Poll: Iraq gives Clinton edge over Giuliani

Another opportunity for the ankle biters to claim a bias. Those 28%ers hold on to their beliefs and still believe in the Easter Bunny.

What exactly does Giuliani bring to the table as far as leadership goes?

America's mayor? Puhleeze.

Thanks Frank. Interesting article.

Considering only 1 Rep. candidate actually favors ending the Iraqi occupation, and also considering that most Americans want to end the Iraqi occupation, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that any given Dem. candidate will beat the Rep. candidate going away. It's not going to get better between now and Nov. 2008.

After weeks of ignoring polls that showed Giuliani ahead of Clinton in a one-on-one matchup, Frank James finally publicizes a poll. One that shows a Democrat leading. At least among the 1/3rd of voters in a Democrat-leaning subgroup.

Bias via selective reporting. And ignorant selective reporting, at that.

This poll, contra the headline, doesn't show Clinton ahead among actual voters--only ahead among the subgroup of voters (1/3rd) who think that Iraq is "extremely important" to them. If Frank James got out into the real world more often, he'd know that currently Republican voters are more inclined than Democrats to rate illegal immigration issues as "extremely important" to them. In other words, the 1/3rd subgroup Frank James touts is a Democrat-leaning subgroup. And his surprise that this group is only 1/3 of the voting population says more about his Beltway Liberal cluelessness than it does about voters interests.

I could go on. For example, I could point out that Republican voters are more focused than Democrats on the big picture of national security, of which Iraq is only a part. But why? Frank James seems very comfortable in his cluelessness, and nothing said here will get him out of his comfort zone.

Let's get this right. The headline says poll gives edge to Clinton over Guiliani. Yet, according to the poll statistics cited by faux journalist Frank James, that edge is only among the one-third who say the Iraq War is very important.
What the headline doesn't say and Frankie barely touches on is that among those who say the War has some importance, Hillary and Guiliani are tied and among those who say the War has little importance, Guiliani is kicking Hillary's perjured and felonious ass!!

Nice going there, Frankie.

THE former presidential front-runner, John McCain, may drop out of the 2008 race by September if his fundraising dries up and his poll ratings continue to drop, according to Republican insiders.

Even Billy/Jeff couldn't save him. Who else supports the war?

Who'll be next in line?

As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon "minister of religion" for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.

Hallelujah brother, another Chicken-hawk supports the war.

The gap may widen after Christine Todd Whitman (and the person who gave Barney to W) , former EPA administrator, testifies on Capitol Hill today, explaining why so many 9/11 first responders have contracted serious respiratory disorders. The Rudy myth gets taken down another peg...

As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon "minister of religion" for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.

Hallelujah brother, another Chicken-hawk supports the war.

Raving Loon writes:
THE former presidential front-runner, John McCain, may drop out of the 2008 race by September if his fundraising dries up and his poll ratings continue to drop, according to Republican insiders.

McCain has never been the front runner, except in the minds of the liberalpress. And his problems have nothing to do with the war. The Republican base hates him for many reasons, one of which is the McCain-Feingold act, which has been declared at least partially unconstitutional by the Supreme Court today

Hey guess what, Johnny D and Bruce are wrong again. Who's shocked?

The poll that this data is selected from shows Clinton leading Guiliani amongst ALL voters. In fact it also shows Obama and Edwards leading Rudy. Even better, all three of the top Democrats are shown leading all three of the top Republicans.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27940

If this Mr. 'I was married to my 2nd cousin' Giuliani is the very best the Republicans can put foward for a presidential nomination, they are a pathetic and sorry lot. This adulterer and criminal believes he's entitled to be president because he was mayor of NYC on Sept. 11 and ventured down to ground zero. Giuliani is the least qualified character out of all candidates to be the next president. The man is filthy scum.

I could have it wrong, but I guess the wingers' new talking point (as reflected in above spoutings by Bruce and John D) is that the Iraq War is not very important, because what's important is the overall war on terror. This is curious on a couple of levels.

1. I thought Iraq was the "central front" in the War on Terrrrrr. At least that's what you folks used to say, before it became evident that most of the country opposed it. If the "central front" is not important, it's hard to see how the ancillary fronts are very important.

2. This is reminscent of the Osama Bin Forgotten theme. For almost a week (maybe 3) after 9/11/01, the Failure In Chief said he was gonna git em deaderalive. For the past several years, though, OBL's not been so important, as evidenced by Bush's failure to capture him, dead, alive, or in any other form. Same is evidently the case now with the Iraq War. The George W. Bush Motto: If at first you don't succeed, move on and fail at something else (Arbusto; Harken).

Bruce the RNC stooge and his lackey John (the ranting child) endlessly attacking the Tribune & Frank James. Face it nutters your a small boat paddling upstream against a sea of change. You folks brought your maladroit ideology into power and gave use amongst other things the Iraq war. The single worst foreign policy blunder ever. Tax cuts for the rich and a complete inability to reform immigration. You really should consider voting for Hillary!!!

Let's get this right. The headline says poll gives edge to Clinton over Guiliani.
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 9:51 AM

That's right John D. As a journalist (wink wink) you would know the importance of catching the readers eye so that would actually read it. Then they would use their own mind ( if not void ) when they read it. Kinda like a loss leader at a store. Ya know what that is? That's when you take a cheap shot and lose your mind in vitriolic dribble. Grow up son...stop the name calling.

Bill R., headlines to get the reader's attention is one thing, not being factual, or factually questionable is anotehr.
Heck, even the LIBune said it's Jack Ryan Bombshell headline was not right, course that was way after the fact and the damage already been done.
By the way, Bill R., no winks needed for my journalism credentials, they've been pretty strong for over 20 years now.

Bill R., headlines to get the reader's attention is one thing, not being factual, or factually questionable is anotehr.

Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 2:27 PM

Little Johnny D..

fact /fækt/
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened:

Given that the Poll gave the overall edge to Clinton over Giuliani, and that the Iraq war was the biggest correlated differentiator, and the headline says "Poll: Iraq gives Clinton edge over Giuliani", I would say that you are indeed an idiot.

By the way, Bill R., no winks needed for my journalism credentials, they've been pretty strong for over 20 years now.

Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 2:27 PM

Little Johnny D... can you direct us to something you've written that's been published.. a newspaper/magazine article or book you've written? Really anything other than a weblog posting?

Oh David k, just check with your fellow Loon, John E., he has tons of info on me. I'm sure given time he'll put my full name on here again and you can google that and see lots of stuff published by me.

Googling "John Dyslin" journalist brings up nothing but Swamp posts. What exactly are your "journalist" bona fides exactly? (man I just can't help laughing when I write that in connection to you)

"John D", shame on you for suggesting that a headline be accurate! Only a Republican robot/stooge would insist on accuracy.

Oh Deranged Johnny E, er "myth of the liberal media," (gee, another John E alias and he was all hurt caused I made a post as John E's father) the only reason my full name comes up in google under Swamp posts is because you love broadcasting my name.

Swamp:

"Not surprisingly, Clinton beats Giuliani 52 to 45 percent among those respondents who said the Iraq War was "extremely important."

Yeah, but what about the real headline, that Swamp so conveniently ignored: "Among those respondents who said the Iraq War was 'extremely important', Senator Clinton leads Senator Obama 41% to 27%."

Didn't want to explore that one, huh?...

John D journalist. Wow you have totally went off the reservation!!! Bruce = RNC stooge.

"John D", shame on you for suggesting that a headline be accurate! Only a Republican robot/stooge would insist on accuracy.

Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 6:32 PM

Bruce... would you care to expound on Little John D's claim that the headline is not accurate?

The best the little man could conjure up was that the 8% who say the war has little importance chose Giuliani over Clinton, therefore the headline is incorrect. Somehow his tiny mind can't wrap itself around the fact that that means that the other 92% have chosen Hillary (with a subsection of that massive majority being a tie).

What's your excuse for the intellectual dishonesty?

David K, here from the Gallup poll:
There is a clear -- though modest -- linear relationship between Iraq war importance and candidate preference. Clinton leads Giuliani 52% to 45% among those who say the war is extremely important, while the two candidates tie among those who say it is very important. Giuliani has a 51%-to-43% advantage among Americans who say the war is only somewhat important or not important.

Also from the gallup poll, among those who say the Iraq war is very important, as opposed to extremely important, the poll shows they are evenly split among Queen B and Guiliani.

But like the rest of your delusional, brain-dead Loons, don't let the facts get in the way of your hysteria.

What do you know, I think Johnny D may have just admitted he was wrong, and that the headline for this post was in fact correct, that HRC's lead over Guiliani is connected to peoples views on the war.

No, Tony, cause the same poll found that Guiliani is way ahead of the Queen B for those say Iraq is not extremely or very important. The headline is only accurate in one context and doesn't tell the whole story,that makes it wrong. If it said, Clinton Leads Guiliani Among Iraq War Critics, then it would be accurate or Clinton, Guiliani Lead Depends on Iraq War View, that would be accurate too. Or anything along those lines.

Umm, Johnny, you realy need to read the whole poll. Go to the link I provided about the overall poll results. It shows HRC leading Rudy amongst ALL voters 50/46.

This article show that lead, a lead when ALL voters polled are totaled, is largely determined by the war in Iraq.

So in NO context is the headline wrong.

You're just plain wrong on this one Johnny. Again. Don't you get tired always having to be corrected?