Rasmussen Reports: Obama 32%, Clinton 30%

[flpoljunkie]

2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

National Poll: Obama 32% Clinton 30%
April 30, 2007

For the first time in the Election 2008 season, somebody other than New York Senator Hillary Clinton is on top in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Illinois Senator Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two point advantage over the former First Lady. It’s Obama 32% Clinton 30%. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards remains in third with support holding steady at 17%. No other candidate tops 3%. The survey was conducted April 23-26, 2007 meaning that the overwhelming majority of the interviews were completed before last Thursday’s debate in South Carolina. The impact of the debate will be measured in polling conducted this week.

Following a surprisingly strong fundraising report released at the end of March, Obama steadily gained ground during April. The last Rasmussen Reports poll released in March found Clinton enjoying a dozen-point lead. Since then, Clinton’s support has fallen seven percentage points while Obama’s total has increased the same amount. Obama now leads among voters under 40. Clinton is strongest among those 65 and older. Clinton has a two-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary.

Last week, the two top candidates were tied at 32%. Two weeks ago, Clinton had a two-point lead. Three weeks ago, it was Clinton by five. The week before that, the former First Lady was up by seven.

A separate surveyfound that Clinton is seen as politically liberal by 52% of American voters. Forty-four percent (44%) say the same about Obama while 39% see Edwards as politically liberal. Perceptions of Clinton’s ideology have shifted a bit closer to the political center in recent months. Obama has moved in the opposite direction—more to the left.

more...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm

[William769]

1. And it's still going to bounce back and forth for at least the next 6 months.

[Dawgs]

4. Why would you think it will bounce back?

It has consistently moved in one direction for awhile now. If Edwards supports starts to faid, or if he drops out all together, where do you think that support will go - probably not to Hillary.

[Enrique]

7. because it's way way too early

not a single commercial has been run, for example.

[William769]

9. Laws of probability.

I'm not saying who it's going to, but it sure seems your hoping it's Not Mrs. Clinton.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Trend: Hillary down 7, Obama up 7 since 3/26 with Edwards static at 17%.

[rinsd]

40. And if Hillary beats Obama in 2nd Q fundraising?

Then you have a reverse of an earlier situation in which Obama's momentum started after annouced reports of him doing well in fundraising.

To assume these numbers are static this early is not wise.

[Dawgs]

50. To assume these number are because of money is also not wise.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but neither of know how things will change.

[rinsd]

56. I am not assuming because of money

I am assuming based on media coverage. The coverage of Obama and Clinton has changed since 1st Q numbers were released.

Outside of a clear debate win or the candidate's starting a war of words, the only "big news" likely to affect polling are fundraising benchmarks.

If Clinton does well in 2nd Q fundraising, the likely new media meme will be "comeback kid" type shit.

The media if nothing else loves a horse race.

[Dawgs]

59. Your assumption is still not fact.

Greater media coverage of his big money numbers does not prove that his numbers went up because of it.

Maybe it was because people our starting to pay closer attention, and they realize that Hillary will have a hard time winning in the general. Maybe it's because they saw something on CSPAN that changed their mind about Obama (or Hillary).

And, maybe you're right. Maybe it's because former Hillary supporters realized that there is an alternative and saw something they liked.

My point is that nobody knows why these numbers changed. So, go ahead and blame it on the media and money. It doesn't change the fact that his numbers went up significantly in one month; for whatever reason.

[rinsd]

82. I never claimed it to be fact.

"My point is that nobody knows why these numbers changed."

Ahhh but we can make educated guesses.

"So, go ahead and blame it on the media and money."

Blame? I am looking at reasoning. During the month of March, Hillary was seen as consistently beating her two challengers. As of the 1st poll after the fundraising figures came out, you see Obama gain ground and do so steadily. He got two weeks of gushing media coverage about his fundraising prowess in conjunction with stories pinpricking the Clinton campaign about their fundraising "loss". I am not exactly out on a limb here.

"Maybe it was because people our starting to pay closer attention, and they realize that Hillary will have a hard time winning in the general."

If that were main factor, Edwards would have seen gains as he has consistently performed better than either Clinton or Obama in head to head matchups.

"Maybe it's because they saw something on CSPAN that changed their mind about Obama (or Hillary)."

Neither has really had a gaffe or definitive speech during this timeframe though you would hope campaigning would sway some voters to your side.

"And, maybe you're right. Maybe it's because former Hillary supporters realized that there is an alternative and saw something they liked."

Or maybe people have started to gravitate away from the peripheral candiates and towards the big 3. That is what the polling seems to indicate in the last month.

"It doesn't change the fact that his numbers went up significantly in one month; for whatever reason."

Who is disputing this fact? You are taking my comments about money and media coverage as some sort of insult. The momentum and coverage Obama has gained from his great 1st Q fundraising is what political advisers have wet dreams about.

[Enrique]

6. I would say the next eight months

remember last time, Kerry was in single digits just a month before Iowa.

[ronnykmarshall]

71. Oh Will, we're DOOMED!

DOOMED I tells ya! :sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

115. I doubt Senator Clinton will ever again be the frontrunner. nt

[William769]

151. Well for damn sure Weslsy Clark won't be!

:rofl:

[Lobster Martini]

2. Compare Rassmussen and Gallup polls

I think if you compare Rassmussen and Gallop polls, Obama generally does better in the Rasmussen poll.

And shame on Rassmussen for claiming that someone other than Hillary is the leading candidate in the first paragraph and mentioning that the difference is statistically insignificant in the second paragraph.

[Dawgs]

5. Like it or not, Rasmussen (a Republican) is historically the best pollster.

He generally has Bush around 40% approval.

[wyldwolf]

11. not that I'm disputing that statement... but...

...I was just told in another thread the Republican sources are propping up the Democrats that will most likely lose the general.

[Dawgs]

61. So, you think the Republicans are propping up Obama, but not Hillary.

Why?

Who do you think would be easier to beat, Obama or Hillary?

[tigereye]

54. or the most skewed pollster....

[tritsofme]

157. lol, skewed in favor of the actual results?

nt

[karynnj]

22. There is nothing wrong with saying that

for the first time someone, other than Hillary Clinton, is leading in the poll. It is an honest and accurate statement which should be accompanied by the statement that it was insignificant - which it was.

It is newsworthy because Hillary Clinton has led - and usually led by large margins - since 2004. The importance is this may show she is not the inevitable candidate.

[Clarkie1]

116. Senator Clinton's time as the Democratic frontrunner is over.

And it won't be coming back.

[Colobo]

119. She'll be back on top next week

We got to admit the debates was good for her.

[Clarkie1]

153. LOL. nt

[skipos]

3. The further Hillary is away from that top spot, the better I will feel.

I like Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and some others that haven't entered yet. I am not sure who *my* candidate is yet, though I know it won't be Hillary.

[enough already]

8. Remember, it was supposed to be over already thanks to Hillary!'s money

But money can't buy you love! Take her out, Obama!

[William769]

10. Obama better learn how to debate, because he sucks at it.

And lookng like he did, that won't even get him to the convention.

[wyldwolf]

12. debates never have big impact, but you are correct

Obama knows how to give passionate speeches but falters in the debate setting.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. debates can have an enormous impact

Nixon and Ford probably lost their elections in '60 and '76 to poor debate performance,and it certainly did't help Gore in '2000.

[wyldwolf]

16. They can but usually don't

Televised debates seldom attract a large audience, indicating only partisans watch. These partisans will then leave the debate thinking the guy they initially supported did the best.

[karynnj]

35. There was a relatively large swing in the

Kerry/Bush numbers after the first debate that can only be explained by the debate. Kerry after enormous media/sbvt/Republican bashing was seriously in trouble in September 2004. The debates made it close.

[wyldwolf]

37. not so, and here are the numbers

The first debate was held in late Sept., 2004.

ABC News poll:

9/23-26/04 (before the debate): Bush 51 Kerry 45
10/1-3/04 (after the debate) : Bush 51 Kerry 46

A tick up of one point for Kerry after the debate. These results stayed statistically the same until election day. The highest Kerry got in this poll after the first debate was 48. The lowest Bush got was 49. But the polling average after the first debate was still approx. Bush 51 Kerry 46.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen3.htm

The other polls on that page show a similar trend. Kerry got no poll bounce after the first debate. He gained a few percentage points in the weeks afterward, lost ground, gained ground, until the week of the election.

It appears only Gallup showed Kerry gaining then keeping ground after the first debate.

[karynnj]

65. Actually several of the other polls in that source show bigger changes

(In all comparisons, I list Bush then Kerry)
The biggest shift was in the AP poll - which went from 51-42 to 47-47 in registered voters and 52-45 to 46-50 among likey voters (comparing 9/20-22 and 10/4 -6.) Those are unbelievable shifts. Shifts of 9 and 11 net points respectively!

Gallup went from 52 -44 to 49-49 among likely voters. This is a shift of 8 net points.

Newsweek, from 9/9-10 to 9/30 (after the debate) - 10/2) 49 -45 to 43 -47. A shift of 8 points.


CNN likely voters went from 48 -43 to 46 -45, a net shift of 4 points.

Time (1)* went from 48-43 to 46 -45. A shift of 4 points.

The LA Times had a poll on 9/25-28 and the next one on 10/21-24, so it covered more than the one debate, 47 - 43 to 47 -47. a shift of 4 points

IRC likely voters went from 51 - 41 to 51- 44. A shift of 3 net points.

Time (2)* went from 49 - 45 to 47 -46 among likely voters. A net shift of 3 points for likely voters.

Marist went from 50 - 44 to 49 -46, a net shift of 3 points.

*****The WP/ABC poll you showed with a 1 point shift. *****

Pew showed a shift of 4 points to Bush!!! in likely voters and 1 point to Kerry in registered.

Looking at all these polls, guessing it was 3 or 4 net points would be conservative - taking neither the 2 best or the 2 worse. Looking at all the pre debate numbers.

Your source overall supports what I said. If you look at the before debates numbers, Kerry was not likely to win. After the debate, he was actually polling ahead in some, even in others, and at least competitive in the rest.

When you consider all that was stacked against him - with the government raising terror alerts and the media biased, this was an amazing use of debates.


* There are two Time poll series - with different sample sizes. I have no idea why, but I numbered them by the order that they are in pollingreport.com

[SaveElmer]

39. A good test of this might be...

How Biden looks in the polls the next couple of weeks. I wonder if media coverage of the debate has any affect?

[wyldwolf]

43. well, since the KOS poll seems to be gospel to some

... in March Biden got 1%. In April, he currently has 0%

[karynnj]

69. The Kos poll reflects people with Kos logins

That is not a good reflection of the population at large. This debate is likely too early to have been watched by many.

[wyldwolf]

70. I don't have a KOS login and I voted today. But I agree, of course. It is meaningless...

..except to those who frequent the site.

[karynnj]

72. Sorry - I have a Kos id

I had assumed you needed one. If you don't can't people vote many times?

It's clearly not scientific, nor representative of the nation but it can be used as a measure of change in that community, imperfect as it is. Here on DU, I see more positive comments on Biden - but polls here tend to be all over the place.

I would say that the comments might reflect the desire for an experienced non- Hillary. Of the two available Biden has gotten more than Dodd. What isn't known is how big the group that want that is and whether it would grow with a more appealing candidate.

[wyldwolf]

75. they log IP addresses or set cookies to try and prevent multi-voting

[MonkeyFunk]

45. well

you just said two posts above that debates "never" have a big impact. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

47. sounds suspiciously like a Brady Bunch episode...

..where Greg had to wash a car at midnight...

You're righ. I should have said "seldom" or "rarely"

[jcrew2001]

155. You're wrong, especially when there are a lot of undecides

Look at Gore - he sucked against Bush, and he lost a close election.

If there is no strong candidate like JFK/Nixon , or Carter/Reagan , the debates matter greatly.

If we run Edwards vs. Rudy or McCain many people will tune in to decide who they want.

Unfortunately for hillary - everyone has decided whether they like her or don't.

[Dawgs]

51. He wasn't great, but I think 'sucks at it' is pretty harsh.

Hillary did okay because the bar was set low, and Obama didn't do so great because the bar was set high; all of that changes in the next debate.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. The only people who ever made that claim

were hillary-haters (tm).

Smart people never made any such assertion.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Obama was solid in the debate--sorry, he held his own just fine and

looked and sounded presidential. Chrissy Matthews thought so, and folks polled in SC agreed that he won. That's VOTERS, not pundits. This poll result is a trend that will continue, I think.

[William769]

19. well there you go because tweety said so.

:eyes:

P.S. And making the assertion the voters agreed he won is wacky. Did they have to show their voter registration cards?

[TwilightGardener]

23. Just saying that there are folks that disagree that Obama didn't

do well in the debate--apparently the people who were polled thought he did well. You can discount it, as well as his lead in the polls, but there it is.

[Tellurian]

41. 70% of the people polled didn't watch the debate

the msnbc polled was skewed by keyboard jockeys.

[Dawgs]

52. Wrong!! 70% of those that polled didn't watch, and therefore weren't included...

in the final results.

You're just wrong.

[Colobo]

74. She's blind.

[churchofreality]

32. Did you watch it? He didn't win. Clinton was head and shoulders better.

If we nominate this guy, we are fucked.

[Colobo]

76. Why are we f---- if we chose Obama?

Can you elaborate?

[churchofreality]

132. He can't beat the republican. He will falter on the big stage.

If he looks this bad in a friendly democratic debate, we are screwed.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Confirmation that Americans are ignorant. Of the three, Edwards is

clearly the most liberal. Yet, people don't know. Why? Because the press
is too busy reporting about $400 haircuts instead of the policies/plans
that Edwards is offering. In the long run, it could turn out to be a good thing
for Edwards and us, even though the idealist in me would rather have people informed.

[wyldwolf]

20. of the three, Edwards sure talks the most liberal.

[beachmom]

108. Is his Senate record the most liberal? n/t

[mnhtnbb]

21. In the Repub match-ups, Edwards STILL the only candidate who beats all comers

Obama still loses to Giuliani

Hillary loses to Fred Thompson! And she also is neck and neck with Giuliani.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

[jcrew2001]

160. Wow, Hillary loses to Fred - thats really terrible

just shows that if we nominate her it will be a sure loser.

I don't understand why the media never mentions that Edwards beats the entire GOP field - its bollocks.

[mnhtnbb]

24. I really hope Hillary figures out sooner than later that she should stay in the Senate

I think that's a good place for her.

[w4rma]

25. Good. Hillary is the Lieberman of this race. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

27. Cite your sources...

What in the records of Lieberman and Hillary would cause you to say this?

[w4rma]

28. I won't get into records here, but the polling trends are the same for this period of time. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

29. Let me get clarification...

Are you talking about a polling comparison, or are you referring to their legislative records and stands on the issues?

[wyldwolf]

30. That makes Edwards or Obama the Howard Dean of this race?

Remember, the FIRST frontrunner of 2004 was John Kerry, not Joe Lieberman.

[jcrew2001]

100. I think Obama is the Dean because he's an outsider

with lots of hype and media-attention, and exponential rising in polls.

[beachmom]

109. I don't think so. I thought Lieberman led EARLY on. Nobody

had even heard of Kerry so much, and early polls are based on name recognition. I'd like to see a link for that claim. I thought Lieberman was the frontrunner before the campaigns really kicked in. Then Kerry, then Dean, then back to Kerry.

[jcrew2001]

133. Jeez, a democrat that never heard of Kerry - how old are you

a 20 year Senator and prominent anti-war leader. Kerry's been running for president since Yale, everyone knows this. In fact, on 9/12/01 Kerry was giving an interview from sunny Hawaii (groan) and I said to my friends that he would be running for president in 2004, and they laughed because he was in Hawaii at a time of national crisis.

[wyldwolf]

144. If you want to get REAL technical polling wise, Al Gore was the first frontrunner of '04

He led Hillary Clinton by 1 percentage point (31 to 30) in a FOX News poll on Democratic 2004 contenders taken in November of 2000.

But before anyone ever announced, Kerry was the name batted around Democratic circles.

[jcrew2001]

99. hillary needs joe-mentum

hahah

[Tejanocrat]

26. It seems noteworthy that Obama and Edwards are at all time highs while HRC is at her lowest ebb

since mid-February, but this is not nearly as meaningful as it appears.

This is a national poll. As a result, it is a poll mainly of people who live in states where HRC, Edwards, and Obama (and the rest) are not even campaigning. As a result, this is primarily a name identification poll rather than an assessment of the people's reactions to the candidates' platforms.

In these name identification polls, as lesser known candidates become better known they will rise and, correspondingly, candidates with better name identification will lose some of their early advantage. The more salient polls to watch are the Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina polls.

[churchofreality]

31. Obama will get destroyed in a general election

This guy is smoke and mirrors. Hopefully people will realize that before he costs us the election. Clinton could beat the republican, Obama is a fraud.

[MGKrebs]

33. You should back that up.

What is fraudulent about him (at least more so than any other politician)?


:::finger hovering over the alert button:::

[wyldwolf]

34. why should he back that up?

No one here EVER backs up charges like Clinton is the "Joe Lieberman of this race," or Clinton will lose the general or Clinton is a corporate whore or Clinton is too rehearsed or Clinton is a pawn of this that or the other...

[jcrew2001]

101. Clinton loses in the general to Rudy

who is the beats all the Dems except Edwards - according to Rassmusen.

[MGKrebs]

107. If the election were last week.

[jcrew2001]

121. How about Clinton is ungrateful to her Donors

by asking for a "Loyalty Pledge" she looks like a mean crazed Dictator trying to circumvent free speech and free markets. She 'expects' to be the nominee, instead of earning it. She's trying to coast on Bill's reputation when everyone else knows better. She's asking the Donors to "choose Her or else", well, She successfully scared them away, and they've chosen "someone else ie Obama"

[wyldwolf]

123. what does you post have to do with backing up assertions?

[jcrew2001]

126. It backs up that she's a mean oppressive dictator who

believes that she can suppress free will and claim the white house without opposition.

Instead of earning the nomination, she wants to squash the competition with heavy-handed tactics that weaken the Democratic process.

[wyldwolf]

127. no, it's just spew from you. Your opinion. It does not back up anything but your opinion

[jcrew2001]

128. Its an unsavory tactic and no American wants to be admonished

for spending his/her money however they please, whether its donating to Obama or both HRC and Obama.

She hasn't earned anything, maybe republicans like the blind mice method, but I don't.

She's got to earn our loyalty and that involves an open discussion with all the candidates.

[wyldwolf]

129. yes, spewing opinions as facts IS an unsavory tactic

[jcrew2001]

130. So the Loyalty Decree is fictional?

She never forced her donors to give to her only? Now that she realizes that it was a huge mistake and backfired immensely, and in fact helped drive more people away from her, she's changing direction.

I'm not making this stuff up.

[wyldwolf]

131. were were never discussing specifics, but rather, backingup what is asserted

Try to follow the thread.

[jcrew2001]

135. Loyalty Decree = conniving manipulative heavy-handed oppressive behavior

and displays an ungrateful attitude to the free will of generous donors seeking to change the govt. Of course, she realizes its a HUGE mistake and she's trying to make nice with everyone.

[wyldwolf]

136. says jcrew2001, on no one's list of reliable sources but his.

[jcrew2001]

138. my opinion is backed up by her behavior

nt

[wyldwolf]

139. based on your interpretation of it.

[jcrew2001]

140. my opinion is my interpretation

what is your interpretation of the Loyalty Decree? Because it worked for Bush.

[wyldwolf]

141. well, duh!

:rofl:

[jcrew2001]

146. She's emulating the Dictator Bush

that is a sure fire way to excite the Democratic base - away from her.

[wyldwolf]

149. wait, hold on...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jcrew2001]

154. Obviously, you think its okay for her to behave like Bush

Are you sure you are a democrat?

[wyldwolf]

156. LOL! Just LOL!

[jcrew2001]

159. Are you a Republican - cuz only Edwards can win the General Election

according to Rassmussen he beats Rudy and McCain - while Hillary loses to Rudy.

You may like Hillary, but don't be surprised if she loses the general election.

[jcrew2001]

137. Exactly, it supports my opinion

and my opinion is supported by her tactics and behavior.

[wyldwolf]

142. uh... yeah... your opinion supports your opinion

:rofl:

[jcrew2001]

143. Yes, her behavior supports my opinion

If she changes her behavior, then my opinion could change.

You seem to ignore her behavior, but other won't, just the way life is.

[wyldwolf]

145. your opinion of her behavior supports your opinion.

[jcrew2001]

147. what is your opinion of her behavior then?

what is your opinion of the Loyalty Decree - do you think its a good idea that will succeed?

[churchofreality]

134. I'll back it up.

The guy is a figment of everyones imagination. He has had some exciting speeches that get people feeling happy and hopeful and fuzzy. That will translate to him getting his ass kicked by a candidate that actually has concrete ideas. Vagueness and happy talk don't work.

Example: Here in massachusetts, we elected Deval Patrick who ran a campaign like Obama. Turns out the guy doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

[flpoljunkie]

38. When "Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary?"

Why would they not then vote for Obama in the general election?

[illinoisprogressive]

36. It is just fun to have some bouncing around in the polling for a change.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnykmarshall]

78. WOW! You sure told HER!

WHOA!! That's AWESOME! I'm sure she'll drop out of the race now! :sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

85. ha! Why don't you go and start a factually inaccurate Hillary thread! Wait, you done did.

[LadyJD]

44. This is the result of being the media darling

In 1972, Republican dirty tricks helped push Muskie and Jackson out of the presidential race. As a result, we got George McGovern--a very great man but someone who was more likely to lose in the general election than other, more moderate Democrats. And he lost. BIG! Obama gets tons of positive press coverage. Edwards was the first to set up on "Twitter" (I have never been there) but Obama got the coverage about being on "Twitter." Hillary spoke before Al Sharpton's group but only Obama's speech was covered by the MSM. MSM is right-wing. Personally, the MSM is not going to decide for me, but this poll shows that it is influencing some people.

[tigereye]

58. welcome to DU!

[Tellurian]

46. Does anyone know what Obama represents?

I sure don't. I have been trying to find out what he stands for. I've looked up his website and can't find anything concrete to hang onto. How is he going to change things for us? What are his plans? I haven't the slightest idea and apparently neither has he. He's getting along on looks and charm... Is that all he's got to offer?

What I do know about him is, he studied the Reverend at his local church on how to give an impassioned speech. That, I will say he's learned very well at demonstrated at the 2004 convention. But where does he stand on substantive issues? From what I've heard, he's taking bits and pieces of the other candidates programs and piecing them together as his own.

I see Obama as 'The Great Pretender'- Pretending to be ready to assume a job he doesn't know enough about!

In a recent interview from Truthdig, Gore Vidal calls Obama, a MYSTERY!

[wyldwolf]

48. well, let's raise a few eyebrows and cause some teeth to gnash

Obama's stance on abortion and parts of his healtcare plan sound oddly like that of the DLC.

His stance on national defense tends to change depending on what venue he's at.

[Tellurian]

49. Well, I've heard he's plagiarizing Edwards sound bytes..

someone mentioned Obama used one of Edward's themes over the weekend in CA..

here:

"Turn the page" ...

Wasn't that a a big part of Edwards' 2004 language? Someone pointed out several places where Obama was using Edwards' language and themes. "Hope is on the way." Edwards doesn't own them, of course, but at some point doesn't it bother anyone else that Obama is lifting Edwards' 2004 campaign, but without the policies themselves?"

But the Obama supporters just close their eyes and whistle in the dark over these little episodes.

[Dawgs]

55. Obama consistently votes as most Democrats want him to vote.

He has been on our side almost all of the time, yet you attack him like he's a Bushie.

Yep, you sound just like a Hillary supporter.

[ripple]

66. What's your source?

'turn the page' is a figure of speech that has been around in politics long before Edwards and Obama were around.

His rhetorical themes are largely about hope and I believe he and Edwards are similar in that regard, but again, the hope theme in politics is certainly nothing new. And just when did Obama use the phrase "hope is on the way"?

[karynnj]

68. Turn the page, hope is on the way, help is on the way

These are all generic slogan and they all predate Edwards by decades.

Should I say that every Democrat who says of Iraq - "That this war can not be won militarilly, it has to be won diplomatically (or Politically)"- is plagerizing Kerry who has said this constantly for at least a year and a half. I think it's the only safe way to say we aren't winning the war.

I've heard both Edwards and Bill Clinton speak of the need for moral leadership in the world - which was a major theme of Kerry's both in 2004 and in his Real Security speech last year.

Both examples though are so generic that they will be said and the same words used. I assume the same thing is happeneing where you see Obama copying Edwards. (Incidently, I read many people who though Edwards was borrowing from Mario Cuomo's great convention speech in his 2004 theme.)

[Colobo]

87. Most political campaigns have similar slogans

[beachmom]

112. Actually, Gen. Casey said that phrase, and Kerry would QUOTE

him. He would say, "General Casey says there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one." It added more weight to the sentence. Maybe Dems should go back to saying who said that first. A General on the ground in Iraq.

[karynnj]

120. True and thank you

It does make the statement far stronger. I agree that Democrats should all be referencing it back to a general on the ground.

[beachmom]

110. If "turn the page" belongs to anyone it's Bob Seger. n/t

[PresidentObama]

53. Oh, Tellurian.......Nice to see you again.

I'm sorry you're out of the loop, and do not know what Obama stands for. He is not my favorite in this horse race (that would be Mr. Edwards, Obama is second. Hillary third) but I will present to you what he stands for:

Here is a bit of his record in IL as a state legislator:

"...noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously."

"Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month."

"He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

"Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit."

"That is one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation."

"He helped pass measures overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops by police to look for signs of racial profiling."

"He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/17/america/NA-POL-US-Obamas-Record.php

"In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-0410080164oct08,0,501732.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-utl

Here is his NPAT from 1998 laying out his priorities and where he stands. This was again during his time as a IL state legislator:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?old=true&can_id=BS030017&npatform_id=69

Now onto his record in the U.S. Senate

Heres his voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

Heres his interest group rating:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS030017

What to know his agenda as President? Well, here you go:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

I guess when you wanna know what he'll represent, where exactly he stands, and what he's put forth as a candidate...the best place to go is the issues page!!

Despite his small national experience, I've examined Obama's record in the IL State legislative branch as well as in the U.S. Senate, and I like what I see. Listening to him speak, he's a very inspirational speaker indeed. But I think as President he would practice what he preachs, and would bring about the kind of change we need. Candidates like Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are exactly the kind of people we need to change this country!!

[wyldwolf]

57. some of this is terrible!

"He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

and


"In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity."

THOSE are awful. Nothing to be proud of there! Mark my word, these two things will come back and haunt him. The only twice elected Democrat since FDR was elected partially on being tough on crime.

You mean Obama doesn't want me to defend myself in my own home against an intruder? Obama doesn't want penalties increased against drug dealing violent gang members???

[PresidentObama]

60. Every candidate has things they'll go after. Hillary has her IWR vote for example.

I will admit the latter, I read wrong or else I wouldn't of posted it. That is a strange one indeed. But if you look at Obama's record, he represents most/if not all of the values most Democrats look for in their candidates. So to suggest he's just giving preacher sounding speeches to appeal to the masses but not backing it up politically with representing anything or standing for anything--that is simply not true!!

[wyldwolf]

62. His voting record is no more or no less "Democratic" than Hillary's

[PresidentObama]

63. I don't think I said that, did I? Personally, I see very little difference in Obama and Hillary.

I like Obama as a candidate though more than Hillary. But I won't be disappointed in either.

[Tellurian]

64. Guess, you're out of the loop as well Kerry 2008

you better examine what your selling as goodness and light...and look deeper.

"So to suggest he's just giving preacher sounding speeches to appeal to the masses but not backing it up politically with representing anything or standing for anything--that is simply not true!!"

But it is True- Even the media is tired of hearing the same scripted autobiographical speeches he's been giving on the stump. I see nothing fresh about him. In fact, he's become quite boring, to me anyway, except for the enthusiasm he generates from college kids..I've heard it all before.

[PresidentObama]

80. Yawn. For all the trash talking that goes on about Hillary, you'd think you wouldn't....

....resort to the same thing!!

Look at their records, Hillary and Obama believe many of the same things and have voted and spoke about what they represent and stand for in very similiar ways.

[Tellurian]

86. Well, bless your heart for noticing! (nm)

[PresidentObama]

88. Excuse me for observing you come out swinging at Obama when he leads this poll, and not Hillary.

I'm sure you are aware of the nature of the game. In six months for all we know, both could drop out of the race because of poor poll numbers. These things change. Now, I don't think my scenario is realistic, but anything can happen in politics. If the tide is changing a bit in Obama's direction, I don't think Hillary will ever fall too far behind. So why all this bashing of Senator Obama? Jealousy? Envy? What is going on? Both are great Senators, and I think we all know (minus you) where both stands and what both represents.

My candidate is in the comfortable spot of third place, you don't see me lashing out do you?

;)

[Colobo]

91. It's called nervousness.

[Tellurian]

93. Actually, it's a breath of fresh air.. ;)

[Tellurian]

92. So What?... I've had to defend Hillary against the remnants of intemperate

Kerry supporters day in and day out.

I'm not bashing Obama at all. I'm stating observations made by me and other people of Obama's propensity for, shall we say embellishment?

Let me tell you something, there will be no doubt in your mind when I'm bashing someone. So, I'll be the judge of my actions and thank you to myob and study up a bit more to get your facts straight before you start lecturing people!

[Colobo]

81. Relax, Tell... let us Obama supporters enjoy this poll

Your girl will go back on top next week thanks to the debates...

But don't you love it that we are neck to neck and that Obama has a real chance of being the nominee?

Both will have to fight to win this, and I know this is not what you, Hillary supporters, expected... I don't think she expected either.

[Tellurian]

89. "Take down the front runner down" not having fun yet?

how many times have I had to defend Hillary from Lies and Misrepresentations?

Now, you guys are at the front of the pack. Hey, this isn't so bad after all!

[Colobo]

90. It's part of the game.

[Tellurian]

94. So enjoy and be happy

it's only going to get worse.

But we're friends, Katz..:hi:

[Colobo]

95. Yeah, Tell... it's sad that politics

can make it look like we are on different sides, when in reality we are not... nobody over here is...

[Tellurian]

98. Yep, accurate observation.. :)

[athena]

150. I disagree. In fact, they both make Obama look pretty good.

They're both good legislation. Read the first one again:

"He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."

You really think a person who violates a local handgun ban should get away with it just because he happened to be using the gun for self defense?

Now consider the second one:

"In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity."

Do you really think that gang violence is caused by laws that are too lax? The real causes of gang violence are poverty, joblessness, a crumbling education system, discrimination in employment, and the lack of a good social infrastructure. Politicians have been "toughening" penalties against all sorts of things for decades, and the U.S. has now the world's largest population of prisoners. It's always politically safe to say you're "tough on crime"; the way Obama voted on this bill goes to show that he doesn't just do what is politically safe. He votes for what he thinks is right, not what he thinks will make him popular.

[karynnj]

67. Nice compilation - thank you for this summary

Obama also was instrumental this year in adding a provision to the Senate Ethics bill that prohibits lobbyists from bundling checks to give to Senators. This is a nice piece of work and excellent that he was able to get it kept in the bill.

Also, Obama was one of about 5 Democrats who voted against cloture on a sneaky Republican amendment that included the stronger Pelosi provisions - had the Democrats rejected it, it would have been an embarrassing situation of Democrats rejecting stronger ethics requirement. This led to the Democrats accepting most of the provisions into the final bill. (Most Democrats were caught unaware - including Hillary who put out a CYA statement after she failed in favor of the stronger ethics rules.)

[flpoljunkie]

73. Obama adding provision that prohibits lobbyists from bundling checks is real reform--as lobbyists

are actually legally allowed to serve as fundraisers for members of Congress--and a most compelling example of the need for public financing of campaigns.

Do you know if this current status of this Senate bill--or it's number? Thanks!

[karynnj]

77. It was the first bill passed in 2007

It is S 1. It passed overwhelmingly and notice was sent to the House on 1/24/07.

[flpoljunkie]

97. As I read the amendment, it does not prohibit but requires disclosure. Feingold sole cosponsor.

Disclosure was probably the best they could hope to get, and it is a very nice first step. Now we need the House to get to work and pass S.1--and hope Bush doesn't veto it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:41:./temp/~bdUk9M:: (temporary link for S.1 amendment S.41.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

[karynnj]

103. You're right - I was going by the NYT article that said it was Obama's

That is interesting.

[Colobo]

79. I'm elated! Great, great news, great numbers!

I see some people aggravated by these results... relax; Hillary will be back on top in the next poll thanks to the debate.

Still, Obama is wearing Hillary's lead out, and that's great.

[PresidentObama]

83. It seems one Hillary supporter (not naming names) is a bit jealous about these numbers, and...

...is lashing out at Senator Obama!!

A shame really. I would hope we wouldn't take the changing tide in the poll numbers as an opportunity to bash Obama hoping that'll some how bring Hillary back in the poll numbers. Keep in mind this is one poll, and the 'lead' is small. I think people like SaveElmer understand this poll, and realize these things change back and forth over time. Hate to use you as an example SaveElmer, but you seem to be the model Hillary supporter IMHO ;)

[Colobo]

84. She needs to relax... :)

[Tellurian]

96. Please take your pop psychology and as Terezza says..Shove IT!

[beachmom]

113. Take back that spelling of Teresa, goshdarnit!

You are spelling her name wrong to make fun of the fact that she is European and pronounces her name differently than American Teresas. In fact, such a blatant attack on her can be found on Freeperville penned by Swift Boat Smear Book author Jeff Corsi. You couldn't help yourself, could you? That after bashing Kerry supporters, I shouldn't be surprised.

[bigdarryl]

102. Why would this idiot do a poll before the debate

[Colobo]

104. These are weekly polls, I believe.

[flpoljunkie]

105. These "idiots" do weekly polling. Next's week's poll will be post debate. Tune in.

[illinoisprogressive]

106. Hillary's continuing downward slide.

[AtomicKitten]

111. wishing does not make it so

[emilyg]

114. oh pulzeaze

this early in the game.

[Clarkie1]

117. Senator Clinton's time as the Democratic frontrunner is over.

It won't be coming back.

[sampsonblk]

118. Broken record: Hillary has all the resources

This will not be a race.

[flpoljunkie]

122. That was the original Clinton camp plan, but somehow it doesn't seem to working out.

[Colobo]

125. Yep, and that's a beautiful thing

[Arugula Latte]

124. Nope.

Her plan to crush her competition in the early rounds with her overwhelming $$$$ advantage is failing.

Thank goodness.

[sampsonblk]

148. I promise not to say I told you so.

nt

[Colobo]

152. Let's bump this

[jcrew2001]

158. I still think Edwards is the only one who can beat the GOP

He beats both Rudy and McCain in the poll.