CNN loses respect

Some say CNN has a liberal bias. I'm not sure if that is always true, but I will give them credit for stupidity. CNN has a new "news story" on their web site about the '08 Presidential election:

"Asked if they preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to McCain, respondents gave the Democratic New York senator and former first lady a 51 percent to 44 percent advantage over the Republican Senator from Arizona. Remove 'Rodham' and McCain had a 1 percentage point advantage, 48 percent to 47 percent. The results fall within the sample's margin of error, so there is a 'good chance, but not a statistical certainty' that Clinton's maiden name would help her in a matchup against McCain, said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director."

What a stupid poll. If there were consistent results that were outside the margin of error it would be useful. I would be willing to guess that most people know that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are the same person.

CNN loses respect by even running this "story." "If presidential elections were held today, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would likely have a comfortable edge over Sen. John McCain." -- If you average the two polls she leads McCain 49% to 46.5%. That isn't a comfortable lead at all!

The entire story about the "rodham" is just stupid (other than the interesting poll numbers). She consistently uses "Rodham" and will if she runs in 2008. It's a moot point. Why not ask people if they would vote for George Bush if he changed his name to "Santa Claus"? I'm sure there would be some small difference in the numbers. But it would be ridiculous to write a story about it.