April 26th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Add to the increasingly long list of bad news for Senator Barack Obama in his battle for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination the latest Newsweek poll which shows him losing ground shockingly fast to Senator Hillary Clinton:
After an important primary win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has reduced Democratic rival Barack Obama’s double-digit lead among registered Democrats and voters leaning Democratic by more than half, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Plagued by controversies over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments and the candidate’s own “bitter” remarks, Obama has seen his favorability rating slip significantly in the last week, the poll found.
The survey found that Clinton now trails Obama by seven points, down from 19 just one week ago. The previous NEWSWEEK poll, conducted on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, found that more than half (55 percent) of registered voters believed Obama was more electable, while 33 percent gave the edge to Clinton. The current poll finds Obama leading 46 percent to 38 percent.
The question becomes whether Clinton now has “Big Mo” or whether it’s a matter of Obama quickly losing it. But the Obama camp has received some bad news recently. Two key tidbits: his shrinking lead in the Gallup Daily tracking poll, coupled with signs that the news media narrative is now changing from “Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a chance” to “Hillary Clinton might actually be able to be nominated.”
Once again, polls fluctuate and trending is what matters…but the trending for Obama hasn’t been good this week and this poll contains little good news for his campaign:
One of the more problematic results for Obama was that four in 10 of registered voters (including Republicans and independents) now have an unfavorable opinion of him–and the same number said there is “no chance” they will vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Four in 10 registered voters (41 percent) say they have a less favorable opinion of Obama based on his association with his former pastor, Rev. Wright, whose racially and politically inflammatory sermons have been circulated on the Internet and covered in the media. A similar number (42 percent) say they will not vote for Obama because of comments he made about “bitter” small-town residents clinging to guns and religion.
There is, however, one ray of sunshine for the Illinois Senator:
Even so, the NEWSWEEK poll indicates that despite the political damage inflicted over recent weeks, Obama still edges out McCain in a trial head-to-head heat for the White House, 47 to 44 percent. That margin was only one point wider a week ago. Clinton—whose own favorability rating has not improved even as Obama’s has slipped—also holds a three point lead with 48 percent of the vote to the Arizona senator’s 45. Among all registered voters, more than half (53 percent) still hold a favorable opinion of Obama, compared to the 47 percent who view Clinton favorably and 51 percent who have favorable views of McCain.
But it’s clear the Obama camp is, at the last, on the defensive right now and, at the most, in a holding pattern. Note these developments:
1. Hillary Clinton is trying to press Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with no moderators. Since Obama has seldom gained from debates, it’s hard to imagine him agreeing no matter how much she tries to pressure him. And he is refusing. When candidates try to make another candidate not debating the issue, it usually fizzles unless the other candidate feels there is something to be genuinely gained. Her husband Bill Clinton is also demanding Obama debate.
2. Bill Clinton is now unleashed.The Clinton campaign feels he’s a plus. And BC has been pressing for the campaign to go more negative and faster.
3. Obama has agreed to go on Fox News – a sign that he is pulling out all stops now to steady his campaign. The question: if he thought the ABC News moderators were tough on him, is he fully prepared for what will face him on Fox News? The upside for Obama: he handles himself well and gets some headlines — and produces some good sound bites — it’ll get lots of air time and communicate that his campaign is not just on the defensive.
Polls should continue to fluctuate, but right now Obama has hit a rocky patch. What to watch for this week: can he stabilize his tumble or reverse it?
April 19th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Within days of the crucial Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential primary, the Gallup Daily Tracking poll and and one other shows Senator Hillary Clinton is showing signs of “Big Mo” (momentum) — and that rival Senator Barack Obama’s campaign may be sagging.
Trending is what you really need to look for…and some of the new polls aren’t good news for Obama.
Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup’s daily tracking since March 18-20.
These results are based on interviewing conducted April 16-18, including two days of interviewing after the contentious Wednesday night debate in Philadelphia and the media focus that followed. Support for Hillary Clinton has been significantly higher in both of these post-debate nights of interviewing than in recent weeks. The two Democratic candidates are now engaged in intensive campaigning leading up to Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary and are under a continual and hot media spotlight, increasing the chances for change in the views of Democrats in the days ahead.
Inch by inch, New York’s Hillary Clinton is building a lead over rival Barack Obama of Illinois leading up to Tuesday’s presidential primary in Pennsylvania, a key late contest on the road to determine who will win the party’s nomination, the latest Newsmax/Zogby daily tracking poll shows.
She now leads with 47% support, compared to 42% for Obama, just four days before the polls open. The two-day tracking survey, which was conducted April 17-18, 2008, showed that 11% were either undecided or supported someone else. This is the first of the tracking polls to be conducted entirely after the fiery Clinton-Obama debate Wednesday night.
Pollster Zogby reports that undecideds are starting to break — for Clinton:
Undecideds are down to 8% and they have slowly begun to break for Clinton. Obama slipped in the one-day sample to only 40%. His lead in the eastern part of the state is still in double-digits but slipping, and his huge advantage among young voters is narrowing a bit. Clinton has a 39-point lead among Catholics and a 19 point lead among whites. She continues to get higher marks on ‘understanding Pennsylvania’ and handling the economy.
Rasmussen finds narrow margins also, but doesn’t see it as reflecting a major Obama downswing:
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama leads Clinton nationally 45% to 43% (see recent daily Democratic Nomination results). While that appears to be a tightening of the race, today’s results are consistent with the general range of support enjoyed by both candidates in recent weeks. Obama has been within three percentage points of the 48% level every day and Clinton has stayed within three points of the 43% level.
While the national numbers are fairly stable, Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is down to three percentage points. That same survey found that 57% believe the Superdelegates should honor the primary results and vote for Obama even if something happens to convince them that Clinton would be a stronger general election candidate. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama an 84.0% chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
All of this taken together suggests (a) you can throw a dart on a target with numbers and make that your informed prediction about the final result in Pennsylvania, (b) Obama is facing some erosion and Clinton appears to be on the upswing (but some other polls don’t agree).
In fact, however, there has been little positive for Obama in terms of press or developments since Wednesday night’s debate.
The polls suggests a hardening of both sides…going back to where things were perhaps a few months ago, with Obama’s most loyal supporters backing him and Clinton’s most loyal supporters backing her. The key are the undecideds…and if they are indeed breaking for Clinton, then Obama has problems.
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It is often said that polls are snapshots — or see-saws and that trending matters. But the latest Gallup Tracking poll, coming within days of Senator Barack Obama’s widely-panned performance in his Pennsylvania primary debate with Senator Hillary Clinton is a sign that the debate hurt Obama in terms of imagery.
If this continues and is a sign of what’s to come in the Pennsylvania primary, Obama has problems:
Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows a tightening of the national Democratic race, with Barack Obama now holding just a 3-percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 47% to 44%.
These results are based on interviewing conducted April 15-17, with Thursday night’s interviewing the first conducted following the April 16 debate in Philadelphia. The initial indications are that Obama may have been hurt by the debate, which was noted for its negative tone and focus on the candidates’ recent “gaffes” and Obama’s associations with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers (a former member of the radical Weather Underground group).
In Thursday night’s interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night’s interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama’s streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.
The full impact of the debate — and the ensuing media coverage of it — will be apparent in the coming days, and it will soon be clear if the debate has produced a shift back to a more competitive race, or if Clinton may have received just a temporary boost in support. The next big event on the Democratic primary calendar is Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary.
And what does this mean in terms of next week’s Pennsylvania primary? To show you that polls are all over the place, look at the latest Rasmussen Reports poll which shows Obama GAINING in Pennsylvania:
April 18th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The Big Debate is over and as the Pennsylvania primary approaches parts of the blogosphere are denouncing unfair and slanted assertions and questions, negative statements, and a piling on of negativity — and that’s just when they write about ABC’s debate moderators. Polarization in the blogosphere reflects the polity. And here’s our famous linkfest that takes you to blogs of various opinions.
WE THOUGHT WE HAD PROBLEMS IN COMMENTS AT TMV: ABC News debate co-moderator George Stephanopoulos is getting an eye-full of anger in comments on his blog. Read skippy.
THE STEPHANOPOULOS DEBATE OVER THE DEBATE CONTINUES.GS defends himself, saying they were asking tough news questions that needed to be asked. The problem: almost 50 minutes of the first part of the debate was seemingly aimed at Senator Barack Obama — leaving GS and ABC News open to the charge that it was not a balanced debate but lopsidedly slated against Obama.
Ed Kilgore looks at the arguments about talking about electability and writes:
The more you look at it, the “electability” defense for endlessly superficial debates–and media “coverage” of campaigns in general–doesn’t make much sense. If George just came right out and said his network needed “fireworks” to boost ratings, it would sound more plausible.
April 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
This Guest Voice is by video and web producer Joe Windish, who wrote a well received column earlier this week. He takes another look at the dynamics between politics and cable political and comedy talk shows.
Matthews, Clinton & Colbert: Retributive Jusice In The Modern Mediascape
by Joe Windish
Stephen Colbert ends his Philadelphia run tonight with a guest appearance by Hillary Clinton. There’s nothing saying that appearance will be an interview and it’s too bad, too, after last night’s debate.
The story-line this morning is her relentless pounding of Obama on Rev. Wright and the Weather Underground and the like, as he uses tea and cookies as a means to diffuse such issues rather than attack. He refused even to pile on when given the opportunity with her Bosnia gaffe and (unlike Andrew) I admire him all the more for it.
The bigger debate take away, of course, is her “Yes! Yes! Yes!” belief that Obama could win the presidency.
All of this is the stuff of a great Colbert interview!
A Clinton on the Colbert set the day after a debate that some saycould have been scripted for her by a sycophant press caught up in all of the non-issues of the day is all of the license Colbert needs to go for comedy of epic Correspondents Association Dinner proportions.
I’ll be watching closely tonight.
Colbert’s performance has been fine in Philadelphia, still he’s yet to really soar. Maybe it’s the road, or the size of the theater (nine times that of his NY home), but I have to wonder if he wasn’t thrown off his stride that very first night interviewing Philadelphia native Chris Matthews…
STEPHEN COLBERT: Your show’s called Hardball.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right.
STEPHEN COLBERT: Well I think I have a harder ball than you and let me tell you why.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Hah!!!
STEPHEN COLBERT: Because Barack Obama did an hour with you, how hard could your ball be? He won’t come on my show. I clearly swing a harder ball.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me put you another case… you’ve got Hillary Clinton coming on, right?
STEPHEN COLBERT: Uh… [pregnant pause]… There’s a possibility of that Chris… We like to surprise people with certain guests.
April 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
So who won the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary between rival Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
While the “official” media consensus has yet to come in at this writing, monitoring live streaming, live blogging and early stories on the debate suggest it wasn’t Obama’s best night (possibly his worst debate performance), Clinton continued effectively and relentlessly on the attack — and ABC and the debate moderators will come under fire from Obama supporters and perhaps others due to the first 45-minutes being questions that basically put Obama on the defensive. One question asked was reportedly raised by conservative talk show Sean Hannity.
But even so even some of his supporters now wonder why Obama didn’t seem better prepared.
For a reaction to the debate itself, READ THIS earlier post by TMVer Jazz Shaw. In a move unusual for a news event such as this, ABC embargoed the debate for delayed viewing on the West Coast. This post is a roundup of website and blog reaction to the debate.
One of the best, least emotional live blogging accounts of the debate can be found on USA Today’s blog. Here are some extensive quotes from weblogs, news sites and stories on the debate:
It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I’ve seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he’s up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully.
Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn’t just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process. In some ways, I’m glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again. But this is still the arena we have. It is what it is. ABC News is what it is. The MSM knows no other way. Obama has to survive and even thrive under this assault if he is to win. He failed tonight in a big way.
And so this was indeed a huge night for the Republicans, and the first real indicator to me that Clinton is gaining in her fundamental goal at this point: the election of John McCain against Barack Obama. How else will she rescue the Democrats from hope?
Wow. What the hell was that? Seriously, I’m a bit stunned. The level of discourse has reached a new low — a very new low. To be clear, I don’t think the debate was a disaster for Obama. He did fine. I think it was a disaster for our political system.
It was the worst debate ever. [ABC moderators Charles] Gibson and [former Clinton administration spokesman George] Stephanopoulos were horrible. The questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio.
Well, what we saw tonight was Hillary Clinton making a strong, last-ditch effort to pull her flagging campaign back from brink, get it back on track to victory on April 22 and make the superdelegates realize that she really is their last best chance to retake the White House.
She drummed on Obama not just for his remarks about small towns, guns and religion, but for his vast dearth of experience compared to hers–and that includes her experience of being ravaged by Republicans and living to see another day.
Obama, for his part, strove to defuse the negative ripples his aforementioned-ad-nauseum remarks might have engendered, not to mention the controversial comments of his former pastor–all of which appear not to have tarnished him much in polls.
Most importantly, he tried to get voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief, assigning “a mission” to his commanders–he’s the decider–although consulting with them re: tactics.
….And, for Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. There’s a reason people think Clinton is dishonest as we saw today in the findings of the Washington Post-ABC News poll. She’s not only in this to win, she’s in it to win dirty — and to destroy Obama. She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason — just to say it. Give me a break. Throughout this campaign, Clinton has pursued GOP attacks against Obama. He has not gone there against her.
–Daily Kos (one of several progressive sites calling on readers to flood ABC News with protests):
I used to think Republican operative and Karl Rove mentor Lee Atwater had died in 1991, after a nasty career of Republican race baiting, culture wars, dirty tricks, and a illness-induced conversion to Catholicism and public repentance for his dirty and divisive politics. I was wrong.
Lee Atwater apparently works for ABC News in devising…questions to ask Democratic Presidential candidates.
The questioning in tonight’s debate–—mostly straight out of 1988—was an abomination. Gun control. 60’s radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action.
I’ll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton….The questions asked were not the kinds of questions Democratic primary voters care about. But they are the “gotcha” kinds of questions Republicans try to spring on Democrats in general elections.
I’m not afraid of those questions. I think Obama did fine tonight. Generally Clinton has performed best in debates, but as we first saw in the Texas debate, Obama appears to perform better one-on-one. I especially liked how he refused to get lured in to Charles Gibson’s conservative frames, and I like how he dismissed many of Clinton’s attacks on him as avoiding the substantive issues and hypocritical, as when he pointed out that Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground.
The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.
…The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight. And kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included.
It’s hard to know where to start or, in fact, where to end. This was yet another debate which seemed to vacillate between opportunities for the candidates to trot out the same old tired talking points and endless examination of the minutia of minor, ill advised quotes by the candidates or other actors attached to them from the Nth degree. The majority of the attack dog questions were leveled at Obama, but only because he’s had the most recent stumbles. The “bitter-gate” comments, Reverend Wright, anti-war activists from the sixties were all on display. Was Hillary really a young, gun loving Annie Oakley or a sneaky Democrat who wants to repeal the second amendment.
These have all been huge, ink-sucking stories for the chattering classes, but how much do these questions really intrigue American voters? Rather than focusing on the specifics of this dog and pony show, I rather like what Andrew Sullivan had to say on these “hot topics” of the previous weeks. He notes in a recent posting that the so-called “bitter-gate” has barely nudged the needle on public opinion. We’ve seen the same thing for previous comments by both Obama and Clinton - far more of a collective yawn than distressing alarm bells. Why?
If this pans out in the actual primary, then a very large number of pundits and bloggers and pols are going to be revealed as hopelessly out of touch with the country they are talking about. I’m beginning to think that this past week was a serious tipping point for the media elite. And it’s worth noting one individual in that elite who didn’t join the throng: Matt Drudge. Sometimes a condo in Miami is more in touch with rural Pennsylvania than anyone in the Beltway.
People simply are not focusing on all of this minutia. I’m pretty much in Sullivan’s camp on this one. All over America we have far too many people who really aren’t paying attention to this election yet, and for those who are they have real world concerns that involve things like the price of gas and milk, the flag draped coffins still coming back from Iraq, and a housing market that is taking a beating befitting Mike Tyson in his best days.
I can’t pretend to read the collective minds of the voter base on either side, but I imagine a debate like this which focused primarily on snippets of stump speeches and generalized platitudes about hope and change won’t be changing many minds or votes. We likely won’t know much about the real attitude of the populace until the majority begin paying attention this fall. And even then we may all still be in for some shocks when they go to the polls.
April 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
It turns out that the big debate between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is NOT being carried live in the San Diego market. I will wait until I see it (most likely at 8 p.m.) before doing my own post.
In the meantime, you may be seeing posts from other TMV writers who’ve seen it live.
April 15th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The newest Gallup Daily Tracking poll, conducted when Senator Barack Obama’s comments about people in small-towns being bitter and clinging were widely covered in the media, now shows the Illinois Senator with his biggest lead yet over chief Democratic nomination rival Senator Hillary Clinton:
Barack Obama is maintaining his lead over Hillary Clinton among Democrats nationally in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking, with a 51% to 40% margin in the April 12-14 average.
The current 11 percentage point lead is the largest for Obama this year, and marks the ninth consecutive day in which Obama has led Clinton by a statistically significant margin. The current Gallup Poll Daily tracking average is based on interviewing conducted Saturday, Sunday and Monday — after the initial reports of Obama’s controversial remarks about “bitter” small-town residents began to be reported in the news media.
Gallup also notes the variables: tomorrow night there’s a big — perhaps pivotal — debate between Clinton and Obama. And Gallup also notes that there could be some “delayed impact” of Obama’s comments. Both “may affect Democratic voters’ perceptions in the days to come.”
But what about the general election? Clinton’s argument is that she’s now more electable than Obama:
In general election trial heat match ups, both Democratic candidates now have identical, and slight, 46% to 44% margins over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.
So in terms of the polling, it’s a draw.
Meanwhile, the polls are being closely watched in Pennsylvania. But as Josh Marshall notes there is no sign yet that the controversy has caused any major shift in polling trends there.
But yet another issue lurks in the background: the issue of the impact of this latest controversy entailing Obama’s comments and the Clinton campaign’s aggressive use of the issue against Obama to brand him as an elitist. According to a post in The Huffington Post, Clinton’s campaign may be generating some backlash among superdelegates. Read the rest of this entry »
Tomorrow night’s debate in Philadelphia could be the turning point. If he is the masterful politician he seems to be, Barack Obama will seize the moment to rise above the squabbling and bickering to define himself for American voters.
Just as he broadened the Jeremiah Wright brouhaha into a statement about race in America in that same hall, Obama can use his “small town” misstep to address directly the doubts that exist and are being exacerbated about him and re-frame the issue of his trustworthiness.
In response, he can acknowledge understandable skepticism on the part of Americans who were told eight years ago that George W. Bush was a compassionate conservative who would not embark on nation-building, only to get a president with no empathy for their needs, a radical agenda to enrich the richest and a reckless foreign policy that would destroy another nation and squander our blood, treasure and reputation in the world trying to put it back together again.
Voters, Obama can point out, thought they were making a safe choice in selecting a familiar name and reassuring promises from a comforting source. Now they are being asked to give their trust to a dark-skinned man with an odd name and exotic roots who, they are being told, is “elitist” and “out of touch” with them.
But which is the greater gamble at this low point of Americans’ confidence in their future? More of the same or trusting someone whose judgment has thus far turned out to be sound and whose promise of change is not encumbered with a history of business-as-usual in Washington?
Playing it safe, Obama can truthfully tell Americans, is the biggest gamble of all.
The moderators seemed to come armed with an agenda, at least as I read it. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, received a series of softball questions centering on the most important moments of her life when God spoke to her, etc. The exceptions were questions each candidate shared in common, including whether life begins at conception, etc.
The questions for Obama included a large number of very aggressive “gotcha” questions on the “bitter” remarks, Reverend Wright, and other subjects. (Anyone who would care to submit examples of the “tough questions” Hillary received are welcome to do so in comments.) The effort, from what I saw, fell flat. The crowd went heavily for Obama as he fielded tough questions and clarified his positions well.
The contrast between the two performances was striking, and Obama effectively hit it out of the park. If these questions were ad hoc, with neither candidate having access to them ahead of time, Obama showed once again how well he can handle himself when cornered and won the audience over.
Polls are all over the place in the high-stakes Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential primary, but the growing trend shows Hillary Clinton steadily losing ground to Barack Obama — a trend confirmed in a new Quinnipiac University poll.
And this poll has a bit of particularly bad news for Clinton: she is losing ground among women voters, the most reliable part of her candidacy base:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is catching up with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary and now trails 50 - 44 percent among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 50 - 41 percent Sen. Clinton lead in an April 2 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.
In this latest survey, one of the biggest shifts is among women who went from 54 - 37 percent for Clinton April 2 to 54 - 41 percent for her today. A look at other groups shows:
* White voters for Clinton 56 - 38 percent, down from 59 - 34 percent last week.
* Black voters back Obama 75 - 17 percent, compared to 73 - 11 percent.
* Men are for Obama 48 - 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 46 percent tie last week.
* Voters under 45 go with Obama 55 - 40, while older voters back Clinton 55 - 38 percent.
“With two weeks to go, Sen. Barack Obama is knocking on the door of a major political upset in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Obama is not only building on his own constituencies, but is taking away voters in Sen. Hillary Clinton’s strongest areas - whites including white women, voters in the key swing Philadelphia suburbs and those who say the economy is the most important issue in the campaign,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“The Pennsylvania primary is like a game of horseshoes: Sen. Obama needs only to come close to be considered the winner - taking away, perhaps fatally, Sen. Clinton’s argument she is the candidate best able to defeat Sen. John McCain in critical swing states like Pennsylvania.
But is this yet another example of a poll likely to produce narrative heading up to a primary election that later causes the talking heads, print analysts and bloggers to say “never mind” or shove their old predictions under the table once the votes are counted?
Michael Signer, a former adviser to the Edwards campaign, recently wrote an article for The Washington Post arguing that the media isn’t paying enough attention to foreign policy issues in its coverage of the presidential campaign. It’s hard to argue with that. As Signer notes, most reports about candidates and their foreign policy agendas have the “flavor of a fantasy baseball article in Sports Illustrated.”
The press should certainly do a better job of questioning presidential candidates on their views about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other hot spots. But, realistically speaking, how much should presidential candidates actually have to know about foreign affairs? The impetus for this question came from last night’s Democratic debate in Cleveland, and a particular exchange between moderator Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Russert quizzed Clinton, in a way reminiscent of a high school history class, to name Vladimir Putin’s successor — Dmitri Medvedev — and describe his background.
Clinton hemmed and hawed a bit, clearly lacking somewhat in the details, but she did know enough about Russian politics to suggest that Putin’s successor was hand-picked and pre-vetted for the job. I thought it was a good response but Russert apparently didn’t, pointedly asking for the man’s name. Clinton stuttered again, but managed to produce a last name that sounded like Medvedev’s. It was an uncomfortable grilling, and it raises the question: is it fair game to quiz candidates on world affairs to such minute detail? Signer thinks so, writing at Democracy Arsenal that it was “extremely heartening” to hear Russert ask the tough questions.
I think differently. It is certainly true that the media should do a better job of assessing and questioning presidential candidates’ views on foreign policy. But only to a reasonable extent. What is most important is that candidates have a big picture idea of countries’ histories and political trends. This is what the media should be probing, and this is what we — as voters — should be interested in hearing about. Minutiae about the ages or educational backgrounds of foreign leaders is largely irrelevant, and should not be required knowledge of presidential candidates.
Tim Russert’s question was particularly unfair, given that Medvedev has only recently arrived on the front burner of the Russian political scene. (Remember, it wasn’t long ago that Viktor Zubkov was widely considered to be Putin’s successor.) To ask Senator Clinton to name facts about Medvedev’s background or even to ask her to give us his full name is not only cruel, it’s also unimportant. She doesn’t have to know every intricacy of Russian politics to craft effective policies — that’s what advisers are for.
A better question would have probed the Russian political scene, the extent of the changes that Putin has instituted since 1999, Moscow’s stance towards Europe and NATO, and how American policy should seek to confront the country’s backslide away from democracy. These “big picture,” macro-level analyses of foreign affairs are what candidates should be asked about, since these perceptions — not inane details about up-and-coming foreign leaders — are primarily what will determine their future policy decisions. Photo: Todd Heisler/The New York Times
During the debate last night, it was obvious that the moderators were focused (almost obsessively) on getting their questions answered.
All by itself, that made the entire event much different from previous debates, and at the general level, they should be commended for it. It’s been frustrating in the extreme to hear candidates wander off on tangents, and never get called back to the initial point. Furthermore, I felt that the debate format, and most of the questions (yes, even the silly ones), were an improvement over prior events.
There was, however, an exchange that bothered me — not because the question itself was asked, but because the moderator evidently didn’t understand the answer. In a debate, I see that as a real problem:
[Russert]: On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
Russert was not satisfied, and came back around with four more questions on the subject — and in the process, he started dropping some of the more heinous Farrakhan comments into the record. That was, in my opinion, both unnecessary and inflammatory.
In the context of a debate, though, there’s an argument to be made for Russert’s tenacity with the original question. Staying on topic and requiring direct answers is A Good Thing. Unfortunately, he absolutely would not let go of his question without hearing a response keyed to the word he’d fixed in his mind: “accept”, or its antonym, “reject”.
This morning, the blogosphere’s all abuzz about the Farrakhan exchange — and while there are people who understood the meanings of these words, I’m shocked at how many people apparently don’t.
So here, in the interests of edification, is “denounce“:
1. speak out against;
2. to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful
1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use
Obama answered the question much more forcefully than was required… and although Hillary Clinton followed Russert into this pit, she had a valid reason for doing so. She, unlike the moderators, had a stake in the debate. Russert’s foolishness gave her an opening, and she understandably tried to take it.
Tim Russert has no such excuse, and his refusal inability to process the information exposed him as either illiterate on these basic vocabulary words, or as a cheap hack trying to score points in his own right.
February 27th, 2008 by PETE ABEL, Assistant Editor
The third commenter on Steve Benen’s debate wrap-up writes, “Rachael Maddow of Air America and a guest commentator on MSNBC called this debate a snooze-fest and I agree.”
Really?
My wife and I watched the debate together last night, from start to finish, the first time we’ve made it all the way through one — of either party’s candidates — without growing bored or frustrated. In fact, as we watched, we remarked to each other (several times) how riveting we found this particular installment in the series, how we just couldn’t bring ourselves to turn or look away.
Admittedly, the reaction of our two-person focus group might have had more to do with theater than substance. In Debate #20, it’s painfully difficult for the candidates to say anything they haven’t said 19 times before, nor are they likely to display some nuance in body language, style, cadence, or tone that they haven’t exhibitted several times prior.
What was new was the environment in which this debate was held, the contextual drama swirling around it. Sen. Obama is no longer the neophyte long-shot but the well-established leader, steadily closing the polling gaps in his rival’s final-stand states. Sen. Clinton is no longer the inevitable veteran but the evolving case study in how to lose a campaign when you have virtually everything going for you. Sure, the pulse of this narrative was evident in the Texas debate last week. But last night — after days of the Clinton campaign hurling accusations that failed to even scratch the Obamamentum — this narrative was no longer a pulse, but a pounding throb, an unmistakable, unignorable tell-tale heart whose beating could not be muffled or muted by the floorboards covering it.
And that beat permeated every exchange, as the cool, collected Senator from Illinois deftly swatted away each volley from the tense, tired, and perplexed Senator from New York. Even after what my wife and I agreed was Obama’s weakest moment — his Farrakhan waffle — he recovered with clarity, strength and grace, a point of view in which we are apparently not alone.
I confess: Two college-educated Americans should probably be more focused on substance than theater, but … what can I say? We’re human, as pedestrian as the next couple in the next home, as susceptible as anyone to the addiction of a good show. Maybe that means those individuals who found this debate a “snooze-fest” are more intellectual than we are, more capable of resisting the allure of the stage’s bright lights and sounds. Good for them. Meanwhile, I’m really looking forward to the next act, the one where the old war hero grapples with the young social activist. Grab the soft drinks; we’ll bring the popcorn.
February 26th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
What was advance- billed as likely to be an “oh my” debate in Ohio turned out to be more of an “oh well” debate in Ohio where neither front-runner Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton scored a record-setting home run or embarrassingly self-destructed, in the view of many mainstream and “new media” analysts and observers. Will its timing before the pivotal March 4th Texas and Ohio primaries make a difference ?
Here’s some media and weblog reaction. As usual, weblogs were more inclined to bluntly proclaim a perceived “winner” than initial debate press reports.
NEWS MEDIA:
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois came under a full-out assault Tuesday night from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in their last debate before crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas that could make or break Clinton’s campaign.
Clinton has heatedly attacked Obama in the past week, accusing him of distorting her record on trade and health care in mass mailings to Ohio voters, and she stayed on the attack Tuesday night.
“I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences, and in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and choices that Senator Obama’s campaign has made … have been very disturbing to me,” she said at the outset of the debate.
Obama did not back down. He said that he had faced the same tactics from Clinton’s supporters but that “we haven’t whined about it because I understand that’s the nature of these campaigns.”
–The Chicago Tribune begins its article with Hillary Clinton’s joking complaint about media pro-Obama bias:
They are all here - David Axelrod, David Wilhelm. Jesse Jackson, Ted Strickland. Andrea Mitchell, Candy Crowley. On and on. I’ve got lots of video and pictures that I feel confident no one else got - particularly the video.
But what I’m also certain you won’t hear is anything that isn’t spin. You can hear it as you walk from cluster to cluster, how each politician or strategist’s candidate did. It’s all “we’re winning” - would we expect anything else?
And yet do we really learn about leadership from these debates?
As I sat in the audience, really able to hear the questions, the specific wording of the questions, it occurred to me:
War Games. Simulated political candidate war games.
How would Hilary Clinton behave if faced with a real situation where her words and her past experiences could be combined to run in a simulation that could show us the outcome if she were the president during a crisis - of any kind. Or make it just good old health care.
What about Barack Obama? How would a simulated Obama, in a game programmed with his words and actions, manage a crisis that demanded the president to decide and act?
And how would we compare outcomes of the simulated sequences?
If computer science students can develop programs that show us the devastation in Darfur, why not the success of failure of a President Obama or a President Clinton when they are forced to deal with some similarly difficult, or even easy, dilemma?
The Cleveland audience is listening intently but the atmosphere in the auditorium is somber. Brian Williams and Tim Russert play a game of good cop/bad cop.
Sitting behind me: a college student who studies photography, got her ticket through the lottery and hadn’t thought about the election until she heard about the debate. She is undecided but wants to hear about health care because her father lost his job in August and will be a senior in a few years.
Sitting in front of me: an African-American woman in her 50s who is there to cheerlead Obama. She won a ticket too and is from Cleveland. There’s nothing she really feels a need to hear about.
Sitting next to her: a 54 year old man from Dayton, Ohio who won his ticket too. He feels that this is an historic event and that’s why he wanted to be here. He supports Obama because of how he’s engaged the younger generation and that we need his leadership for that generation. He hopes they talk about the fallen prestige of the U.S. and Supreme Court appointments.
Sitting a few rows below me: two brothers, one 17 and one 19, both born and raised in Cleveland, older brother went to and graduated from Shaker Heights High School and just graduated from Cleveland State. They didn’t like or really understand why in the scheme of things Iowa gets to go first. They hope to hear about taxes.
I moved back to the Media Filing Center because it was difficult to hear Obama in the audience. The sound system had him too soft and I told a bunch of people who know people when I left the arena area.
