More on polling, superdelegates commitments & that debate and "more Clinton war stories"

As the days wear on towards April 22nd things are becoming clearer and more sublime. Obama and his campaign for the nomination and eventual Presidential win is holding firm as the recent tracking polls show him reacquiring his former lead while Clinton's negatives continue to escalate with her "kneecapping" campaign tactics. MSNBC stated that the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll recorded Obama leading Clinton 48% to 44% (Obama gaining a point while Clinton losing 2). This also coincides where Clinton's negatives in the NBC-WSJ poll have reached the lowest positives ratings since 2001. All told Clinton only sports a 37% positive rating and:

"Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.

Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him."

We have recorded two more commitments of superdelegates for Obama, Rep. Lipinski (D-IL) finally publicly announced his support and Don Williams (add-on-CT): The Sun-Times reports that:

Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country....
...Representative Rahm Emanuel of Chicago is a former White House aide to President Clinton and now the chairman of the House Democratic Conference, and he remains neutral in the presidential race."

This leads us to the growing debate regarding superdelegates as the power play continues. The big Clinton donors are now trying to pressure Pelosi regarding her unique position by using their fund-raising abilities to the DCCC (Congressional races):

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Her response was as interesting to walking the tight rope.

“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

This is very close to Obama's position, though not exact, yet she's agreeing with Obama's claim that going against the voters would damage the party. Now a bit on this dynamic, for stuck in the cracks of aformenttion NBC/WSJ poll was revealing numbers on the question of how Democrats would react if the super-delegates delivered the nomination to the candidate that isn't leading in the pledged-delegate count:

If One of the candidates loses among delegates selected by voters but still wins the nomination by winning among superdelegates, would you consider that nominee legitimate, would you consider that nominee NOT legitmate, or do you not have an opinion either way?

Would consider nominee legitimate 29%

Would consider nominee NOT legitimate 38%

No opinion either way 28%

Get the picture....Obama is winning...he is beating the Clinton's by withstanding the negative kneecapping, the political pressure on the superdelegates and he continues to gain on superdelegates and the electorate would be mad if the superdelegates overturned the outcome. Now for another war story from Hillary:

The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began.

Just because something has appeared in a newspaper does not mean that is entirely accurate. The Clinton camp has circulated a March 26, 1996, quote from a Post article describing Clinton's Bosnia trip as "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." The article went on to say that "other first ladies have visited troops abroad but never in front-line positions," citing the examples of Bush and Nixon.

How these factoids got into the Post story is unclear, but they offer a somewhat misleading picture of the relative risks being run by the three first ladies. By almost any measure, the Nixon trip to Saigon in July 1969 should surely count as the most dangerous of the three visits. Unlike Bosnia in March 1996 and Saudi Arabia in November 1990, South Vietnam was an actual, not "potential," war zone in the aftermath of the 1968 Tet offensive, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gene Boyer, the Nixons' chief helicopter pilot.

"This was a combat mission," Boyer said yesterday, noting that more than 2,000 U.S. helicopter pilots were shot down and killed in Vietnam. "There were no front lines. Everything outside of Saigon was a war zone..."

Boyer had spent three or four days in Saigon before the Nixons' arrival, planning the trip and assessing the risks. The itinerary was changed at the last moment, just in case word had leaked out to the Viet Cong. To reduce the risk from machine-gun fire, Boyer made almost vertical landings and takeoffs from above 1,500 feet.

In the meantime, Clinton's claims about a "corkscrew" landing in Tuzla, Bosnia, have been challenged by the pilot who commanded the C-17 that flew her from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Speaking in a radio interview on the "Rusty Humphries Show," retired Air Force Col. William "Goose" Changose said that he did not undertake any kind of "evasive" maneuver on the approach to Tuzla, and that the only reason the descent was a little steeper than normal was because there were hills around.

"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around," Changose recalled.

There would seem little more to debunk about Clinton's adventures in Bosnia. But it is worth correcting the record about Pat Nixon's visit to Vietnam in July 1969. I have already assigned the maximum four Pinocchios to Clinton for her Tuzla tale.

To those reading this daily blog I want to ask a question: Are those Democrats aiding and abetting Clinton's destructive campaign are they really good Democrats allowing her the time and means to tear apart the whole party for her personal political ambition?