Three new national polls show Obama securing his frontrunner status

February 26, 2008

For all the reasons we’ve talked about many times, national horse-race polls tend to be of limited predictive value. As is the case in the general election, the nominating process is a state-by-state affair. A candidate can soar in national polls, but if he or she is trailing where it counts, those national leads are meaningless (see Giuliani, Rudy, circa 2007).

That said, national polls are interesting for highlighting broader, general trends. And right now, the trend seems to be moving in one direction.

In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to beat Senator John McCain in the general election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

After 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, capped by a winning streak in 11 contests over the last two weeks, Mr. Obama has made substantial gains across most major demographic groups in the Democratic Party, including men and women, liberals and moderates, higher and lower income voters, and those with and without college degrees.

The NYT emphasizes that there are “signs of vulernability” for Obama, including what the Times refers to as “a striking gender gap”: Obama is “backed by two-thirds of the Democratic men and 45 percent of the women, who are equally divided in their support between the two candidates.” (When one candidate has a clear majority of men, and a near majority of women, I’m not sure if I’d necessarily call this a “sign of vulnerability.”)

More to the point, good news for the Clinton campaign is elusive. The New York senator now trails Obama among Dems nationwide, 54% to 38%. What’s more, Obama is gaining with groups he was struggling with — his support among lower-income households has gone from 35% to 48% since December, support among moderates has gone from 29% to 59%, and support among white women has gone from 19% to 40%.

As for electability, nearly six in 10 Dems said Obama had the best chance of beating McCain in November.

A new national poll from USA Today/Gallup offered similar results.

The sense that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Rodham Clinton has trumped concerns about whether he has the experience necessary to be a good president, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

The air of inevitability that once surrounded Clinton has shifted to the Illinois senator, now seen by seven in 10 Americans as the likely Democratic nominee.

In a poll taken Thursday through Sunday, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say by 2-1 that Obama has the better chance of beating the Republican in November. Republicans agree: By more than 3-1, they say likely GOP nominee John McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama. […]

In a general-election matchup among registered voters, Obama leads McCain by 4 percentage points, 49%-45%; McCain leads Clinton 49%-47%. McCain does better among likely voters, edging Clinton by 4 points, Obama by 1.

Head to head, Obama now leads Clinton nationally among Dems, 51% to 39% — the first double-digit lead Obama has enjoyed since the process began early last year.

Clinton fans hoping for some poll solace might be slightly more encouraged by the results of a new AP/Ipsos poll released last night, which shows Obama with a national lead over Clinton, but by a much smaller three-point margin, 46% to 43%. As for the general election match-ups, Clinton leads McCain nationally by five (46% to 41%), while Obama leads McCain nationally by nine (48% to 39%).

She’ll be out March 5, but let’s hope she can help move the new president’s agenda in the senate.

  • What I find interesting is that up until this point Obama has never been better than tied with Clinton nationally (and according to some polls e.g. Gallup daily, he still is tied). And in early contests, Clinton had a substantial national lead over him. And yet he won anyway, because he played a better ground game. He out-maneuvered her by doing more with fewer troops.

    There seems to be a huge energy gap between Obama and Clinton supporters.

  • “There seems to be a huge energy gap between Obama and Clinton supporters.”

    We call that leadership….something Hillary’s DLC (irony noted) advisors failed to take into account. The further irony is that the foundation of Hillary’s campaign was assuming an air of “Inevitability.” Obama’s now actually has it.

  • Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity.

    Obama’s biased-media induced “electable” status will turn to the deadly unelectable status after he is trashed by the Republican attack machine. And if he steals the Democratic nomination, through the pro-Obama biased media that undermines the Democratic nomination process, he will crash and burn in November.

  • “Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity…”

    crat3 is instructive of how imbeciles rise to functional literacy to inflict horrors on readers of otherwise intelligent blogs.

  • no substance, no specifics, – With all due respect, that describes Clinton’s supporters when they trash Obama. Meanwhile, he does get endorsements from experienced politicians, editorial boards and highly respected people like Paul Volker, who would easily see through this nonsense.

    A couple weeks ago, Clinton supporters were demanding more debates. A CNN poll after last week’s debate showed that people who watched it were over-whelmingly pro Obama. That doesn’t mean he “won” the debate. It means people who are paying attention see through this low-ball snipery.

  • Right now, it appears that Obama will win Texas and lose Ohio. It is also likely that Obama will win the other small states next Tuesday.

    IF that happens, will it be enough to convice Clinton to drop out?

    Most people think she needs to win both. If she only wins one then what happens?

  • Obama is not my first choice, but I give him credit for having won with a clean campaign based on issues. It appears that he is the first choice of a majority of my Dem friends. Even though he was not my first choice I can support him as a good choice. For once it will NOT be a case of holding my nose and voting for the less stinky candidate.

  • As a Rhody resident, I have to take issue with (#10) Neil’s insistence that Obama will win likely win the small states on 3/4. Rhode Island has always been heavily pro-Clinton, and I would be shocked to see an Obama victory.

    Not that Rhode Island’s 20-some elected delegates will turn the tides of the election… I just like to see people actually talking about my state.

  • Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity.

    Mark Penn, is that you? Or someone similarly stupid and willfully ignorant?

  • Clinton’s lead in Ohio is shrinking, just not as fast as it shrunk in Texas, and there is still a week to go. News like this is going to affect a lot of voters. When an insurgent campaign arrives at the point where the march on the capitol is more a public event than a campagn, many who sat on the fence climb on the bandwagon.

    I do hope Senator Clinton will be able to assist new Senate Majority Leader Dodd in advancing President Obama’s programs next year.

  • It might be to forestall any more of these ‘debates’ that we are starting to hear people say that they want the current laggard to just drop out. It’s been months since anything new has been presented in them, and the moderators seem as insistent in avoiding anything remotely unpredictable as are the candidates (although the formers’ motivations in this area elude me). I know I don’t have to watch them, but… I don’t know. At this point aren’t we just tuning in to see wether Hon. Sen. Clinton really loses it?

  • When I see two polls taken over the same period of time with vastly different results, one where Obama and Clinton are (statistically) tied, the other with him gaining a huge lead in just two weeks, I have to doubt the results of the later.
    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

    Obama is a compelling speaker… while Clinton isn’t. Otherwise their policies are so similar that a thinking person would go for Hillary because we get Bill rather than Obama because we’d get Michelle.

    So I guess these voters who were polled are buying a sound bite. Sad.

  • Nell the two main reasons I’m supporting Obama have nothing to do with his speaking ability.

    1. His judgment is better than Clinton’s. He got the Iraq war right, he was on the right side of the torture debate BEFORE the polls showed the public against torture, etc. Clinton has been all over the place.

    2. His management skills and political savvy eclipse Clinton’s. Clinton has been surrounding herself with money-burning incompetents while Obama has cultured a brilliant ground campaign from the bottom up. Clinton seems to try a new personality every other day, but Obama’s style has been as consistent as his substance.

    He’s just far and away a better politician than she is, even putting aside speaking ability.

  • i’m starting to read that chris dodd has endorsed barack. this might just help firm up his frontrunner status?

  • That claim that Obama’s weakness is a mere 45% of women — while running against the first strong female presidential candidate ever — doesn’t really strike me as a weakness either. Doing well among men (if it translates to an edge in the general) is a good thing as that’s where democrats are usually the weakest.

    There seems to be a huge energy gap between Obama and Clinton supporters. — Tamalak

    An excitement gap, or a competence gap? For all the “inevitable” and “accomplishments” talk, Clinton has ignored most of the states, while Obama has been campaigning hard and making things happen.

  • “Obama’s biased-media induced “electable” status will turn to the deadly unelectable status after he is trashed by the Republican attack machine.”

    I’m always amused by comments like this. The “Republican attack machine” has no power other than what people who listen to it have given it. People who are that convinced that a Democrat cannot survive being attacked are giving away the fact that they intend to believe whatever the Republicans end up saying.

  • Hillary Clinton’s entire strategy is based upon overturning the will of the voters in eligible primaries and caucuses and getting the nomination via super delegates and ghost delegates (i.e. delegates from Michigan and Florida where Obama either wasn’t on the ballot and/or, unlike Hillary, honored his pledge not to campaign).

    As a Democrat who feels the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme Court, that Clinton would even consider such a strategy is reason enough not to vote for her.

  • I was arguing for quite awhile that the pre-primary polls showing Guiliani and Clinton with big leads was due entirely to name recognition. Gaining name recognition is one of the most important things when getting people to accept you, which is the whole reason why bands and actors want to be discovered and why businesses advertise. It’s far easier for a has-been to resurrect their careers than for any of us to gain fame in the first place. The key is just getting people to want to listen to you in the first place.

    But all the same, once it came time for people to vote on these people, they had to start researching them, and that’s when name recognition stopped being as important. The big difference between Guiliani and Clinton is that she had an actual product to sell, and all he had was the name. So she survived actual elections and he didn’t. But all the same, it only lasted until people discovered that Obama had a better product, and had Super Tuesday not forced too many elections too soon, Hillary wouldn’t have done as well as she did. Obama just needed more time to get his name out there, and once he had name recognition, his product sold itself.

    So my point is that pre-primary polls aren’t the same animal as these polls. The reason Rudy lost wasn’t because he trailed in the early states. He trailed in the early states because that’s where the researching was happening first. But it doesn’t matter where the early primaries were. People always rejected him once they saw he didn’t have anything to sell. Similarly, the reason Obama’s numbers keep rising national isn’t just momentum; it’s because he’s campaigning in more and more places, so more people are being exposed to him and that eats into Hillary’s built-in name advantage. Until last week, I hadn’t seen an ad for either Hillary or Barack here in Texas, and now I see Barack ads almost every day. I haven’t seen a Hillary ad yet. But she doesn’t need to advertise. Everyone already knows who she is, and if they haven’t already chosen her, they’re unlikely to do so now.

  • Tamalak, your notion that he is a better politician because he can give better speeches is a little silly. Politics requires the ability to get support from both parties, and I’m not talking about the ability to get Republicans to vote for him in open democratic primaries and caucuses, I’m talking about the republicans in congress who will work together to ensure he cannot accomplish his goals.

    Unfortunately many people will not vote for either candidate if they don’t come together on the same ticket, in that case we all lose, Ralph Nader will make sure of that.

    I firmly believe that HRC can win in November, liberals might not agree with me, but most people in this country are NOT liberal.

    Clinton Obama 08!

  • …new Senate Majority Leader Dodd… -Tom Cleaver

    That is an idea I would wholly support.

    Obama is a compelling speaker… while Clinton isn’t. Otherwise their policies are so similar that a thinking person would go for Hillary because we get Bill rather than Obama because we’d get Michelle. -Nell

    Or a thinking person, like myself, chooses Obama because the know that it takes a real leader to accomplish anything. But don’t let that stop you from condescending Obama supporters as unthinking.

    Frankly, it is much more important to me who the President would be, not the spouse.

  • Clinton Obama 08! -Greg

    That’s simply never going to happen. It’s not even wishful thinking at this point, it’s willful avoidance of reality. Clinton will not win the nomination and Obama will not take her on as a running mate. In fact, I would be so bold to say it won’t be two Senators at all.

  • Greg,

    Tamalak, your notion that he is a better politician because he can give better speeches is a little silly.

    That is the opposite of the point of my post. I think you misinterpreted it.

    However, I do think that his good speaking ability is an asset. We need someone to defend and promote liberalism in an eloquent and intuitive way. Most Democrats spend their time cowering when their beliefs are challenged, but Obama has the rhetorical tools to stand his ground.

    We need to break the 50% + 1 mentality that keeps the lines of this country so bitterly divided. We need someone who will win CONVERTS from the independents/republicans, who will speak to their intelligence and decency. I want the Andrew Sullivans and the Chuck Hagels of the world to not just run from the Republicans (as they’re doing now) but run TOWARDS the Democrats. Not only would that brain-drain the Republicans and leave them a doomed party of talk-show hysteria, but it would be an antidote to the fringy left on the Democratic side, making US stronger.

  • In fact, I would be so bold to say it won’t be two Senators at all.

    Hey! Who told you that Barack already picked me as his running mate? That was supposed to be a secret!!

  • Hillary will most likely lose Texas, and if she wins Ohio it won’t be by much. That won’t translate into a ‘come-back’ no matter how hard her campaign tries to spin it. Of course if she loses Ohio, even by just a little, the normal rules of the game would eliminate her. The problem is until she runs out of money, her staff deserts her, and the media ignore her, she won’t give up. Accepting the will of the majority doesn’t register on her radar, it seems.

    A gracious acknowledgement of Obama’s victory is something she is quite capable of, and she will have to endorse him. Probably better if she didn’t campaign for him. Let Bush campaign for McCain.

    A narrow win for Democrats in November isn’t enough. To overcome all the dirty tricks, rigged voting machines, contaminated computers, and corrupt election officials the Rethugs have put in place, the results of this election have to be so overwhelming there can be no question about what the will of the people is. Hillary could never achieve such a result. Obama might, if he lives that long.

    The promise of Obama is very frightening to many people in this country. My aged, cynical self is getting very worried forty years after witnessing the the events of April and June 1968. I no longer dare to hope.

  • Greg @23 – The idea that you’d take Tamalak’s words as meaning that he thinks Obama is “a better politician because he can give better speeches” can only be described as willful ignorance. He clearly made the exact opposite point.

    You guys can keep insulting us by pretending we’re idiots who get easily sold by fancy talk, or you can understand why we prefer him over Hillary. But of course, that’s been one of Hillary’s biggest mistakes too. She keeps thinking he’s an empty suit with a good voice, and fails to understand how he’s out-flanked her at every move. His speeches are good, but he’s really run political circles around Hillary. Had she not had huge name recognition and a loyal following going into the primaries, we wouldn’t even be talking about her right now.

  • For all you Dodd lovers how was that again he did in the primaries. Oh yeah he dropped out after NH. It doesn’t matter if JC himself is elected president in 08 nothing will happen in congress until the dems have 60 votes in the senate not counting Lieberman. And that won’t happen in 08 the best dems can hope for is 55 that would be a pick up of 7. Rethugs are not going to give in to anything and if McCain loses he will be a thorn in Obama or Clintons side.

    I will love to see all you Clinton haters after 3/4 when Hillary wins TX and OH. When Obama has 2025 delegates then the primary is over and not until then. Right now he has about 1100 not counting supers and thats along way to go.

  • dr biobrain, I don’t think Obamaniacs are idiots, I was saying that most Americans are not as liberal as people who post comments in this blog. I myself think he will make a fine President one day, but it will be a lot harder to change minds of moderates and conservatives than it is to get the base of the Democratic party (liberals) fired up.

  • I will love to see all you Clinton haters after 3/4 when Hillary wins TX and OH.

    Really? Why is this so personal for you?

    BTW, Yahoo shows that Obama has 1,164. Not a big difference, but still more than you’re saying. And sorry to spoil your personal fantasies, but unless Hillary wins big in Texas and Ohio, the primary is over and she’ll likely concede defeat. You might want to fight until the death, but I’m convinced that Hillary has no such desire. She’s already tarnished the Clinton brand more than she should have, and even she won’t tarnish it further with a futile presidential bid. If she doesn’t win big in Texas and Ohio, it’s unlikely she’ll continue. And if she loses either, she’s out. If I were a betting man, that’s where I’d place my money.

  • @ crat3:

    “Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity.”

    You just copy and paste that all over the place, dontcha? Can’t even be bothered to use your own words? The lack of substance you deride exists only in your own mind, and in the minds of the other fools who consistently prove incapable of doing basic research or exercising any sort of judgment whatsoever. You want to bash the guy? Fine. But come up with a legitimate complaint or GTFO.

    Yeah, there I go again, feeding the trolls.

  • Bio makes a point Clintons name recognition has kept her in this race although it is just the opposite because the media wouldn’t be fawning over Obama at every stage of the way and his records and speeches would have been torn apart.

    One other note as far as Obamas judgement I keep hearing about his so called Iraq IQ being better than Hillarys. That is so much bunk. Its easy to say your against something if you don’t have to vote for it. He also says he was against NAFTA well I guess that was after he was for it. In his 2002 senate campaign he was for it because it was good for agriculture in ILL but I guess when your running for president you can be just like Uncle Mitt. I have to presume that if Iraq was a sweeping success Barack would now be saying that he was for it but who knows. As for his health care plan good luck getting his $2500 a year health plan for a family of 4. There is only one way to get health care for all and thats Universal Care where if you can afford to pay you have to have it if not than you will be subidized like Hillary and John Edwards plans. To many of you are hood winked by his grand speeches and can’t see through the forrest.

    I take Al Gore as the default candidate.

  • Greg (23) and Jim (30) both make good points about the importance of the Senate. I agree we need to try our hardest to get as close to 60 senators as we can so that we can actually move forward with the next president’s agenda. So far I’ve given $60 to Obama but $200 to Democratic efforts in the senate.

    I think Jim is wrong to predict that 55 seats is the best we can do. This is going to be a BAD year for the Republicans, not only because of the terrible job they’ve been doing, but because a lot more Republican seats happen to be up for grabs in 2008 than Dem seats do (this has a lot to do with how they crushed Democrats in 2002, when the same portion of the senate was having elections).

    Furthermore, Intrade.com has the chances of Democrats holding 56-60 seats in the Senate as 45%. So it won’t be easy but can we do it? Yes we can 🙂

    The best way of maximizing our chances in the Senate is by maximizing Democratic turnout. And IMO the best way to do THAT is to boost the turnout of demographics that are large, liberal, and traditionally self-disenfranchising by failing to vote. What demographics are those you ask? Yeah, the youth, and the blacks

    Women and the elderly – Hillary supporters – are already solid voters. They’ve shown an admirable resilience, always turning out in high numbers to vote. We can count on them. But we can’t count on the youth or the blacks coming out, unless we have someone inspiring and driving them! You know who I’m talking about 😀

  • “McCain does better among likely voters, edging Clinton by 4 points, Obama by 1.”

    CB, yet another one of those pesky polls that shows McCain in the lead… the same polls you previously denied with the statement “..can the McCain campaign really identify “a number of general-election polls” in which McCain leads Obama? Because I’ve looked, and they don’t to appear to exist outside the Republican campaign’s fervent imagination.”

    Now who’s got the imagination??

  • I’m a Clinton supporter who’s decided to switch to Obama. I still think she’s a bright, capable, compassionate woman and I’d love to see her as Senate majority leader. But let’s face it, folks. She’s run a poor campaign, far too dependent on tone-deaf “gurus” like Mark Penn and Obama has run a brilliant one based on people power and his own good instincts. For me, the first test of any presidential candidate is whether they can run their own campaign. Clinton failed and Obama passed with flying colors. That being said, I wonder if what her campaign lacked was her. By that I mean that in Bill Clinton’s campaigns, I’d bet big bucks it was Hillary Clinton who ran the ship, aware of who was doing what and where the money was going. In her own campaign, Bill didn’t return the favor — because men don’t usually do that stuff, ie. the thankless jobs where you stay in the background. Instead, Bill stepped into the limelight and made himself an issue, which hurt her as much as Mark Penn has.

  • Listening to people who are not blog addicts, there really is a high likability factor for both the candidates and a lot of remarks about how after the last debate the positions of the two seemed too close to differentiate. Either way, people seem very excited about the change that appears inevitable. Even if this contest is still alive after 3/4, it would only look to continue to draw record numbers of primary and caucus participants in other states. If you walk around outside the blogging trenches, animosity about Hillary or Barack diminishes greatly. It’s the Republicans that have the big problems.

  • Bio makes a point Clintons name recognition has kept her in this race although it is just the opposite because the media wouldn’t be fawning over Obama at every stage of the way and his records and speeches would have been torn apart.

    Yes, Jim. Name recognition cuts both ways. Just like we’ve been saying the whole time. She has a lot of hardcore supporters, and a lot of hardcore opponents; and we considered that to be a negative. Most hardcore Clinton supporters will support anyone else (with the exception of you, as you’re an Obama-hater), but few hardcore opponents will ever support her; and that includes the media. Just like we’ve been saying the whole time, which you people kept denying.

    I’m consistently amazed at how often Hillary supporters contradict themselves in an effort to support her. Not that I blame them for that. Hillary’s just given them so little to work with. But I guess that’s why I picked Obama after Dodd dropped out. I prefer to have a politician who makes this stuff as easy as possible, and Hillary promised nothing but a fierce battle the whole time.

    Though, of course, you guys are waaaay over-exagerrating the media’s role in all this, because it’s the only way you can comprehend how someone you consider to be an empty suit could have totally out-flanked Hillary as Barack has. Had she not under-estimated him, she might have done something to stop it. But as it is, all she can do is insult him and all his supporters because she fails to understand what happened, and you’re stuck in the same position. But as I told Greg, perhaps you people might try to consider that intelligent people are supporting him and try to understand why.

  • For all you Dodd lovers how was that again he did in the primaries. -Jim

    That’s irrelevant to how good of a Senator he is and how good of a majority leader he’d be. Tell me why your dear candidate can’t even be bothered to vote against illegal corporate immunity? Dodd stands up for the Constitution and for Americans.

    At least Dodd knew when to drop out and didn’t drag out a hopeless campaign while damaging the Democratic party.

  • The NPR affiliate near us—WKSU—just reported a WKYC poll showing Obama behind Clinton by 6 in Ohio. He’s gained the most in the Toledo area, which is supposed to be a hardcore Clinton stronghold.

    Seems “Fortress Hillary” is destined for “urban renewal.”

    Pass the wrecking ball, please….

  • Who has proven him/herself the best able to run the country? All one has to do is look at the way each has run her/his campaign. Obama’s has been efficiently run with resources and talent to spare….yielding very successful results. Clinton’s has run out of money on more than one occasion due to poor planning and excessive spending…and much of the talent has left the ship. And the results speak for themselves.

  • “Politics requires the ability to get support from both parties”

    Not now, or for the foreseeable future, a sure majority is the accepted definition of win (I’m the Decider”), get your 51%, then start talking. The 30%ers are like Imperial Japanese army cadres, except you can’t thin the herd with munitions. It’ll be 4 or 8 yrs. of maniacal Banzai charges, attempting to hold off investigations and reforms even if its at the cost of our young people’s blood or the nation’s ability to respond to future circumstances.

  • I am noi a “blogger.” I am simply a middle aged hard working woman. My intrest in politics began @ an early age due to the influence of my dear father. (end of life story) I am compelled to make my feeling known because of the present situation in the Democratic Party which until now I have been a loyal member. I do not like the way the news media have shown an unbiased lean towards Barack Obama (CNN, MSNBC, & FOX). He appears as an angel (Using the term LOOSLY) to the media an agent of change. With his air of superiority, smugness. and sermons, YES sermons! heads are turned. but I see something different and it frightens me. He reminds me of stories I have read about the ANTI-CHRIST. Put that in your blog and smoke it. This country is headed down the wrong path and there is nothing I can do to stop it. People are folling the pied piper and we know where that will take us or I Guess we don not according to CNN, MSNBC, FoX and all U other dunderheaded OBAMA MAMAS & PAPAS!

  • In response to #45, I find these types of remarks silly. I recall when folks said that Reagan had the mark of the beast. I’m blown away by the lack of true knowledge. My own mother swears that Obama is a terrorist and I just talked to a 40 something friend in Ohio today that thinks Obama is “dangerous”. Can one of you with some psychological experience please enlighten me as to where these thoughts originate from seemingly intelligent folk? Thanks

  • It’s been 24 years since Geraldine A. Ferraro ran for Vice-President. If Hillary doesnt get the nomination how long will it be before we see another female candidate for the (vice) Presidency?

  • I’ve heard Obama speak of change. If you really want change elect a woman for president. Let our mothers, sisters, and daughters have the ultimate role model.

  • Why are Americans doing this!? You must think about strategic voting! You are pushing Obama to the front just because Oprah said so and he will lose against McCain. You are setting yourselves up for 4 more years of GOP. Clinton would beat McCain. You are one of a select few Western countries that have never had a female leader. It is a woman’s turn and you will get an experienced one in that.

  • Why are Americans doing this? Isn’t it obvious? Americans are gullible and not too smart.
    Their failure to understand and appreciate the economic prosperity of Bill Clinton’s presidency-
    led them to give 2 terms to someone who has destroyed the United States. Now, Americans
    distrustful of the familiar faces in Washington are about to give an inexperienced, naive,
    and divisive person the Democratic Presidential nomination. Race relations have been introduced into American poiitics at a time when American should be focusing on rebuilding our resources and
    our good name. Sadly, Sexism in America will not allow some men AND women to vote
    for a competent female candidate. If Obama is elected – it will a Democratic not a Republican
    disaster . It is true to say that if a black female candidate was running for President with the
    same resume as Obama- she would never gotten the support he has enjoyed.

  • Obama says that:

    God is constantly present in our lives, and this presence is a source of hope.

    AND THAT

    Progressives should boldly approach matters of faith and values.

    I don’t need a politician’s opinions on these matters. I find it creepy, invasive and aniti-American for anyone is government to presume to know how I should think and what I should be talking about.

    To determine if a politician is morally fit to lead our country, you need time to watch them very carefully. Seeing his comments, I THINK I need MUCH more time to watch Obama.

  • Who are all these people pretending to be crazy Obama haters and why did they come here? I don’t believe these crazy posts for a second. But I can’t figure out what they’re getting at. Sure, they make Obama-bashers look insane, but it’s still enough to scare people off. InOhio is surely trying to give feminists a bad name, but the rest of them are simply indecipherable. Sure, they’re just posers. But what’s behind the pose? I’m scared. Somebody hold me.

    The best I can come up with is that they’re Hillary people pretending to be Rove people pretending to be Hillary people. But that’s just too complicated. But Hillary people wouldn’t shill so absurdly for themselves, and Rove people wouldn’t do it unless they wanted to make it look like Hillary people (lest they convince people that all anti-Obama people are crazy and hurt McCain). So the only people who would want to look insane while attacking Obama would be Hillary people pretending to be Rove attackers. Dammit! Where’s Vizzini when you need him?

  • The early points about the questionable value of polling (Guiliana’s initial “frontrunner” position, etc.) are interesting. It’s way too early to tell how this election will pan out. Electability? Obama had THREE years national political experience. He’s a great talker, very up-lifting minister style – but where’s the battle scars, where’s the demonstrated leadership and experience. The overused “divisive” tag the Republicans like to use for Hilary is just part of their old nasty trickery. How would Obama stand up to their bag of tricks? He’s already demonstrated great naivete about international politics and diplomacy. Would hate to see the party that lied us into a war,has dragged our economy to the brink and demoralized our country win another four years. Bet we’d see Obama whine then.

  • He’s already demonstrated great naivete about international politics and diplomacy

    In a comment chock full of bad spin, this sentence is probably the worst. The only people who could possibly label Obama’s foreign policy as naive are the people who endorse Hillary’s “tough” neo-con policies; which have so far proven to be not only entirely naive, but incredibly dangerous.

    And coming from a supporter of someone who admits to being duped by “the party that lied us into a war”, this is all a bit rich. But again, I strongly suspect this was written by yet another Hillary spammer and not a real commenter.

    • Comments are closed.