NYT/CBS Poll: Obama's Support "Softening"

Has Barack Obama peaked? That's one reading of the NY Times/ CBS poll of registered voters of both parties released today:

Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.


Obama's favorability rating is down 7 points.

Obama v. McCain: Obama ahead 47% to 42%.
Hillary v. McCain: Hillary ahead 48% to 43%

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now effectively tied among Democratic voters, with 46 percent saying they want the party to nominate Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent for Mrs. Clinton. In late February, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted Mr. Obama to win the nomination, compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Among men:

Mr. Obama’s lead among men has disappeared during that period. In February, 67 percent of men wanted the party to nominate him compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Now 47 percent back him, compared with 42 percent for her, a difference within the poll’s margin of error. Similarly, his lead has shrunk among whites, voters making more than $50,000 annually and voters under age 45.

< Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total? | Obama Proposes 50/50 Michigan Split: Just Say No >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Has to be financial insecurity (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    Wright would be mitigating, but I think that many people are getting to the end of the month and realizing they're not the well-heeled, latte dems they once thought they were.  We need someone who can start digging us out of this mess immediately.

    I have long thought that the reason there have been so many calls for Clinton to step down are because the longer the race goes on, the worse the economy get, and the more the candidates are scrutinized, the better it is for Clinton.

    If his peak came from caucus victories, she can certainly get more of a boost from a string of big state wins.  Another good polling day for Clinton supporters!  Thanks, TL!

    You're right on! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:23:28 PM EST
    and as Hillary said on Jay Leono, "it's the stupid economy," and the isolated items that accumulated;  his association with Rezko, Nafta/Canadian fiasco/Rev. Wright/His legislative record in Illinois and being propped up by his mentor; Sam Powers; These are things that had negative impact on his claim of 'good judgement.'  So now voters are looking at the experience factor in view of the grave problems facing the country. Healthcare/Recession/Iraq/energy/environment/education/

    Obama clearly does not have the experience or the demonstrated ability to handle these issues.


    heh... (none / 0) (#56)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:05:11 AM EST
    she recycled a comment I just watched on Adam Curtis' - The Century of the Self this evening, Carvilles old comment 'it's the economy stupid', clever play or plagarism!?

    I'm leaning towards the former right now, but I need to see the the context.


    Didn't she say it backwards? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:20:29 AM EST
    That was the War Room cry of the Clinton campaign in 92. So in reality, it was Carvel who used it all the time and had a sign if I remember, but it was so that would remember to keep focus. By her saying it is the stupid economy was a cool play on words. Good for her.

    well, right before she said it (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    iirc, Jay mentioned that it was the same issue now as when Bill ran, the economy, and then she responded.

    I sure wouldn't call that plagiarism . . .  


    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    in that context it was a clever play on the words, but we need substance not just words right?

    Her words contained plenty of (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:13:48 AM EST
    "substance" and solutions. Might want to check out her site for her plans. Compare her speech to the AFL-CIO in Pitts to his perhaps. Compare the info they both supply on their sites daily in their news sections.

    Did you even watch the appearance on Leno?


    I think that... (none / 0) (#80)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:34:09 AM EST
    it is jobs, shifts in tax cuts from the 250,000+ to the under $100,000 and yeah, when unemployment claims jump as they did today, refactored January and February like they did today, the economy is front and center.

    I suppose we could all get hung up in the various phraseology of the moment but the simple fact is, it still is the economy stupid...it was the economy in 2004 but Kerry lost complete control over the issues and was fighting against the war.

    but yes...we need substance and not just words


    I'm old enough... (none / 0) (#160)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    ...to recall it from Bill's '92 campaign as is more than half of America.  One of those phrases that needs no attribution since it is almost universally known among the politicos.

    I don't know if I'm representative, but (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:03 PM EST
    I guess I'm a swing voter, as my preference between the candidates  has changed twice already; I think they're both strong candidates. On a gut level Obama appeals to me on foreign affairs, while Hillary appeals to me on the economy, health care and so on. So maybe there's something to it. In a previous thread, someone put a link to an interview of Kramer with Hillary that's impressive. Maybe people who want to see Hillary elected should be passing that around to their friends who are still on the fence. :)

    If this is a continuing trend (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    I think it makes a very strong case for a Clinton/Obama ticket.  Obama can be a wonderful president in time.  He needs more seasoning.  In the meantime our economy is tanking and we need some serious financial experience.

    Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    I think Obama has a Rezko problem still to come, unfortunately.  I also think his ego wouldn't allow him to take the VP spot as second place to a woman.
    If he were to accept VP that would go a long way to restoring my confidence in him.

    Third fiddle (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:26 AM EST
    Whoever is Hillary's VP will not be the second seat but the third.  Bill will be the de facto VP.  Hillary's running mate will have to accept third fiddle.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    that is such a right-wing talking point. Seriously.  IT was what we heard when Bill was president--that Hillary was his VP-- and then just like now it is absolutely false.

    Last time I checked Bill ran a very influential, very busy foundation, not to mention all the speaking engagements he has.  So kindly please do not recylce right-wing (and shockingly now Obama TP's) that whoever is the VP will actually be less-than.  It's not only fallacious but insulting to HRC as as candidate and a statesman.  Let Limbaugh be the one to repeat such lies.  Not alleged Democrats.


    Yes, incase you hadn't noticed, (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:12:33 AM EST
    Bill already has plenty of important work to do. Also, since the law doesn't allow her to give him a Cabinet post, I imagine they've already had this discussion. He'll be what she was to him (and BTW I think she will actually be a better President than he was).

    She would absolutely (4.75 / 4) (#135)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    be a better President.

    Not to mention the inherent misogyny in making such a statement. Like the Little Woman wouldn't be able to tell her husband that he is not the VP.  I believe she's been quite clear and effective on that point.  As a woman, I am offended. Oh, a little girl like me wouldn't know what to do if her husband wanted to run the show...I'd just have to let him I guess.   It's in line with how I feel about Obama though...after the kiss incident in PA and calling a worker "sweetie." Argh.  Makes my feminist skin crawl.


    My feminist skin (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    has been crawling since I read on O's website that Michelle was not allowed to take a job until Obama met with her potential future employer and gave the okay.

    Makes me sick again just writing about it.  I mean--wtf?  By all accounts, based on her resume at the time, she was even better educated and more qualified than he was.


    I've always and (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    thought and continue to think that he's got quite the sexist streak. I ignored it at first (back when it was "We have 2 great candidates!) but the more I saw it the less I could ignore it.  Not only does he use misogyny to his favor in the media (Tweety, KO, etc) but he himself does it.  I don't care how charming everyone tells you you are. Do not turn a grown woman into a child by calling her sweetie. Never mind offering a kiss for a vote. Ew ew ew.

    That was not his best moment. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    Obama and His "Kiss" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    Is there a link for this?  Sounds right out of a fundie playbook.  Geez.

    IMHO, Obama's offer of a "kiss" to a female voter the other day was appalling and disqualifying for a Presidential candidate.  It should have gotten wide condemnation - women would like to know how this candidate thinks.


    Here is (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    the link forthe sweetie business.  

    Bill thinks so too..LOL (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    He said so when asked about Chelsea's comment on the same subject. I think Bill Clinton would be wonderful as a special Presidential Envoy when the occasion arises. Other than that, he has plenty to keep him busy. And he can also take on an agenda, like First Ladies do, and be extremely effective with that agenda. He has the political chops, after all. :D

    Hairspray I too used to believe that Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:55:06 AM EST
    ...would make a great president some day. Now I'm starting to think maybe not. He'd make a better president than a lot of the other lily livered Dems with presidential ambitions but a great president? Why? The more I see and hear of him the more I wonder what these great "gifts" are that he is supposed to possess.

    He talks nice and (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    he gets along really well with Republicans. Even supports some of their agenda and votes for their judicial candidates. That's what he calls "reaching across the aisle". That is pretty much it as far as I can see. The rest of his "accomplishments" are apparently other peoples'. He just got his name on them. Sort of like his MI stance. He didn't give people a chance to vote for him, and now he wants the votes he didn't earn. Like not working on legislation and getting to sponsor it when it goes to the vote. His greatest gift seems to be the ability to sell an empty suit as a viable candidate for the highest office in the country. That isn't my idea of a qualified candidate, frankly.

    Just watched the interview (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    Obama simply can't address the issues like Hillary Clinton can.  She has a significant grasp of policy and a deep understanding of the complexities of our economy and how policy affects those complexities.  Obama simply doesn't have that capability.  Although not directly related to the economy I believe that the Roberts confirmation issue is a crystal clear look into Obama's disconnect with the realities of government and the consequences of his acts.

    Perhaps voters are beginning to grasp this important distinction and may be one of the factors in his decline in the polls.


    Remind you of anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    That was the most striking contrast to me during the 2000 campaign.  Gore had a thesis on nearly every and any issue that was thrown at him while Bush would fall back on generalities and platitudes ('we need to get Americans back to work!')...

    Obviously Presidents have numerous expert advisers, but without any basis to sanity check the advice, the results - as we've seen - can be disastrous.  I don't think Obama means any harm, but he is terribly susceptible to being swayed.  All the nonsense about his willingness to consider all sides doesn't really appeal to me.  I'm not really thrilled about a 46 year old Presidential candidate who is still open to revising his fundamental principles.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:56 AM EST
    for the link, that was great :)

    i saw that, too. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:31:15 AM EST
    She hit it out of the ballpark. Thanks for the link for others to view it.

    For Wright, this is a good (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:33:10 AM EST
    oped by Juan Williams in the WSJ.  Contrasts Obama and MLK with comments on Rev Wright.



    I'm going to bask in this (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    good feeling for the next few minutes before the pile on begins.... aaaaahhh.....

    I can't wait for Penn.

    OK, now reality.... here come the troops with all of the 'other' polls.  Buckle up.

    next week (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    Blurb on top of SurveyUSA's web site says...
    Next week, watch for our first look at the Democratic primaries for President and U.S. Senate in Oregon, exclusively for KATU-TV in Portland; we'll also have fresh numbers on the North Carolina primaries for WTVD-TV in Raleigh and on the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential contestfor WCAU-TV in Philadelphia, KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, WHP-TV in Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.

    should be interesting...

    SUSA has been one of the more accurate polling companies this cycle and they had Hillary up 12% in PA, up 9% in Indiana, up 29% in KY this past week.


    walden, on AC360 tonight, they decided (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    that a single digit loss in PA is a win for Obama. I'm back to feeling hopeless again. I remember how Ohio tightened up and I think Obama even lead in the polls for the Texas primary, so I'm hoping the people of PA will do the same as those voters did.

    media narratives are nothing more... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    than media narratives.

    One could point to the leaked Obama internal prediction of a 5% loss in Pennsylvania as the margin for what is considered a win.

    In reality, a loss is a loss and a win is a win...so says Obama about Missouri (which he won in a squeaker) or Hillary would say about New Mexico (which she won in another squeaker).

    Personally, I don't see how Obama gets this loss into single digits unless something unforseen happens...he has minimal support from politicos in PA, the demographics don't favor him, it's a closed primary (though clearly some Republicans and Independents did register as Democrats for the day) but in the end, this isn't a state that he can say he's out if he loses.


    Leaked spreadsheet (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    Do you know where that is still available?  I remembered his projection for 5 in Penn but not the others.  I wanted to see what the original expectations were.

    try Ben Smith...Politico... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
    L I N K - Here

    Google is your friend


    Politico (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:16:46 PM EST
    has it available here.  They have a link to download the full spreadsheet.

    curiously... (none / 0) (#31)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    if you look at the spreadsheet, they have them winning Indiana by 7 (ain't gonna happen), losing Kentucky by 14 (in their dreams), and generally winning states the rest of the way that they are likely to lose.

    Of course, that was then and this is now and things have changed as as the Times says...Obama support has softened.


    My thoughts (none / 0) (#34)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    He will win Indiana. He's down by a few points, with over a month to go.

    And don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Suma on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    the additional advantages of money and free media. As I keep saying, it is a miracle that Clinton is still in the race.

    down a few points? (none / 0) (#37)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    I suppose that depends again on who do you trust to tell you that...

    Survey USA on 4/1 says Obama down 9%

    Just sayin'


    I see (none / 0) (#60)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    so this media narrative (Times) is acceptable while the one mentioned above is not...ok got it, this is excellent news for Hillary!

    I'm too confused by the point... (none / 0) (#67)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:49 AM EST
    you are trying to make to respond in a meaningful way, other than I detect sarcasm because you believe that I am blinded by my support of Hillary.

    Be very cautious... (none / 0) (#163)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    ...everything that gets 'leaked' is intended for public consumption.  The Obama campaign is notorious for 'leaked' strategy memos.  Nothing more than a PR routine to get their version of reality out into the media.  Remember Axelrod is a long-time veteran of public relations.

    Thousands of young people flown and bus'd in (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:52:31 AM EST
    I read that this morning.

      They are coming in by the thousands to help him register new voters, and they're concentrating on the young, on any Independents and Republicans they can find.

      He's very effective on this, with the Dem processes.


    Will the media (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    report the moral victory if Obama loses by a single percentage point in November?


    Mandates, anyone?


    I need to have the Obama Team (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:08 AM EST
    talk to the NFL and MLB so my teams are assured wins even when they lose as long as they stay under 10 in the spread ;)

    Well, I don't happen to think (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:08:46 PM EST
    getting 37% of the white vote is a very strong showing (he has variable stats depending on the state)  but I haven't plugged that in to my GE spreadsheets yet.  (I'm lazy, I haven't finished entering all my state demographics yet) :)

    Does anyone have his overall number of the white vote?  I thought he was getting 45% or so.


    He's down among white men, which (none / 0) (#136)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    does NOT bode well for the GE (or Indiana for that matter)and is also loosing ground in the 25-to-44 groups. Their new strategy is to target HOGH SCHOOLERS - 17-year olds who will be 18 by the GE and are thus eligible to vote in the primary. Talk about a loophole. He obviously doesn't have teenagers if he thinks they'll all even show up having registered! ;-)

    He's down among white men, which (none / 0) (#137)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    does NOT bode well for the GE (or Indiana for that matter)and is also loosing ground in the 25-to-44 groups. Their new strategy is to target HIGH SCHOOLERS - 17-year olds who will be 18 by the GE and are thus eligible to vote in the primary. Talk about a loophole. He obviously doesn't have teenagers if he thinks they'll all even show up having registered! ;-)

    sorry for the double post - I (none / 0) (#139)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    pushed the wrong button (snark)

    perhaps the duplicity (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    of NAFTA and the under currents of his commitment to pull all the troops out of Iraq as suggested by Samantha Powers and now Colin Kahl are indicative that we really don't know much about what he truly thinks and what he will will do...the empty vessel thing again.

    The thing that strikes me is the reverence he gets for his speeches but I find their pacing to be quite boring and his speech patterns too much like a religious service that I want to desperately end soon.

    While I appreciate the vast differences in content and the fact that he doesn't butcher the English language, I fear that would dread Obama speeches as much as I dread Bush speeches.

    The fact is that the spotlight tends to fade people over time and he's not the 'New Kid in Town' any longer (one of my favorite Eagles songs). The problem that Obama has is that between now and the last vote, there is probably only North Carolina and possibly Oregon where he can hope to stop the downward slide.

    I suspect that it was the recognition that the remaining states were likely to give Hillary the momentum at closing and the concerted efforts to get her to drop out have had some very negative effects on Obama.

    So (none / 0) (#5)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    This would explain his narrowing gaps in Indiana and Penn., I presume?

    seems to me... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    that being down 12% in PA and 9% in IN still represents a substantial problem for Obama but hey, celebrate you candidate if you wish...

    Actually (none / 0) (#11)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    Some polls have him up in PA.

    yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    PPP - that had Hillary up by 29% just 2 weeks ago.

    I suppose if you want to fish around for unreliable polling to hang your hat, then you've found your source.


    But (none / 0) (#18)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:02:55 PM EST
    The average on realclearpolitics is under 7 percentage points in Clinton's favor.

    fine... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:12:50 PM EST
    knock yourself out.

    RCP uses accurate and absurdly inaccurate polls.

    Feel free to believe whatever you want but I am certain that the end result will be between 8-15% in Hillary's favor and the reliable polling companies are clearly within that range.


    Except that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    simply averaging polls with different samples sizes and methodologies is meaningless, especially when the results vary from Clinton winning by double digits to Obama possibly winning by a small margin, and one poll swung by 25 points over a short period.

    Before polls came out in Indiana, I thought (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    it was considered a probable win by the Obama camp.

    I think the issue of Indiana... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:07:35 PM EST
    is far more interesting at this point and probably more crucial for both candidates.

    Hillary is more or less expected to win Pennsylvania and to do it comfortably. Whether it is 8% or 15% probably doesn't matter in the analysis but does matter in popular vote counts.

    In media analysis though...if Hillary wins Indiana, this goes right to the heart of the electability issues that favor Clinton over Obama as discussed in great detail here at US News and World Reports

    It's conceivable that the Democratic party could select a nominee that has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election - at least in any way that is predicted from past results.

    I think when it comes down to it, the issue of electability is the entire point of having 'super delegates'


    Great Analysis (none / 0) (#70)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:24 AM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    narrowing (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:43 PM EST
    in your dreams

    polls had him winnin ohio by 4 at the end

    and she won by what - 12? 15?

    Pa in the bag for hillary by about 12


    I think it was 10, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    and that was pre-Wright stuff.... He would have been crushed in Ohio if it had come out sooner.

    I'm read more than most politically but, (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    I still can't figure out what the NAFTA thing was really about (except I've noticed both Hillary and Obama supporters have claimed it shows the other candidate in a bad light), and while I know who Samantha Powers is I imagine most have forgotten her, and I haven't heard about Colin Kahl (follows link). I doubt these issues are in the forefront of most voters' minds.

    There's been a lot of hard campaigning between Obama and Clinton, and that sort of thing would usually bring both candidates' favorability down (which is why I think Obama might be wishing the contest was over). This poll was about Obama's favorability; i wonder if there's been any change in Hillary's?

    Obama was hit by the Wright scandal, then perhaps had a bounce from his speech. Perhaps what her seeing is that bounce fading, and the earlier doubts raised from that are still there, consciously or unconsciously?


    surely there is a dichotomy (none / 0) (#55)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    of levels of attention to the various details during the campaign and there is likely a substantial percentage of registered Democrats that missed the whole thing on NAFTA. You can read about it here. Sensing the damage that this revelation portended for Obama's campaign, they fought hard to suggest that Hillary's campaign did similar but that has never been established. The worst part of this is that the main stream media found this story too complicated to cover in a meaningful way and then the Ohio and Texas vote happened to wipe the story off the front page.

    The Wright story will clearly not ever go away...Obama made certain that it will remain by saying that he can no more reject Jeremiah Wright than his own grandmother. Whether his connection to Jeremiah Wright ultimately damages his candidacy cannot be known...there hasn't been an election since the public revelations.

    I don't think that there will ever be a way to evaluate how much Obama's connection to Wright hurts Obama's chances. If he is the nominee however, you can be certain that it will be featured prominently in various 527 based campaigns to maximize the white votes.


    Try looking up FACTCHECK.org (none / 0) (#57)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    for some of these squabbles.  I learned a great deal about the NAFTA stories and the Candian telephone calls. There are also some fact check articles on Hillary and experience.  Of course, there is usually a mixed bag, but they do quote the various actors and you get to decide whose credibility you prefer.

    Actually (none / 0) (#75)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:43 AM EST
    NAFTA is a non story, thats why the media gave it up.

    And, BO and HRC are still close (with the edge to BO) in polls because most people (and wingnuts like Wallace, Kemp, McCain, and Huckabee) think that the guilt by association with the pastor is too much.  Plus, the pastor has done more to serve this country than many.  Not to mention, how could he be a 100% nut and still be invited to the Clinton White House with other religious leaders?


    I'm not sure if he was a 100% nut (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:39:03 AM EST
    when he was invited to the Clinton White House in the '90s, but he's more than met the test now.  I still would like to know if Obama doesn't share the pastor's views, why did he stick with that church?  I doubt I'm alone in that question.

    I'm sure you've (none / 0) (#99)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:26:43 AM EST
    heard why he says he stayed there, that's good enough for me.

    The guilt by association thing doesn't work for me on this.  Maybe this is because I've always been close to (including my schools until the first part of HS) religion, although my church was the plain vanilla protestant flavor.

    More power to others if they want to divine BO's soul, that's not my thing.

    Clever line, if I do say so myself.


    Wright made an ass of himself. (none / 0) (#114)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:06:16 AM EST
    The disgusting personal remarks about the Clintons and the accompanying gyrations were so beneath any pastor. And that imbecilic AIDS rant was not what I would deem "unifying".

    The RNC already has a loop of Wright comments ready to air for the GE, should Obama be the candidate (according to Vin Weber, republican heavyweight). Drip, drip, drip.

    I doubt we know the full impact of the Rev yet, but I sure hope we know sooner, rather than later.


    I disagree... (none / 0) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:49:52 AM EST
    that the NAFTA story is a non-story.

    It goes right to the heart of character, and as described here, in an article in a Canadian paper with no axe to grind at all (and much later) than the other links provided.

    The problem is while Obama is posturing that he doesn't do 'politics as usual' and getting out in front of the story by stating as he did, that no such meeting ever took place, clearly a meeting did take place and it is only that Goolsbee disputed the characterization in the memo of that meeting.

    The fact that the media got distracted by Ohio and Texas was to Obama's benefit.

    It remains a story that only those who are following the race very closely get and if Obama supporters deny what went down, I quickly get it, that they are only concerned with beating Hillary.

    The entire story represents what I consider some of the worst things about politics/politicians and seems clear to me why McCain will thump Obama if he is the nominee because Obama loses all his main stream media benefits in a head-to-head with McSame.


    You do realize (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:39:41 AM EST
    that there is no NAFTA story.

    Goolsbee was called by the Canadians, so he met them.  A small part of that meeting was about NAFTA.  The memo from that meeting says that Goolsbee made it clear that BO wanted changes for environmental and worker standards, which is exactly what BO said publicly.  The memo also claimed that Goolsbee indicated that BO's NAFTA rhetoric would overly heated in the States as part of the campaign.  Goolsbee claims he didn't say this.

    We now know that the original CTV story was wrong on where, when, who met, who initiated contact, what was said, and the mode of contact (phone v. in person.)


    nice spin (none / 0) (#105)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:00:31 AM EST
    Actually Canada is trying to whitewash their involvement in US Politics since it clearly works against them.

    There are some facts that remain undisputed and beyond your spin of the events and the conclusions.

    There was contact.
    Both Obama and campaign initially denied any and all contact.
    Then a week later, they admitted that there was contact and then Goolsbee disputed the memorandum of the contact as inaccurate.

    This kind of stuff is amateur hour.

    And it doesn't end, as I stated, they repeat this same type of disingenuous behavior while Obama is out telling voters that he will begin withdrawing troops immediately, his primary foreign policy advisors (first Powers and now Kahl) are suggesting that we will still have massive numbers of troops in Iraq at least for 2 years after Obama would take office.

    See the problem Obama has is that on these seemingly little issues, he gives critical voters reasons to suspect that this is very much politics as usual.


    CAFLA Columbian Free Labor Agreement (none / 0) (#120)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:59:49 AM EST
    So what do you think about Hillary's top advisor, Mark Penn, meeting with the Columbian government to strategize on pushing the Columbian Free Trade Agreement through?  Is Hillary for these Free Trade (free labor) agreements, or against them?  How does this differ from Obama's Canadian NAFTA issue?

    Obama's person met re NAFTA w/o his knowing (none / 0) (#108)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:19:52 AM EST
    Obama had to deny ANY" meeting because he didn't know his senior economic policy adviser had met with them.  And I guess that Goolsbee didn't feel it was important to tell Obama.

    That's important too, unless you feel Obama did know but prefers to say he didn't.

    As mentioned, this was the most recent statement on the matter.


    ignoring of course... (none / 0) (#140)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    that the entire episode made Obama foreign policy acumen appear to be amateur AND the fact this points out that he's been making disingenuous comments about NAFTA which entirely undermines his posture of not practicing politics as usual, then this story was no big deal.

    Some simply can't ignore those things because they go to the core of Obama's candidacy.


    So he can't run his own house? (none / 0) (#142)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    A meeting of this type should have been brought to his attention BEFORE it happened. Also, I am no fan of Penn and don't believe he should be with Hillary's campaign, but he's 1)not her foreign policy advisor and 2) met with the Columbians in his professional capacity, not as a rep of the campaign.

    That being said, I do think this is a good opportunity for her to cut him loose. Ot is a clear conflict of interest. She has been on record for some time as opposing CAFTA, and rightly so.


    How's it on that limb? (none / 0) (#152)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    Do you know Goolsbee knew the Canadians because of his work, that's why he was contacted by them?  He wasn't sent on a mission by BO as an emissary.  It's interesting that you perceive great distance between HRC and her top strategic adviser who 1) has been paid a fortune by the HRC campaign donors, and 2) has been in her most elite inner circle for a long time.

    Of course the actions of advisers aren't as meaningful as those of the principles.  Why was HRC participating in pro-NAFTA meetings?  Why was she actively talking up the benefits of NAFTA so that it would be passed?  Why did she make public statements in favor of NAFTA after it passed?  Personally I think the evil of NAFTA is overblown, but we are led to believe that HRC opposed it at the same time she was supporting it, this is ridiculous.  The truth (parsing Gergen) is that she probably didn't have strong views on the policy, but for strategic reasons she would have preferred to have health care as a higher priority.  This is not a terrible narrative for her, but for some reason she decided to exaggerate her opposition.  And, the exaggeration reinforces the concern that her stated achievements and experience may not always fit with reality.


    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#164)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    That a senior campaign official would conduct diplomatic meetings with a foreign government on trade issues but Obama didn't know?

    Would you really prefer that he's utterly clueless as to the dealings of his senior advisers?


    A little irony doesn't go very far? (none / 0) (#170)
    by andrys on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM EST
    Read my 2nd paragraph...

    Given Mark Penn has a higher role (none / 0) (#147)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    in the Clinton Campaign, than Goolsby in Obama's you might want to rethink this.

    Fair or not, anytime Goolsby is brought up, the media will play up Mark Penn's recent gaffe. And it will play worse for HRC. It plays to all the wrong narratives.

    Penn needs to go.

    I think Obama needs to stay away from advisors like Goolsby and I thought that before Goolsby's gaffe (I am not fond of Milton Friedman and his Chicago school of economics).

    The reality is President's have all kinds of advisors, sometimes they take advice, sometimes they reject it. To assume an advisor is completely in sync at all times with the candidate is too assume to much in my opinion.


    I hope you're right about Wright. (none / 0) (#92)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:57:09 AM EST
    He certainly isn't going to influence my vote, but ever since the Republicans managed to beat Kerry using of all things is service in Vietnam, I have no idea what we'll end up resonating with the electorate and what won't. And the swift voters didn't have youtube videos. As for the photo of Wright with Clinton, even a latte-drinking birkenstock-wearing Obama-supporting elitist Democrat like myself thinks there's a difference between inviting a minister over along with a group of others to a ceremony, versus being in their church and having a close relationship with them as your pastor for 20 years. I didn't think it was a good move for the Obama campaign to release that photo; it kept the issue alive, and looked like a cheap shot, especially since up until then Hillary and most of her associates hadn't said a word about the matter.

    Spiritual adviser and mentor (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:21:41 AM EST
    That's what Obama has said about Wright's impact on him.
    Not just pastor, but his soul and mind-trainer...

    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:39:15 AM EST
    there is a difference between the relationship the Clintons had with Wright and the Obama's relationship.  Frankly, since Obama said several years ago that democrats should talk about religion more, but only if "they can clap in time to the gospel choir", (in other words be authentic) and made it clear that he was the democratic candidate who was going to heal the gap on religion and democrats, I am not sure why his relationship with Wright wouldn't change your vote.
    HE thinks democrats should be more religious and talk about religion more.  He thinks his religious experience is more authentic than some white guy with no rhythm who can't keep time clapping to the gospel choir (because God knows only those who can keep the beat are welcome by Christ} and he is the one who sat for 20 years listening to the sermons of a bigot.  This is his only experience with Christianity.  He never belonged to another church ... but he is going to lecture me about religion and the democratic party?  I don't think so.

    When you're outspending someone (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    at the 4:1 rate that has been touted, when you're raising twice as much money as your opponent, and your support is getting softer - that is not good news.

    We started seeing this just before the March 4 primaries, and it looks like it is continuing.

    At some point, I think Obama supporters have to take a serious and objective look at what this means, and begin to consider the possibility that he may not be the stronger and more electable candidate.  We will know more after Pennsylvania, which I see as the primary that will get this thing off the see-saw and tip the race in one direction or another.

    I believe that it is going to go in Clinton's direction, but we shall see.

    That is why it (none / 0) (#132)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    was imperative that she drop out before April 22. That's the great fear. Obama needed her to drop out before she goes and starts winning too much.

    To be perfectly fair (none / 0) (#151)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    Raising a great deal of money is part of being the stronger candidate (not the most important part imo). Obviously ultimately it can't be everything, but let's not discount that.

    to be perfectly fair (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    you should look at the last reports on the total amount of money raised this season by each candidate.  

    I agree, but (none / 0) (#165)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    I am not saying Sen Clinton has not raised a lot of money. But Sen Obama has raised a lot more, spent a lot more, and at the end of the day couldn't win TX and OH and will most likely not be able to win PA.

    I think its important as a Hillary supporter that I NOT follow the lead of some Obama supporters and just discount anything positive about the other candidate. I really want to be fair.

    That's all I'm saying.


    Maybe voters are wondering if Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    "judgment" is not as great as he claims.
    Bush's gut, Obama's "judgment": they are the same thing. I'd rather have someone who knows something!
    Obama is still talking up the possibility of invading Pakistan, which I find quite worrisome.

    More on Obama's "judgment" (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
    This is something very interesting:

    Barack Obama appeared on MSNBC's Hardball last night and was asked about the way he would handle the 3 a.m. phone call.

    The transcript:

        MATTHEWS: Let me give you a scene that may face you in the next year or two, where the national security adviser calls you at 3:00 in the morning and tells that you a couple of jet -- commercial jets have been hijacked. And they believe it is al Qaeda. And, as we know, al Qaeda always tries a second time. They tried for the World Trade Center after '93. They came back in '01.

        They're heading for the Capitol. What do you do?

        OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypotheticals like that, because...

        MATTHEWS: But it has been predictable.

        OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.

    No one predicted 9/11????
    I think knowledgeable voters have got to be scared that Obama is THAT ignorant in 2008.

    ..via Jersey Girl vs. Obama


    You need to cut Obama some slack... (none / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    Condi Rice said virtually the same thing and she had the memo more than a month before 9/11.

    C'est la vie...he mis-spoke.

    His mistake was appearing on Hardball.


    Um, Condi Rice told several layers of lies, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM EST
    First denying there was ANY foreknowledge of an attack, then denying there was any knowledge planes would be used, etc.
    I find Obama's statement typically inaccurate and insouciant. Doesn't he care about accuracy in his remarks? The US govt DID know at attack was imminent and DID know that using planes as missiles was one of the possibilities.

    what I think... (none / 0) (#51)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    by suggesting that, you are making far too much effort to find something to criticize Obama for, this clearly isn't something worthy of criticism.

    Inaccurate? Insouciant?

    Let's get a grip...it was a Chris Matthews posing a relatively meaningless hypothetical to Obama in a typical main stream media 'gotcha' effort and it wasn't worthy of repeating at all.

    The simple fact is that Condi Rice WAS the National Security Director, and certainly had sufficient warnings.

    If Obama were elected President, I would expect him to appoint someone better.


    His answer bothers me quite a bit. (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:08:01 AM EST
    For someone who bases his claim to superior judgment in knowing that we should have kept troops in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone, I find it stunning that he views 9/11 through a lens that sees it happening suddenly, with no warning.
    What's important about the 3 am call is that whatever it is, it should be something you have already considered, IMO.
    Anyway, that is my judgment.

    when bush was running (none / 0) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:47:31 AM EST
    his answer to being a know nothing was always that he would appoint smarter people, experts, to tke care of the details.
    Look how well that has turned out.

    finding someone smarter... (none / 0) (#141)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    certainly offered a pretty low bar to hurdle.

    heckuva job there ________


    of course... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST
    and the question was a typical 'gotcha' type question from Chris Matthews and not worthy of an answer. Whey he would give the same answer as Condi did, I don't know, but it wasn't a big deal.

    My question was what is he doing appearing on Hardball? Was he sending more pulses up Matthews leg?


    If he can't parry (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM EST
    with the likes of Christ Matthews, how is he going to take on the big guns?

    Regardless of what the question was, the take-away point here is that Obama didn't handle it right.

    I'm sure over the next few days a salient reason will be devised and bandied about the blogs.


    That's a good answer. Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    he didn't think of it.

    Well, two words usually come to mind (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:27:57 AM EST
    and they didn't work for this question/answer.


    Now, what else is there?  Oh, right.  What I hear in that same speech over these many months now.  I can't believe he's still giving the same speech.

    And, going to a student rally and always promising them each $4,000 annually to help them with finances, but as he says, they'll have to earn it, peace corps, helping in the community.  Yes, that's one of about 21 promises he makes in each stump speech that involves giving money away in this economy of ours.  Gosh, I wonder why they like what they hear from him.  He's even promised me that he would have my age-sector not have to pay taxes any more.  I must go vote fo rhim.

      This is typical evangelism methodology though.


    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by Suma on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM EST
    He can Hope that planes will somehow Change direction and not hurt us.

    Generals don't run our country (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    There is a reason that the President is also known as the "Commander in Chief".  Generals do NOT make decisions that involve shooting down civilian aircraft in the middle of the night (or any other time). I would expect Clinton to have a better answer than Obama did. I would have a better answer, even if it were simply "Tell my aide to wake everybody up and get them to the Situation Room, then take my family someplace safe so I wouldn't have to worry about them".  The President should listen to experts - but ultimately he or she is the one who is going to make the decisions, and he or she has to be the one to decide which experts need to be heard.

    Bush should have been mocked for running in fear after 9/11 while Cheney actually coordinated the response to the attack. I can't believe that anybody who is running for President in this day and age can't answer a question about what they would do in the event of a probable terrorist attack.


    And I believe it was Richard Clark (none / 0) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST
    in the WH who was giving Cheney the info and instructing him what needed to be done. Cheney was already in the bunker. I believe I read that in his book.

    My only response to this (none / 0) (#106)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:04:35 AM EST
    is that the current administration has proven to be so inept and they have ruined the military and reserves in this country to such a degree that if a repeat were to happen, it's still highly unlikely that any scrambled jets would shoot any planes down leaving it entirely in the hands of those on board to reprise a Flight 93 thing if necessary.

    you have no idea what you are saying (none / 0) (#118)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:21 AM EST
    of course the president is notified and makes the decisions.  That's the law.

    The comparison with Rice is exactly the point. (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    Rice was flat-out lying---and it wasn't just once she made that remark.

    I think that was white n az's point; (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:45 AM EST
    comparing someone to a Bush cabinet official isn't going to be a complement on a left wing blog. :)

    Clinton would have a much better answer (none / 0) (#116)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:44:49 AM EST
    it seems pretty obvious that she is not fearful of having an answer and making a judgment.
    In fact flying airplanes in to buildings WAS something that was predicted specifically.

    Actually I DO think she would want to be (none / 0) (#144)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    awakened immediately and be party to the decision. She would be the CIC, and no general in his or her right mind would give this kind of order without authorization. That's why we need a CIC who's "ready on Day 1," not someone who, 7 years later is still unaware of the ACTUAL history of the leadup to 9/11. He didn't answer the question, and the CIC has to be ready to answer the question at any time. THAT was the point of the 3 AM phone call ad.

    People are beginning to see that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by doyenne49 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:18 PM EST
    would lose like McGovern lost, or Dukakis. He is a very weak candidate, and the more people see of him, the more that fact is borne home.

    This was bound to come; (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:10:13 PM EST
    it was just a question of when. And Ohio was a good indicator of what was down the road ahead.

    As a male (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:47:49 PM EST
    the term "softening" could really mess with ya.

    I cant read all the numbers. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chisoxy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:28 PM EST
    What exactly were the favorability numbers?

    I read the title (none / 0) (#12)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    and my first thought was poor Chris Matthews!

    lol, his tingle may end up a twitch. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:32 PM EST
    Perhaps the dip is (none / 0) (#20)
    by digdugboy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    chiefly the result of the kitchen sink strategy Hillary has been using.

    Or it could be (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:10 PM EST
    a bit of a backlash from all of the calls from the Obama side for Clinton drop out.  I guess the Florida and Michigan re-votes are another possibility too.  

    You're probably right (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:30:39 PM EST
    Someone should tell McCain that he's not allowed to campaign against Obama, because it makes his poll numbers go down.

    Criminey... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    What's a little kitchen sink?  He can't carry one while running?  

    As the article also notes (but Jeralyn ignores)... (none / 0) (#33)
    by barryluda on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:24:09 PM EST
    Over half of those sampled continued to view [Obama] as having a better chance [than Clinton] of defeating Mr. McCain. Most expect him to win the nomination. And Mr. Obama's supporters are more enthusiastic about his candidacy than are Democrats backing Mrs. Clinton.

    I agree on all counts with the majority on that, but I think Clinton should stay in as long as she wants.  It may well be that time is on her side.  We'll see.

    It's easy to pick and choose what to look at -- like the Diageo/Hotline Poll today showing Obama ahead of Clinton by 12% and Clinton's favorability rating declining by 11% since March -- but polls really aren't telling us much, and of course the NYT/CBS poll is much more credible.

    I agree that Clinton is going to win in PA and if she wins big there and wins big the rest of the way, then she has a chance if she can convince enough Super Delegates to vote her way.  I think Obama has a better chance, but I don't think these polls are telling us much.  If Clinton loses PA, or even just barely wins, then I hope she drops out but, again, it's entirely up to her.

    I find it really (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:37:32 AM EST
    sweet how Obama supporters always give Hillary permission to stay in the race.

    I find is supremely annoying (none / 0) (#130)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    when posters begin their screeds with "what Jeralyn left out..."

    It's a BLOG.  She posts links to the information.  In a perfect world, we are supposed to read the info completely before we comment on it.  She highlighted the points she thought were interesting.  The point of us being here is to highlight the points WE think are interesting.  To assign nefarious intentions is gobsmacking.

    I mean, come on.  It's really cheap to pull that kind of crap.


    Poor choice of words (none / 0) (#154)
    by barryluda on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    But the subject line only allows so many characters.  I probably should have written "As the article also notes, and I found interesting but obviously Jeralyn doesn't..." but it would have cut me off at "interestin".

    You, on the other hand, have a wonderful choice of words.  I never knew what gobsmacking meant.  And to think I elicited it in you!

    In any event, I apologize to Jeralyn, you and anyone else who thought by my poor choice of words that I was assigning nefarious intentions to J.


    OK, I can't put on a Cheerleaders outfit (none / 0) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:38:48 AM EST
    and be all, Hi, I'm Tifany, isn't Obama cute? Vote for him because he is younger and gives me the chills. But, be assured I will be out there donating money, going to local get togethers, having my signs out and wearing my Hillary pins. I will encourage every one I meet. I might seem less rah rah on the outside, but I am all rah rah Hillary on the inside and I have Pom Poms to boot.

    Barnbabe............. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    ....love it. Boy how times have changed, though. When I was a young teen I actually defied my parents and went to the 68 convention protests. I thought it would be cute fun to catch a glimpse of the adorable Abbie Hoffman and other yippies but all I got was some lousy tear gas.

    But as the mother of very young adults, I'm glad that they are being celebrated in the exercising of their civic rights but just remember, no one thought they were all that cute when they were protesting against the war in Iraq when it was unpopular.


    I met Abbie Hoffman! (none / 0) (#133)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    Marshall University in 1971 or '72. I was in high school. He spoke at the Student Union and there was an after-party. He struck me as furtive, I recall. He went home with the student-organizer, a pixie-like girl in a woven poncho.

    He really ended up quite the tragic figure. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    LOL, I was a pixie-like girl i 1968. No woven poncho at that point in time but seriously lusted after the one that my best friend bought with the money she earned in her summer job at Marshall Fields. I got one a few years later.

    He'll tough it out. (none / 0) (#36)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:27:26 PM EST
    He'll go on some late-night shows. Make some jokes. His numbers will rise again. That's how it works doesn't it?

    That's clearly a better idea (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    than going bowling because that was a clear indication that he isn't one of the regular folks.

    People used to laugh about Bill Clinton stopping at McDonalds in the mornings for coffee...but he was one of the regular folks.

    Now, we have a president that is so out of touch, that he doesn't know how much gasoline costs, how much food prices have risen, etc.

    It almost seems that Obama is disconnected from the average citizen, much like a Republican.

    At least I am not the only one with this perspective because clearly Margaret Carlson had the same notion (see link above), and things like his surliness with the guy in Pennsylvania wanting a picture taken with him and Obama seemed to tell the same story.


    Of course EBay sellers are (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:48:52 AM EST
    EBay sellers, by ObamaTeam reactions, have to be the scum of the earth.

      Even in Pennsylvania, where few can make a living anymore.  Of course, brush the guy off.  He's beneath a Smile.

      Yes, he was too pushy, I agreed, and I was glad to see Secret Service people watching the guy's hands and arms very closely.

      But, I did this exercise to ask how others would have perceived this little episode if it had involved Clinton:

      How does this 'sound' to any of you ?  Ramifications, etc.
    Transcript from the pool report
    (with Hillary's name replacing Barack's
    and vice versa)

    Run In #1

    Man: Senator, Can I have a quick picture with you?
     (Clinton refuses to take a picture)

    Run In #2

    Man: "Senator, Can I get a picture with you?"
    Clinton: "You are wearing me out..."
    Man: "I got one with Barack Obama and I got one with McCain, come on Senator that's not right."

    Run in #3:

    Man: "Senator, can I please, a quick one?
    Clinton: "No, you know what, no."

    Man: "Can I just say something to you real fast?"
    Clinton: "Yeah, you can"

    Man: "I had one with Barack Obama, had one with Senator McCain."

    Clinton: "I am sure you do. Because when I was trying to talk to some kids - and I know ... look ...

    Man: "No, my wife is a school teacher and she was there, she had to go back and that wasn't right what wont you just take a picture with me, I'm not asking you for a autograph its for my family."

    Clinton: "Yeah well whatever. Just take it. I won't be smiling. Because you're wearing me out. ....No no, you've been really rude about it. Just take a shot."

    (Does it seem ruder coming from her ?)


    Have you seen the (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:57:27 AM EST
    price of arugula lately?

    this cracked me up! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    No, I don't generally buy arugula but definitely like it on my pizza.

    In the movie Trading Places, Billy Ray wasn't discussing arugula futures as indicative of the table issues that people face but rather orange juice and pork.

    I find the stories of Obama sampling $100 a pound imported ham and imported cheese in Philadelphia rather indicative that he is disconnected from the average citizen and when he picks up a bowling ball in Altoona, he shows that he doesn't ever bowl and claims to be taking lessons from an 8 year old.

    Lookin' good Billy Ray!


    Yes, and all those ballet and piano lessons! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    I wondered WHERE those girls are getting their lessons! That's about $800/month on lessons for crying out loud - more than my RENT. Yup, a real man of the people.

    Bush may not (none / 0) (#61)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    know how much gas costs, but he sure is good at clearing brush for the photogs.

    With a puny chain saw (none / 0) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    Listen, I can not hardly lift the ones he should have been using. He was using a chain saw that works great on branches, not cutting a tree. All fake. Like we use to say about him, All Hat and no cattle. In fact, Dan Rather once mentioned that it is not even a ranch.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#66)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:14:00 AM EST
    People used to laugh about Bill Clinton stopping at McDonalds in the mornings for coffee...but he was one of the regular folks.

    was is the operative word

    operative? (none / 0) (#74)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:25:36 AM EST
    as in insult?

    Yeah, he's gone from poor to rich by virtue of speeches & books.

    Not forgetting that being constantly surrounded by Secret Service tends to diminish your contact with average citizens but if you want to diminish Bill Clinton, you're going to have to ignore some simple facts like his offices are in Harlem and not on 5th Avenue, he's generously campaigned for HIV assistance in Africa and other public service roles.

    While I recognize the practical benefits of Secret Service protection for Obama, McCain still refuses Secret Service protection which permits him much more contact with people than Obama and it seems to serve to promote some distance with real Americans.

    I remember cringing when Romney interacted with some inner city folks (I think it was Georgia) and singing 'Who Let the Dogs Out' and it just didn't play well, sort of like Obama bowling and proving that he never does it. Politicians have to avoid those types of public revelations because the American public recognizes when someone is being obviously phony.


    Heh (none / 0) (#77)
    by BlacknBlue on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:29:13 AM EST
    I live in Harlem. I know where his office is. It's about as close to Midtown as you can get.

    Really? Because (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    I live in New York City and between the heart of midtown and harlem lies a a big ol' park and the Upper West Side.

    Gotta agree with ya there (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    I used to work in several mid-town locations. Don't remember popping up to Harlem for lunch . . .

    Not close to midtown (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:35:30 AM EST
    I spent an afternoon with him at his Harlem office with about 10 other bloggers. It's nowhere near midtown, at least 75 blocks away.

    oh yeahhhh? (none / 0) (#94)
    by carrienae on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    Isn't Harlem...Harlem, right? Where it was unthinkable before for a former President have a permanent office there?!!
    I am so astounded as how thrilled you guys were to have Bill Clinton choose Harlem and how Harlem became more appealing since then. My brother-in-law lives there and we visit him all the time.
    Please... don't make people assume that the Clintons are out of touch. I guess you are out of touch of what has been important and the difference Bill Clinton made.
    I don't buy whatever you trying to imply.

    Bill is just frustrated (none / 0) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:45:12 AM EST
    BHO's team effectly shut Bill down in South Carolina and got him labeled a racist. Wrongly I might add. Now, no matter what he says or wants to say, he has been contained nicely. He is annoyed and the frustration is coming out and showing.

    One little important thing though (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:57:40 AM EST
    Both he and his wife can connect to them AND discuss/talk to them in a manner that they feel comfortable with. Obama can't, and that's his problem with base Dems. And it's getting pretty obvious.

    'Softening of Obama support at this time (none / 0) (#82)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM EST
    may be similar to people's reaction at Kerry's duck-hunting.  I agree with Carlson:  he should not have gone bowling.

    Gutter balls (none / 0) (#122)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    I find this bowling "fiasco" quite amusing.  In the last election go-round, Kerry was branded as effete and out of touch with the common man for windsurfing.  Bush, however, is manly for riding his bike every day.  So Obama tried bowling and had a low score.  I noticed that he's left handed.  I bowl (poorly) in a league.  Did you know that bowling balls are weighted in a manner to break as they travel down the lane?  A left-hander throwing a ball weighted for a right hander would have difficulties.  I give the guy some credit for trying something new without worrying about how a poor performance would be ridiculed, disected, and projected as evidence that he's out of touch with the WorkinJoe.

    Choice of baseline. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:56:17 PM EST
    It tells you everything that you need to know that the lede:

    Senator Barack Obama's support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February

    ...inexplicably decides to go back to February in order to establish baseline numbers high enough that they could justify pushing the "softening of support" meme.

    What a farce.

    Sorta like the WSJ oversampling the AA (none / 0) (#63)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:12:38 AM EST
    voters so as to get Hillary's negatives up more?

    That's not how oversampling works (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:34:36 AM EST
    In order to collect samples large enough to matter (not have +/- 20% numbers), pollsters who want to measure opinions of a large group as well as a smaller subgroup sometimes inflate the number of members of the subgroup, or "oversample. In order to ensure that the data are more accurate, they then adjust the numbers to reduce the impact of the subgroup.

    For example, let's say that I want to find out how many people and how many farmers like the new ethanol standards. I am in an area where about 5% of the population are farmers. If I poll 2000 people, I will get a pretty good idea of how they feel in general, but I will only have about 100 farmers. 100 is not a large enough number on which to base conclusions, so I may "oversample" 500 farmers and 1500 additional people, then I adjust the numbers so that the opinion of the 500 farmers counts for 5% of the final number while the opinion of the 1500 others counts for 95% of the final number. I can then report that farmers thought "X" and non-farmers thought "Y" and the total population view was "Z". Oversampling is not going to bias the results, because each group had an adequate sample size and the distortion in sample group was taken into account in the final number.


    Thanks I should know that from (none / 0) (#166)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    my survey statistics class taken a "century ago." I had over looked the adjustment for the distortion factor.  When I saw WSJ as the pollster I overreacted.

    Can you show me the poll... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:19:46 AM EST
    ...because I think you're talking about the one where they oversampled blacks to get statistically useful crosstabs and then readjusted their proportion back to normal when calculating the final numbers.

    I've seen this bad "oversampled blacks" thing running around for days, but the only place it's really still cropping up is here. But maybe you're talking about a different poll?


    it was an nbc poll, not a wsj poll (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:36:50 AM EST
    It was an (none / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:08:14 AM EST
    NBC News/WSJ poll....

    That's what I thought. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Addison on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    In any case, the idea the blacks were oversampled in the final number isn't true, I don't think.

    The headline on MSNBC that day (none / 0) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    was that AA's were oversampled.  Apparently they adjusted for it, but I don't trust NBC.

    Softer? (none / 0) (#58)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:06:57 AM EST
    Up and down, up and down, up and down.

    I'm not a big make-comments-on-polls type of person.  But, every now and then (even when polls are pro-BO) I like to remind everyone that polls are not particularly informative.  And, close polls far from elections are useless.

    Doesn't anybody find it disconcerting that different polls from the same time period can be all over the map.  If political polling was a real science (and I have a Chem E degree, so I'm somewhat familiar with science and statistics) wouldn't all the polls better match each other?  Yes, I understand that political polling is influenced by demographic weighting, how questions are asked, and how far respondents are pushed.  Yes, pollsters can often point to a handful of times when they had good results.  My point is that polling is 100% distraction from issues, and it requires many grains of salt (of course it is ironic that a lot of salt would actually defeat the purpose of the proverbial grain of salt in it's original context, but I'm rambling.)

    Put more simply, in HRC supporter terms; "remember New Hampshire."  There have also been plenty of BO blowouts that were missed by polls that underestimated him.

    That's my two...

    PS: I'm not demeaning pollsters, I'm sure they're brilliant people.  But, look at Scholes et. al. and LTCM; smart people and their computer modeling can result in unrealized myopia.

    Actually, No. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:20:56 AM EST
    The polls not matching each other is normal. They use a relatively low sample size and a 95% confidence level. That means that most of the data are +/- 3 or 5%. That alone will give you a 6-10 point range on any given number. Throw in the 95% confidence level, which makes it likely that 1 in 20 polls will be outside those limits, and about a dozen polls a day, and you end up with numbers that are all over the chart. Add in selection bias, voter attitude changes (as a result of intensive media exposure), and changes in sun spot activity (Okay, I just threw that in for the heck of it) and you end up with real variety. The only "poll" that really counts is the 100% (or so) accurate one that is going to occur in November.

    Chemical Engineering is a much more precise science than statistics (Major: Biology Minor Statistics), especially Population Statistics.


    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:55:10 AM EST
    We are still a few weeks from the PA election and looking at April polls we have
    HRC +12, +11, +3, -2

    With a range of 14 I would say this is a useless distraction from discussing issues.  I'm not debating what pollsters may feel is an acceptable error, I'm saying that the acceptable error is precisely why these polls are useless.  Most people look at these things with no realization of how far they can be from reality.  Hence, my post reminding folks to keep things in perspective.


    They are mostly useless (none / 0) (#100)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:35:15 AM EST
    When taken as a whole, you can get an idea of the campaign results and trends. PA has been moving closer together, but Clinton is still in the lead by a good margin. NC is tending strongly toward Obama. I would say the polls are "of limited use". People know enough now to acknowledge the polling error, so they don't take the +- 3 quite so lightly, but they still tend to treat the numbers as if they actually mean something. Using a poll to say that Clinton is 7 ahead of Obama is just silly. Really, if the poll is +- 3, then she is 95% likely to be somewhere between 1 and 13 points ahead. That's just too vague for most people to deal with, so they say 7.

    I trust Survey USA (none / 0) (#107)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:10:55 AM EST
    and to a slightly lesser extent, Rasmussen.

    Some of the others seem to be a moistened finger in the air.

    I don't know about useless distractions though...I've already placed PA in Clinton's column and all that remains is the final score.

    Likewise KY, WV.

    I think Hillary will do well in SD and PR but I don't know that they will figure much for the super delegates.

    I am feeling comfortable about Hillary winning in Indiana which would mean that Obama MUST win North Carolina AND Oregon at the very least (and even those victories wouldn't ensure his nomination).


    Oh, yeah????? (none / 0) (#91)
    by carrienae on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:55:52 AM EST
    Isn't Harlem...Harlem, right? Where it was unthinkable before for a former President have a permanent office there?!!
    I am so astounded as how thrilled you guys were to have Bill Clinton choose Harlem and how Harlem became more appealing since then. My brother-in-law lives there and we visit him all the time.
    Please... don't make people assume that the Clintons are out of touch. I guess you are out of touch of what has been important and the difference Bill Clinton made.
    I don't buy whatever you trying to imply.

    Softening Support (none / 0) (#121)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:07:28 AM EST
    Perhaps Obama's support appears to be softening because no primaries have been held for the past 3 and a half weeks.  That gives the media and bloggers time to hash through everything under the sun for both candidates.  Once the primary elections continue, and they come fast and furious after PA, then a candidate will be able to build momentum again.  Keep in mind that Obama has won more delegates in 15 of the last 17 contests.  He may not keep that pace, but it seems to have built him a significant lead.  Realistically, close races in PA, IN, and NC, even if losses, almost would count as "wins" for Obama as these are the remaining big delegate states.  If Hillary doesn't win these by large margins, she can't make up ground in the delegate count before the convention.  That will greatly affect the superdelegate vote, which will decide the nominee.

    This fits (none / 0) (#159)
    by smott on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    ...with my personal perceptions that the more I get to know HRC the more I like her...while the reverse is true for BO. No There there when you look closely.

    I hope it continues.


    Obama peaked in early March (none / 0) (#138)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    Has Barack Obama peaked?

    no question

    Obama is not ready for prime time - he has yet to be "vetted", i.e., trashed with lies, smears, and character assassination on a national level. If Obama, Obama supporters, and the so-called Democratic leaders had any smarts - which I have no reason to believe they do - Obama would jump on the Clinton ticket as VP so he can become a national figure without leading with his chin. He would them be ready in 2016 to knock dead. But smarts are in short supply in politics.

    Clinton would be stupid to add (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    all of Obama's baggage, Wright, Rezko, etc. to her campaign. He needs to go back to the Senate and learn to work consistently on legislation, hold committee meetings, and, in general, do the damn job he was elected to do. That is the one thing he has failed to actually DO in any of his elected offices. He has spent most of his time running for the next rung up. In Ill., he did nothing until the Dems got the majority, and then his mentor got his name on bills he hadn't worked on as sponsor to give him the political credibility to go for the US Senate. Obama doesn't seem to like to work much. So why would Hillary, who is a work horse, want a lightweight like Obama as a vice-president??

    "softer support"- what spin! (none / 0) (#169)
    by diogenes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:30:06 PM EST
    Obama's support was softer in March, the month of Jeremiah Wright, than in February?  This is news?  Obviously his support is less soft now than a couple of weeks ago when he was down 49-42 on Gallup.