tax cuts for the bottom 40% of wage earners ? OOPS! They pay zero income taxes! Do you want tax cuts for the bottom 60% of wage earners? OOPS! They only pay 4% of Treasury Dept. income tax receipts. The top 20% pay 96% of all tax receipts. John E, what do you propose, the top 20% pay 98% ? 100% ? Maybe you should move to Sweden and enjoy the 25% sales tax there while you live for free there. OOPS! Income tax is 50% !

They should be paying more taxes, they are making more money, in Our nation! They can afford to pay more of their salaries, inheritances or annuities, their incomes are at least 1,000X to, who knows how many more thousand of times greater than the working classes' earnings. You can mislead, lie or whatever else you want to do, but you can admit to the unfairness of the financial equation between the wealthy of this country and the working classes of this country. If you can't admit to this inequity, than you are not being honest, nor are you being a true American !! America is about everyone having a fair chance, a fair opportunity to pursue happiness. If that means a good paying job, good schools to get that good eduction, to get that good job, than it behooves all Americans to work towards a fair and equitable system that fosters inclusion of every American, not just the chosen few !! That is what Senator Obama is all about, not war, nor denying G.I. educational benefits, nor influence-peddling!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Alz - good point you made but it's not true with just "Bush tax cuts," it's true with EVERY income tax cut since JFK first proposed cutting taxes to grow the economy in 1960. Here's another fact that will drive leftists nuts. One consequence of tax cuts for the rich is the rich pay more taxes. This is exactly what happened with the "Bush" tax cuts. When taxes were last cut, the top 5% of wage earners ended up paying MORE of the proportion of all income taxes received. Why ? The economy grew! "It's the economy stupid !" I suppose everyone reading this is not "super rich" like John E describes, but we all better sell our stocks this year since President Obama, the Intern, will double long term capital gains taxes on everyone.

John E, what do you propose, the top 20% pay 98% ? 100% ? Maybe you should move to Sweden and enjoy the 25% sales tax there while you live for free there. OOPS! Income tax is 50% !

Posted by: Bella | June 9, 2008 11:37 PM

Bellagosi,

I propose that the rich white doughy Republicans go back to paying the same rate that they were paying before W and Cheney decided to give them their latest huge tax break... and the very same one that John W McCain want's to make permanent.

Your terrorist reign is almost over GOPer's, quit crying and deal with it!

Hillary Clinton would be falling on her sword if she took VP to this lightweight. No way. She can wait for 2012; I am. Reason? His insane supporters. I do believe in guilt by association.

Sounds like Don F proposes the top 20% of wage earners pay 100% of all income tax receipts the Treasury Dept. receives. That's fair ! 80% of wage earners get a free ride ! Don, did you ever wonder who creates JOBS ? Do you ask a bum on the street for a job? Or do you ask a wealthy man for a job ? BTW if you think lying or misleading with the numbers, please check with the Congressional Budget Office. BTW you mention fair opportunity. You sound Republican. Keep in mind Republicans guarantee opportunities. Democrats guarantee outcomes.

John E @ June 9, 2008 10:49 PM:
You are a product of the mainstream media. Read this on th effect of Bush's tax RATE cuts. Taxes collected went up. You wouldn't know this is you just read the Tribune with all their Associated Press stories.

Posted by: Alz | June 9, 2008 11:28 PM

Gee Alzheimers, why am I not surprised that you can find someone in a rightwing rag like the WSJ to say that Bush's tax cuts for the super rich are working for everyone?

Is that why our own economy is tanking? Is that why we're borrowing Billions from China and Saudi Arabia for an Iraq war that never should have happened in the first place?

"Tax cuts for the super rich....." Do you want tax cuts for the bottom 40% of wage earners ? OOPS! They pay zero income taxes!
Posted by: Bella | June 9, 2008 11:37 PM

The bottom 40% of wage earners pay zero income tax???? Wow, when did that happen Einstein?

You doughy rich elitist Repubs should be sweating because your golden goose is almost cooked.
BushCo leaves office Jan 20, 2008.....YES!

Now that the primary is over, Barack Hussein Obama will not get the same amount of media coverage as he used to get and that will cause a dip in his poll number. The so-called Obama phenomenon will die out as Americans realize that OBH is just another tax and spend liberal and BHO will lose in the general election in November.

Alz and People,

I don't want to lose sight of the real issues that are facing Americans today on June 10, 2008.

We have a President in the White House who must be held accountable for successfully performing his job today on June 10, 2008, as you and I are held accountable for performing our jobs successfully today. If you do not perform, you would be fired!

The despair that Americans are experiencing is not misplaced. It is real; after President Reagan and first father President Bush's era, homeless people were everywhere; now after the son, President W. Bush's era, young folks are committing suicide, the price of basic necessities like food, homes for shelter, gas for our cars are so high; and young people are dying in a senseless war that was justified and built on a lie told by President W. Bush and his administration.

You want to know how the President's men and women are benefitting from this administration, then, one example is to visit St. Michaels, MD, and you will learn that President Bush's men and women are not suffering.

Vice President Cheney last September purchased a home to stay in just on the weekend for $2.6 million dollars; and Rumsfeld purchased a home for $1