Showing posts with label Authenticity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Authenticity. Show all posts

26 January 2016

Elpis

At the beginning of the year, I posted that I'd use this space to reacquaint myself with writing (long form writing, anyway, which I've neglected since completing a dissertation on Decadent writers). I began with short posts, but they were regular. Then David Bowie died.

The Internet, of course, is well stocked with pieces written by people grieving for this man, and I sat down on a Wednesday at 6:30 AM to commit my own eulogy to the WWW. Unexpectedly, I ended up researching an AM radio station in the Idaho panhandle--my only musical source in the 1970s--which lead, in turn, to writing about that station's effect on my interior life (pretty much the only "life" I had as a child). I grew confused about chronology ("when did we move from Arizona to California to Illinois?" "What year did 'The Happiest Girl in the Whole U.S.A.' come out?" "How old was I when they filmed Heaven’s Gate?"). I opened a old, empty notebook and began an outline. I wrote out each calendar year and proceeded to fill the outline with generalities, question marks, and some details. I texted my mom and asked about key events. I looked at dates on old photos, and finally, some order appeared. For the first time, I can see my life, and, for the first time, I've started writing about it.

I've spent some time every day writing. My writing schedule is time consuming, but it works for me. In the evening, while my partner writes (he is a poet), I curl up in a chair beside an Ikea Jansjö lamp, open my moleskin, pick up my Black Warrior, and write for at least one hour. Each morning, I boot my HP Pavilion desktop and transcribe the previous night's longhand. I add details from memory, my mother's memory, and from what I research. So far, it's been a stimulating and kind of astonishing experience.

I've blogged  the occasional personal post, but largely I've avoided "confessional" writing, and I think it's because I've always chosen to believe that the personal past is best left unexamined. The terrain is too awful. It thunders with isolation, bleakness, and physical pain that can, at the very least, debilitate you before you're half way across the territory. I saw confessional writing as the domain of those unwilling or unable to "let go" of trauma, and maybe I've accused them of wallowing in it, enjoying the crash of misery. My philosophy asserted: “It’s done, move on. Can’t change things. Forget it.” Such ideas emerged from my own unwillingness to frankly address the various choices I’ve made. Writing about them means focusing on shame, anger, addiction, poverty, pettiness, vanity, jealousy . . . essentially each one of those miseries that flew out of that Greek woman’s jar.

To this point, I fail to see my writing as "therapeutic." It doesn’t relieve or provide previously-unknown insights. My goal isn't to force my life into some narrative arc (life is more episodic than narrative, isn’t it? Well, it seems so to me). Actually, right now I don’t know what the goal, what "the point" might be. Perhaps, right now, the only “point” is that I’m writing. And I am certain that, eventually, a “so what” response will emerge.

At least, I hope.

TL; DR: I’m writing again. And this time it’s personal.

05 January 2016

Sharing: "The Garden of Eden"

The Garden of Eden, Hugh Goldwin Riviere

Chances are you've seen this painting before. Perhaps it hung in a Victorian-style tea room, in a grandparent's living room, or in the bedroom of a young Jane Austen fan. I own a copy of this print, but I haven't hung it in years. In fact, it went into storage just after my late husband died.

We were unlikely owners of such a print. Both of us preferred less emotive, less "twee," less cliched art. Yet one day, while rummaging through charity shops and antique malls in an English coastal town, we saw it--a beautifully framed, clean, and glassed copy of this painting.

Even though we recognized the picture itself--it seems to be everywhere in England--neither of us knew its title nor its artist (in fact, I only decided to Google that information for this post). It was as anonymous as any generic, pretty picture of a love-struck, bourgeois Victorian couple could be. But it struck us (yes, it's corny. I admit it).

I don't recall that we actually spoke about whether to get it or not; we just snapped it up and hung it in our home that evening. It's corny, but I expect it mirrored our own relationship at that point. For the duration of our time together, the painting hung. I took it down once he passed, from cancer, in 2009. As I said before, I haven't hung it since (but it remains, carefully wrapped, in my home). I don't think I shall ever hang it again because this common print, this cliched image, still holds something of our togetherness, our "us-ness," if you will. And I do not wish to share that. Not yet, anyway.

Addendum: I'm not a confessional person by nature, so, yeah, there will be few personal posts like this on the "relaunched" MP&GS.  

25 March 2013

Howard Zinn, Ideology, and Faulty Scholarship

It's a day (and night) for grading papers, so I'll put this here: part review of a biography of Howard Zinn, and part critique of Zinn's career, David Greenberg's "Howard Zinn's Influential Mutilations of American History" in The New Republic (hardly a bastion of traditionalism or of conservatism). I appreciate Greenberg's approach to revisionism such as Zinn's: he calls out Zinn's willingness to castigate the USA's actions and ideologies while ignoring or minimizing other nations' cruelties--his silences on the brutalities of Soviet Russia, and so on.

Of Zinn's scholarship in A People's History of the United States, Greenberg says:
Zinn rests satisfied with what strikes him as the scandalous revelation that claims of objectivity often mask ideological predilections. Imagine! And on the basis of this sophomoric insight, he renounces the ideals of objectivity and empirical responsibility, and makes the dubious leap to the notion that a historian need only lay his ideological cards on the table and tell whatever history he chooses.
Lord, but I have heard this methodology set forth by undergraduates in courses past: "as long as I identify my point of view and find sufficient quotes that seem to lend authority, my work is done." Rather than reasoning and sound evidence that reflects a thorough consideration of the issue, support becomes a quote-hunt, the results of which are often cherry-picked, redefined, and decontextualized.

Don't such arguments (aligned with specific ideologies, supported with cherry-picked evidence)  become non-arguable? Rather than dealing with reason, we deal with emotion and belief--and one can't really (fairly) argue with feeling or faith.

It's tempting to go on and to develop, somewhat, these initial thoughts, but I have yards of paper to read before I sleep.

Aside: Apparently Ralph Ellison didn't think much of Zinn's scholarship. Who knew?

10 October 2010

Crybaby Culture

I missed this, but a few weeks ago This American Life dedicated an episode to revealing the current trend of public whining in America.

The show, available online, includes contributions by Dave Weigel (on the politics of victimhood), Adam Davidson (on bankers' complaints after they've benefited from government largess), Alex Bumberg (on basketball's "the flop"), Alex MacInnis (on folks who make a living suing businesses incongruent with the ADA), and David Sedaris (who provides a fable).

Teh all-around awesome.

29 December 2008

Penguin Cancels "Angel at the Fence"

The tale of an enduring love found during the Holocaust was, shall we say, a lie.

Herman Rosenblat, who claimed that he met his wife, Roma, while he was imprisoned at a Buchenwald sub-camp, when she would approach the camp’s fence to give him apples and bread, has ‘fessed up. He’s said that he “embellished” his story. In reality, it turns out that Roma’s family was 210 miles away from the camp were Rosenblat was interred.

His publisher has canceled Rosenblat’s book on the story.

When scholars and survivors expressed doubt about Rosenblat’s tale because of the camp’s layout—there was no place private enough where he could receive Roma’s gifts—he defended his experiences’ veracity. Last month:

He said that his section of Schlieben, a sub-camp of Buchenwald, was not well guarded and that he could stand between a barracks and the six-to-eight-foot fence out of sight of guards. Roma was able to approach him because there were woods that would have concealed her. (NYT)

It seems as though all possible factcheckers, excpeting the scholars and those who survived the camps with Rosenblat, went to sleep on this one. His agent, Angela Hurst, believed Rosenblat’s story, and declined to research his tale, because “He was in so many magazines and books and on ‘Oprah.’ It did not seem like it would not be true” (NYT).

Well, that’s okay then.

UPDATE: Lerner Publishing Group has pulled its children's book based on the Rosenblats. Published this fall, Laurie Friedman's Angel Girl is being taken from store shelves, and Lerner is offering refunds to people who purchased the book.

27 December 2008

"Angel at the Fence"--Another Suspect Memoir

A new memoir, titled Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived, by Herman Rosenblat, a 79-year-old Holocaust survivor, has come under scrutiny.

The memoir tells of Rosenblat's experience at Buchenwald; apparently, the teenaged Rosenblat met a young girl at the camp's fence--she on one side, he on the other. She would bring him apples and bread. In New York years later, Rosenblat went on a blind date. Turns out his date was the same young woman who brought gifts to the fence.

The problem? Holocaust historians and Rosenblat's fellow survivors say it's not true. While Rosenblat was held at the concentration camp, scholars and survivors say the camp's layout negates any possibility that Rosenblat would have discovered a space isolated enough that he could meet the girl undetected by guards or other survivors.

The New Republic has published an extensive discussion of Rosenblat's story; the site has added an update as well, in which several people close to Rosenblat claim the story of love beyond barbed wire is concocted:
auther [sic] Herman Rosenblat's sister-in-law and a fellow Holocaust survivor, both speaking publicly for the first time, say that Herman's story is fabricated. Sidney Finkel, a 77-year-old Holocaust survivor who was liberated with Herman, tells TNR that he ate with Herman and Roma Rosenblat the night before the couple was to appear on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" for the first time, in February 1996. At the Omni Hotel in downtown Chicago, Roma told Finkel that she was not hiding in Schlieben as Herman tells in his story, and was in fact hiding in another part of Poland. “It’s made up,” Finkel tells Sherman in an exclusive interview.
Sad.
Although people making stuff up and presenting it as autobiography is nothing new (heck, America is all about self-invention). The problem is when we approach matters like the Holocaust. Scholar Deborah Lipstadt is troubled for, as she notes,
"If you make up things about parts, you cast doubts on everything else," Lipstadt told me. "When you think of the survivors who meticulously tell their story and are so desperate for people to believe, then if they're making stories up about this, how do you know if Anne Frank is true? How do you know Elie Wiesel is true?" (TNR)
Exactly. Presenting such a work as fiction is one thing; presenting it as fact is another. If it's prove that Rosenblat embellished or fabricated his Holocaust love story, well...to make a concentration camp the backdrop for a romance is rather dismissive, don't you think? You'd think that after the debacle with Margaret Seltzer's "memoir" earlier this year, Penguin would be a bit more attentive to fact-checking.

Do read the piece at TNR, and be sure to read the comments--other survivors are chiming in.

Update: Rosenblat has recanted the story, and Penguin has canceled publication of Angel at the Fence.

01 June 2008

DNC RBC: Racist Nutjobs Convene Online

Update: Considering the comments I've received, this post must have touched a nerve. Silly rabbits. Of course I'm going to delete anonymous racist commentary.


Note: I've taken up another blogger's tactic of not including Larry S's full name to stave off the nutjobs who follow him religiously.

After the DNC RBC meeting today, Larry Sine-qua-clair’s supporters must feel emboldened, for they’ve certainly not held back on their racial disdain for Obama.

What follows are comments gathered today from Sine-qua-clair's blog (Google it). It’s ugly, it’s offensive, and it’s “reg’lar folks” showing their true colors. Although I typically redact monikers, I’ve opted not to here. In fact, none of the following have been edited.

I’ve got the screen shots because, chances are, these posts will be revised or deleted shortly. I expect the threatening ones will go first.
------

[comment 375]

Fourthsign Says:
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 6:54 pm

HOMObama the NappyIgnorantGizfacedGirlyEvilRacist will NEVER win… I hope someone puts this NIN EYE GEE GEE EEE RRR in the hole!

Sorry but that’s what I have been feeling these days…

mexicano for Hillary all the way!

[comment 454]

Fourthsign Says:
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I am not being RACIST… HOMObama acted like a Nin Eye GGG GGG RRR when he flipped Hillary off, when his campaign played the song “I got 99 problems and a bitch ain’t one”, when he brushed his shoulders off and soooo on! So he should be treated like ONE!

I ain’t threatening anyone I am just HOPE (HOMObama’s campaign word) someone will put this scumbag, slimeball, snake 6 feet under… what’s wrong with that?

[comment 462]

MARK Says:
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Obama left the ghetto but the ghetto never left Obama.

[comment 464]

Fourthsign Says:
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 7:27 pm

OOH OKAY, MAYBE DEEPER THAN 6 FEET!

[comment 407]

Kathy Confabulist Says:
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 7:05 pm

That big black lipped Obamanation is talking about his “church”. There is no way any person that has been in that church for years and years, has not soak up the tirades, the disgusting vile rantings, and not believed in them. That is why Obamanations ugly two-faced America hating, racist bitch wife Michelle says the things she does. God help us all if these two get to the “white” house
---------

Lovely, hmmm?
And these people are allowed to choose our leaders? Really?

Addendum: A recent post by Wonk exemplifies HRC supporters' straight-up racism (all the while denying that they're racist).

31 May 2008

Hillary Clinton Has Never Been the Underdog.

Here’s a reminder of how things were before Clinton’s campaign lost the plot—because that is precisely what they did. They overspent and underplanned because they assumed Clinton would walk right into the nomination. And it worked until February, 2008: excepting for a tie in April 2007, Clinton led Obama in all national polls until early February.

Remember that Iowa’s caucus was held on 3 January, 2008. Note how Clinton’s support fell off following Super Tuesday, and remember that Clinton’s plan didn’t extend beyond Super Tuesday.

Democratic Presidential Nomination (from Real Clear Politics)

Polling Data

Poll

Date

Sample

Obama

Clinton

Spread

CBS News/NY Times

01/30 - 02/02

491 LV

41

41

Tie

USA Today/Gallup

01/30 - 02/02

985 LV

44

45

Clinton +1.0

Pew Research

01/30 - 02/02

596 RV

38

46

Clinton +8.0

ABC/Wash Post

01/30 - 02/01

LV

43

47

Clinton +4.0

Rasmussen

01/29 - 02/01

900 LV

37

45

Clinton +8.0

FOX News

01/30 - 01/31

377 LV

37

47

Clinton +10.0

NBC/WSJ

01/20 - 01/22

Adults

32

47

Clinton +15.0

LA Times/Bloomberg

01/18 - 01/22

532 LV

33

42

Clinton +9.0

Rasmussen

01/16 - 01/19

900 LV

34

38

Clinton +4.0

AP-Ipsos

01/15 - 01/17

453 RV

33

40

Clinton +7.0

CNN

01/14 - 01/17

448 RV

33

42

Clinton +9.0

Reuters/Zogby

01/11 - 01/13

459 LV

38

39

Clinton +1.0

USA Today/Gallup

01/11 - 01/13

1021 LV

33

45

Clinton +12.0

Pew Research

01/09 - 01/13

621 RV

31

46

Clinton +15.0

Hotline/FD

01/10 - 01/12

380 LV

35

38

Clinton +3.0

ABC/Wash Post

01/09 - 01/12

423 LV

37

42

Clinton +5.0

CBS News/NY Times

01/09 - 01/12

508 LV

27

42

Clinton +15.0

CNN

01/09 - 01/10

443 RV

36

49

Clinton +13.0

USA Today/Gallup

01/04 - 01/06

499 A

33

33

Tie

Rasmussen

01/03 - 01/06

900 LV

29

33

Clinton +4.0

Pew Research

12/19 - 12/30

556 RV

26

46

Clinton +20.0

FOX News

12/18 - 12/19

RV

20

49

Clinton +29.0

Cook/RT Strategies

12/15 - 12/17

RV

26

38

Clinton +12.0

NBC/WSJ

12/14 - 12/17

Adults

23

45

Clinton +22.0

USA Today/Gallup

12/14 - 12/16

513 A

27

45

Clinton +18.0

Rasmussen

12/13 - 12/16

750 LV

27

40

Clinton +13.0

Reuters/Zogby

12/12 - 12/14

436 LV

32

40

Clinton +8.0

Hotline/FD

12/10 - 12/14

336 LV

30

35

Clinton +5.0

Battleground

12/09 - 12/12

LV

23

47

Clinton +24.0

ARG

12/09 - 12/12

600 LV

22

41

Clinton +19.0

CNN

12/06 - 12/09

RV

30

40

Clinton +10.0

CBS News/NY Times

12/05 - 12/09

417 LV

27

44

Clinton +17.0

AP-Ipsos

12/03 - 12/05

469 RV

23

45

Clinton +22.0

LA Times/Bloomberg

11/30 - 12/03

529 LV

21

45

Clinton +24.0

USA Today/Gallup

11/30 - 12/02

494 A

24

39

Clinton +15.0

Rasmussen

11/28 - 12/01

750 LV

24

37

Clinton +13.0

AP-Pew

11/20 - 11/26

467 LV

22

48

Clinton +26.0

Rasmussen

11/15 - 11/18

750 LV

24

41

Clinton +17.0

Reuters/Zogby

11/14 - 11/17

545 LV

27

38

Clinton +11.0

FOX News

11/13 - 11/14

397 RV

23

44

Clinton +21.0

Gallup

11/11 - 11/14

485 A

21

48

Clinton +27.0

American Res. Group

11/09 - 11/12

600 LV

21

46

Clinton +25.0

Cook/RT Strategies

11/08 - 11/11

376 RV

22

39

Clinton +17.0

AP-Ipsos

11/05 - 11/07

474 RV

22

45

Clinton +23.0

NBC/WSJ

11/01 - 11/05

Adults

25

47

Clinton +22.0

USA Today/Gallup

11/02 - 11/04

508 RV

22

50

Clinton +28.0

CNN

11/02 - 11/04

467 RV

25

44

Clinton +19.0

Rasmussen

11/01 - 11/04

750 LV

22

41

Clinton +19.0

Newsweek

10/31 - 11/01

433 RV

24

43

Clinton +19.0

Marist

10/29 - 11/01

385 RV

17

48

Clinton +31.0

ABC/Wash Post

10/29 - 11/01

598 A

26

49

Clinton +23.0

Quinnipiac

10/23 - 10/29

742 RV

21

47

Clinton +26.0

Zogby

10/24 - 10/27

527 LV

24

38

Clinton +14.0

FOX News

10/23 - 10/24

329 RV

25

42

Clinton +17.0

Pew Research

10/17 - 10/23

837 RV

24

45

Clinton +21.0

LA Times/Bloomberg

10/19 - 10/22

469 LV

17

48

Clinton +31.0

Rasmussen

10/18 - 10/21

750 LV

22

49

Clinton +27.0

CBS News*

10/12 - 10/16

456 RV

23

51

Clinton +28.0

CNN

10/12 - 10/14

485 RV

21

51

Clinton +30.0

USA Today/Gallup

10/12 - 10/14

500 A

21

50

Clinton +29.0

Reuters/Zogby

10/10 - 10/14

426 LV

25

46

Clinton +21.0

American Res. Group

10/09 - 10/12

600 LV

20

45

Clinton +25.0

FOX News

10/09 - 10/10

377 LV

18

50

Clinton +32.0

Gallup

10/04 - 10/07

488 A

26

47

Clinton +21.0

Rasmussen

10/04 - 10/07

750 LV

26

42

Clinton +16.0

AP-Ipsos

10/01 - 10/03

482 A

25

46

Clinton +21.0

ABC News/Wash Post

09/27 - 09/30

592 A

20

53

Clinton +33.0

AP-Ipsos

09/21 - 09/25

631 A

26

40

Clinton +14.0

Rasmussen

09/20 - 09/23

750 LV

28

40

Clinton +12.0

Gallup

09/14 - 09/16

531 A

25

47

Clinton +22.0

CBS News*

09/14 - 09/16

Adults

22

43

Clinton +21.0

Reuters/Zogby

09/13 - 09/16

LV

21

35

Clinton +14.0

Pew Research

09/12 - 09/16

568 RV

25

42

Clinton +17.0

Cook/RT Strategies

09/13 - 09/15

405 RV

23

36

Clinton +13.0

FOX News

09/11 - 09/12

396 RV

24

43

Clinton +19.0

AP-Ipsos

09/10 - 09/12

482 RV

23

43

Clinton +20.0

American Res. Group

09/09 - 09/12

600 LV

21

39

Clinton +18.0

NBC/WSJ

09/07 - 09/10

Adults

23

44

Clinton +21.0

CNN

09/07 - 09/09

Adults

23

46

Clinton +23.0

NYT/CBS News*

09/04 - 09/09

Adults

26

44

Clinton +18.0

USA Today/Gallup

09/07 - 09/08

500 LV

24

45

Clinton +21.0

Rasmussen

09/05 - 09/08

750 LV

22

43

Clinton +21.0

ABC News/Wash Post

09/04 - 09/07

Adults

27

41

Clinton +14.0

Rasmussen

08/23 - 08/26

750 LV

21

40

Clinton +19.0

FOX News

08/21 - 08/22

335 LV

23

35

Clinton +12.0

Gallup

08/13 - 08/16

Adults

21

42

Clinton +21.0

Quinnipiac

08/07 - 08/13

717 LV

21

36

Clinton +15.0

American Res. Group

08/09 - 08/12

600 LV

21

36

Clinton +15.0

Rasmussen

08/09 - 08/12

750 LV

23

43

Clinton +20.0

CBS News*

08/08 - 08/12

492 LV

25

45

Clinton +20.0

CNN

08/06 - 08/07

RV

21

40

Clinton +19.0

USA Today/Gallup

08/03 - 08/05

490 A

19

42

Clinton +23.0

Cook/RT Strategies

08/02 - 08/05

376 RV

21

39

Clinton +18.0

Newsweek

08/01 - 08/01

422 RV

23

44

Clinton +21.0

NBC/WSJ

07/27 - 07/30

481 A

22

43

Clinton +21.0

Rasmussen

07/26 - 07/29

750 LV

24

40

Clinton +16.0

Pew Research

07/25 - 07/29

623 RV

21

40

Clinton +19.0

Hotline/FD

07/19 - 07/22

RV

30

39

Clinton +9.0

ABC News/Wash Post

07/18 - 07/21

Adults

28

39

Clinton +11.0

FOX News

07/17 - 07/18

RV

23

39

Clinton +16.0

CBS News/NY Times*

07/09 - 07/17

LV

24

43

Clinton +19.0

Gallup

07/12 - 07/15

483 A

25

34

Clinton +9.0

Rasmussen

07/09 - 07/15

1300 LV

25

38

Clinton +13.0

Zogby

07/12 - 07/14

396 LV

25

37

Clinton +12.0

American Res. Group

07/09 - 07/12

600 LV

25

38

Clinton +13.0

AP-Ipsos

07/09 - 07/11

Adults

20

36

Clinton +16.0

USA Today/Gallup

07/06 - 07/08

516 RV

21

37

Clinton +16.0

CBS News/NY Times*

06/26 - 06/28

336 LV

24

48

Clinton +24.0

Rasmussen

06/25 - 06/28

769 LV

26

39

Clinton +13.0

FOX News

06/26 - 06/27

RV

19

42

Clinton +23.0

CNN

06/22 - 06/24

450 RV

23

35

Clinton +12.0

Cook/RT Strategies

06/21 - 06/23

378 RV

22

32

Clinton +10.0

Newsweek

06/20 - 06/21

422 RV

27

43

Clinton +16.0

Rasmussen

06/18 - 06/21

763 LV

25

37

Clinton +12.0

Cook/RT Strategies

06/15 - 06/17

380 RV

20

30

Clinton +10.0

Rasmussen

06/11 - 06/14

775 LV

27

38

Clinton +11.0

USA Today/Gallup

06/11 - 06/14

1007 A

21

33

Clinton +12.0

American Res. Group

06/09 - 06/12

600 LV

19

39

Clinton +20.0

NBC/WSJ

06/08 - 06/11

Adults

25

39

Clinton +14.0

Quinnipiac

06/05 - 06/11

789 LV

21

35

Clinton +14.0

LA Times/Bloomberg

06/07 - 06/10

449 LV

22

33

Clinton +11.0

Rasmussen

06/04 - 06/07

773 LV

25

37

Clinton +12.0

FOX News

06/05 - 06/06

RV

23

36

Clinton +13.0

AP-Ipsos

06/04 - 06/06

541 LV

21

33

Clinton +12.0

USA Today/Gallup

06/01 - 06/03

470 LV

30

29

Obama +1.0

ABC News/Wash Post

05/29 - 06/01

1205 Adults

23

35

Clinton +12.0

Rasmussen

05/29 - 05/31

738 LV

26

34

Clinton +8.0

Rasmussen

05/21 - 05/23

559 LV

26

35

Clinton +9.0

NYT/CBS News*

05/18 - 05/23

441 LV

24

46

Clinton +22.0

Zogby

05/17 - 05/20

411 RV

24

39

Clinton +15.0

Hotline/FD

05/16 - 05/20

261 LV

21

31

Clinton +10.0

Rasmussen

05/14 - 05/17

788 LV

25

35

Clinton +10.0

FOX News

05/15 - 05/16

900 RV

20

35

Clinton +15.0

Cook/RT Strategies

05/11 - 05/13

402 RV

24

32

Clinton +8.0

Gallup

05/10 - 05/13

489 LV

26

35

Clinton +9.0

American Res. Group

05/09 - 05/12

600 LV

22

39

Clinton +17.0

Rasmussen

05/07 - 05/10

789 LV

33

35

Clinton +2.0

USA Today/Gallup

05/04 - 05/06

491 RV

23

38

Clinton +15.0

CNN/Opinion Research

05/04 - 05/06

454 RV

24

38

Clinton +14.0

Rasmussen

04/30 - 05/03

760 LV

26

34

Clinton +8.0

Marist

04/26 - 05/01

392 RV

17

35

Clinton +18.0

Quinnipiac

04/25 - 05/01

499 RV

18

32

Clinton +14.0

Cook/RT Strategies

04/27 - 04/30

389 RV

24

32

Clinton +8.0

Rasmussen

04/23 - 04/26

765 LV

32

30

Obama +2.0

NBC/WSJ

04/20 - 04/23

Adults

31

36

Clinton +5.0

Pew Research

04/18 - 04/22

574 RV

24

34

Clinton +10.0

Rasmussen

04/16 - 04/19

579 LV

32

32

Tie

FOX News

04/17 - 04/18

RV

20

41

Clinton +21.0

USA Today/Gallup

04/13 - 04/15

504 RV

26

31

Clinton +5.0

ABC News/Wash Post

04/12 - 04/15

Adults

20

37

Clinton +17.0

CNN

04/10 - 04/12

RV

26

30

Clinton +4.0

Rasmussen

04/09 - 04/12

774 LV

30

32

Clinton +2.0

CBS News*

04/09 - 04/12

392 RV

24

39

Clinton +15.0

American Res. Group

04/09 - 04/12

600 LV

24

36

Clinton +12.0

Time

04/05 - 04/09

493 RV

26

33

Clinton +7.0

LA Times/Bloomberg

04/05 - 04/09

557 RV

23

33

Clinton +10.0

Gallup

04/02 - 04/05

491 A

19

38

Clinton +19.0

Rasmussen

04/02 - 04/05

774 LV

29

34

Clinton +5.0

Cook/RT Strategies

03/29 - 04/01

355 RV

17

41

Clinton +24.0

Rasmussen

03/26 - 03/29

799 LV

26

33

Clinton +7.0

FOX News

03/27 - 03/28

RV

18

36

Clinton +18.0

Time

03/23 - 03/26

511 RV

24

31

Clinton +7.0

Zogby

03/22 - 03/26

432 LV

22

32

Clinton +10.0

USA Today/Gallup

03/23 - 03/25

493 A

22

35

Clinton +13.0

Pew Research

03/21 - 03/25

614 RV

26

35

Clinton +9.0

Rasmussen

03/19 - 03/22

757 LV

25

37

Clinton +12.0

Rasmussen

03/12 - 03/15

790 LV

30

35

Clinton +5.0

Time

03/09 - 03/12

682 RV

26

34

Clinton +8.0

CNN

03/09 - 03/11

447 RV

22

37

Clinton +15.0

Rasmussen

03/05 - 03/08

783 LV

26

38

Clinton +12.0

AP-Ipsos

03/05 - 03/07

RV

21

38

Clinton +17.0

American Res. Group

03/02 - 03/05

600 LV

31

34

Clinton +3.0

NBC/WSJ

03/02 - 03/05

Adults

28

40

Clinton +12.0

USA Today/Gallup

03/02 - 03/04

482 A

22

36

Clinton +14.0

Rasmussen

02/26 - 03/01

769 LV

26

34

Clinton +8.0

FOX News

02/27 - 02/28

RV

23

34

Clinton +11.0

Time

02/23 - 02/26

RV

24

36

Clinton +12.0

ABC News/Wash Post

02/22 - 02/25

Adults

24

36

Clinton +12.0

Zogby

02/22 - 02/24

LV

25

33

Clinton +8.0

Rasmussen

02/19 - 02/22

568 LV

26

37

Clinton +11.0

Quinnipiac

02/13 - 02/19

684 RV

23

38

Clinton +15.0

Cook/RT Strategies

02/15 - 02/18

390 RV

20

42

Clinton +22.0

Marist

02/12 - 02/15

471 RV

17

37

Clinton +20.0

USA Today/Gallup

02/09 - 02/11

495 A

21

40

Clinton +19.0

Siena

02/06 - 02/09

RV

12

45

Clinton +33.0

Rasmussen

02/05 - 02/08

435 LV

23

28

Clinton +5.0

Rasmussen

01/29 - 02/03

448 LV

18

34

Clinton +16.0

FOX News

01/30 - 01/31

RV

15

43

Clinton +28.0

Rasmussen

01/22 - 01/25

435 LV

19

33

Clinton +14.0

Time

01/22 - 01/23

480 RV

21

40

Clinton +19.0

CNN

01/19 - 01/21

467 RV

18

34

Clinton +16.0

ABC News/Wash Post

01/16 - 01/19

561 A

17

41

Clinton +24.0

Rasmussen

01/15 - 01/18

386 LV

24

31

Clinton +7.0

Gallup

01/12 - 01/14

1003 A

18

29

Clinton +11.0

Rasmussen

01/08 - 01/11

401 LV

21

22

Clinton +1.0

Zogby

01/05 - 01/09

339 LV

14

29

Clinton +15.0

Gallup

12/11 - 12/14

511 A

20

33

Clinton +13.0

NBC/WSJ

12/08 - 12/11

1006 A

18

37

Clinton +19.0

ABC News/Wash Post

12/07 - 12/11

1005 A

17

39

Clinton +22.0

CNN

12/05 - 12/07

612 RV

15

37

Clinton +22.0

FOX News

12/05 - 12/06

900 RV

12

33

Clinton +21.0

Marist

11/27 - 12/03

RV

12

33

Clinton +21.0

CNN

11/17 - 11/19

RV

15

33

Clinton +18.0

Gallup

11/09 - 11/12

A

19

31

Clinton +12.0

Pew Research

11/09 - 11/12

RV

23

39

Clinton +16.0

Cook/RT Strategies

11/09 - 11/12

RV

20

34

Clinton +14.0

McLaughlin & Associates (R)

11/07 - 11/07

LV

21

27

Clinton +6.0

CNN

10/27 - 10/29

RV

17

28

Clinton +11.0