Obama Campaign Uses Fuzzy '04 Comparison To Downplay Hillary's Frontrunner Status

With Barack Obama currently trailing in national polls, his campaign today distributed an email to supporters emphasizing that "early polls don't mean a thing." To drive this point home, the email begins with a purported history lesson:

In mid-September 2003, national polls showed Joe Lieberman to be the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then John Kerry won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and the shift in momentum carried him to a decisive victory.

The comparison attempts to place Obama's poll standing in a positive light, while also implicitly likening current frontrunner Clinton to Lieberman, an aggressive supporter of President Bush's war policy.

But a review of national presidential polls from mid-September 2003 shows that history isn't nearly as cut and dry as the Obama campaign portrays.

Among national polls taken in mid-September 2003, Lieberman led in just one: a Sept. 10-13 ABC News survey of all Democratic-leaning voters. Lieberman received 20 percent support versus 15 percent for Howard Dean and 14 percent for both Richard Gephardt and John Kerry. However, when the ABC News poll was limited to Democratic-leaning likely voters, Howard Dean held a slim lead with 20 percent, compared to 19 percent for Lieberman and Kerry.

A Newsweek poll taken Sept. 18-19, 2003 among "registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic" found that both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore received far more support than any of the declared presidential candidates. Thirty-three percent said they preferred Clinton, while 28 percent backed Gore. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean both polled at 7 percent, and Joe Lieberman and John Kerry polled at 5 percent.

In other words, Lieberman was by no means the clear national frontrunner in mid-September 2003. The polling then was decidedly mixed, in contrast to Clinton's current dominant lead in the Democratic primaries. The Associated Press reported Saturday that Clinton has "strengthened her standing as the national front-runner four months before the first primary votes," as the Democratic race "has remained remarkably static, with none of Clinton's rivals able to challenge her lead in national and most state polls." The three most recent national polls show Clinton with leads of 12 percent, 21 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.

Comments

[BionicWoman]

The point of experience is to know how to get something done. Obama has had arguments with senior senators and problems getting along in Congress. He has to know more than what needs to change - he needs to be able to figure out how to get it done.

We need change in Congress. But if he can't get cooperation - then "change" is just a word - and not a reality. We already heard the "I Have a Dream" speech.

[2007TonyMontana]

Fuzzy comment there. Which Senators does he argue with and not get along with? Barack made his mark in Illinois by being able to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans to get bipartisan legislation through. He recently named prominent republicans he felt he could reach across and work with as President. That, and change really comes from the electorate. Provide a mandate in the election, and you will get change. Obama will merely be the vessel for that change.

[VSamuels]

We need change in Congress. But if he can't get cooperation - then "change" is just a word - and not a reality. We already heard the "I Have a Dream" speech.

If Obama receives just 1% of the cooperation that Bush has received after entering the US in his false war, Obama will be just fine.

It is also helpful to know that Bush has lowered the bar so much that it may take several presidencies to restore the luster on the prestige of America.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

I just can't avoid noticing how many people come out just to call Senator Obama names.

Have you people no sense of decency?

I know that other candidates get called names too, but this is getting ridiculous.

It's time to grow up and discuss the issues.

[notepad2]

"Rep. Kennedy Will Keep Hsu Donations"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3557717

[2007TonyMontana]

For those who say Obama is too inexperienced right now; who say he lacks foreign policy experience, let's consider:
-He has more "foreign policy" experience than Bill Clinton did in '91 from his years as Arkansas governor; by Hillary's own logic, her husband should not have been nominated in '92 due to his lack of foreign policy experience.
-Obama has more time in elected office than Hillary. He has more time in elected office than JFK or Lincoln did. Those guys did okay.
-In a time when the current administration has gutted the Constitution, a candidate who was a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard looks pretty experienced to me...
I'm sick of hearing about the "experience" of Hillary. Maybe Michelle Obama should run; then Barack could have all that "presidential spouse" experience too, and satisfy the Hillary loyalists.

[Maxx61]

This has been over for awhile, only the hopeful haven't noticed. When they wake up, they'll find two Clintons in the White House.

[joann4]

Superfela, the exit polls in 2000 failed to correctly find a winner because the Republicans stole the election by undercounting Democratic votes in highly Democratic precincts. The people's intention to vote for Gore was correct: but the count was a lie.
Hillary has spent her entire life getting ready to lead this nation. She's so much more than a sound bite, a speech or a photo op. Read the NYT article of 5/5/07 on her thoughtful evolution in "68 to see that she was a progressive in waiting all along. Your best shot at national rehabilitation lies with Hillary Clinton as your next President.

[GreatFutureForAll]

"Hillary has spent her entire life getting ready to lead this nation."

So did Nixon. This scares the living crap out of me. No one should spend their entire life preparing for anything, let alone politics.

When one spends an entire lifetime preparing to be President, it's no longer to do "public service." It's Manifest-Destiny.

Obama says he's an "agent" for change. He keeps saying things like "if you hire me" and "I can't do this alone."

He still realizes that this is a temp job. He still knows that he is just a public servant (NOTHING MORE).

He was not born to be President. He is not "entitled" to the job. He does not think in these terms.

The last person that was as consumed and obsessed as Hillary is, to the point of spending an entire lifetime "getting ready to lead this nation" was the 37th President, Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974).

I'm starting to get agita over this.

[Giglawyer]

All of you Hillary supporters - ask yourself this: WHy won't she open up her archives from when she was first lady? What do you suppose she is hiding?

[kittycago]

So after literally years of KEN STARR investigations you think you may have a needle in a haystack?If you want this from her you should want this from every candidate so call out to Obama.Edwa­rds,Richar­son,Dodd.B­iden.Grave­l,Kuchcini­ch,.......­........ for the same information because no one has been more scrutinized than the Clintons.

[OhPlease2007]

kittycago, check out the book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast; it's documented and you will find your needle there. Of course, GOOD investigative reporting should ALWAYS be WELL documented. Greg Palast is THE BEST investigative journalist ... on the planet . Of course, you might want to take some Maalox first, before you read what he documents about 'the Clintons'; just a suggestion.

:)

Book Link: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Democracy-Money-Can-Buy/dp/0452285674/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5645430-9280866?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188998025&sr=8-1

http://www.gregpalast.com

[YellowPanties]

DAMN IT. Listen, liberals and Democrats, this constant sniping at the left's figures - by us - has got to stop. Do you think the rightwing is busy slashing all of its candidates for the '08 election? We need to focus on what it is that any of the Democratic candidates brings to the table that will be than and fix the current Republican power grabs.

Instead of reprinting every little silly "mis-step" Barama, Clinton, Edwards, etc makes, how about some actual reportage on them and thier issues? Wow. a "fuzzy" analogy? You're right, Obama has no right to be president after this. You're concerned over Obama's fuzzy logic - after living Dubya?! Obama is actually intelligent and self-made, and you still complain.

Barama even running for president is historic, maybe he's a little nervous, give the buy a break! It's stories like this, and reposting of same, that makes the campaigns a joke anyway. You think any candidate could shoot off the cuff or be spontaneous and real, with every "fuzzy analogy" become fodder for front page news articles.

[godlessclif]

Dean and the Dodo were not domesticated.
No one will stop Obama like Dean got stopped, because he is the pet mockingbird of the rich bankers who shot down Dean and the Dodo.

As long as Obama the mockingbird sings the song of
Goldman Sachs, It will be a crime to kill a mockingbird.

[godlessclif]

Obama has lots of name recognition.
His name sound like Osama.
Every news story about Bin Laden is an ad for Obama.

There is a reason they never mention Pepsi in a Coca Cola advertisement. That is why ad men invented brand X. people actually went to the store and asked for brand X.

If you mention the name, knock or boost, it is name recognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard
see: The Hidden Persuaders, Vance Packard's non fiction study of the psychology of advertising.

[ResidentChimp]

Poor Obama, he's grasping at straws now. A sure indication he is going the way of Dean and the Dodo.

[sammy333]

Clinton is the new Bush. CNN/Fox are entirely behind her, she is controlled by the same main interests, she knows what happends if she strays (and they know that she does), pro-war, etc.

She will be pushed to go beyond Bush in a number of aspects, e.g. the military draft, taxe increases for even larger scale agressive wars, etc.. But the little voices in TV will tell people that she is the one. And they will vote for her.

Forget it..

[Brettster]

I'm very disturbed by all the Hillary supporters here. Any real progressive should have Hillary at the very bottom of their lists of democratic prospects. Everyone I know dreads a Hillary nomination more than anything, and that's not including republicans. Having a strongly progressive, pro-peace reformer AND a great leader is more critically important now than it ever has been! Hillary has proven to be a vacuum of those qualities.

[geneven]

Who pretends to be a "real progressive"? "Real" is obviously a code word meaning acceptible to you.

BTW, isn't it surprising that the HP isn't running an article about Oprah endorsing Hillary? It's almost like HP tries to manipulate opinion by what stories it chooses to cover. Do you think HP would have covered it if Oprah endorsed Obama? You bet HP would cover it!

[Brettster]

um, hello? Oprah doesn't endorse Hillary, and DOES endorse Obama!

Again with this paranoid stuff with "code words" and "moles." What is going on here? Are things really that bad that there's some zealous McCarthyist purge in the liberal ranks? No, of course it's not a code word. Real progressive, to anyone who still has some sense of reality, would obviously mean someone who is bold and deep on progressive issues. Hillary is so far from it I can't believe this even needs to be said. I mean, being anti-war in all but the most desperately necessary cases should be a strict minimum to be a "real progressive." We need someone to take bold stands on environment, military-industrial complex, universal healthcare, drug war, civil liberties, intellectual economic policies, etc etc. The last thing a "real progressive" would want is someone who takes maximum donations from Rupert Murdoch and is a corporate darling. She has conflicts of interests coming out of her ears, she has shown absolutely no passion or taking charge on any major principle. Some of her biggest displays of leadership have been on PMRC-like video game regulation, which is the antithesis of what progressiveness is about.

[MPeter]

The author of this crap and all the Hillary supporters live in fantasy land. But if HRC is doing so well, why is she copying everything Obama does? Listen to her speeches lately. Read her mail-outs. Your goose is cooked. Obama 08.

[YellowPanties]

Wow, you've totally convinced me. How exactly has Clinton proven herself to be a "vacuum of these qualities"? Was she supposed to cure disease and stop world hunger and broker a midEast peace deal all during her brief time in the goddamn Senate? Or do you think the FIrst Lady should be given Executive powers, or what? The fact that Clinton was a practicing attorney shows you she's done more than most "firsts."

Which "great leader" are you talking about? Which one of these candidates is your "great leader"?

Basically I'm convinced that you are on here as a Republican mole, trying to stir things up, because your logic is so profound.

[Brettster]

wow what a perfect display of the disturbing nature of Hillary supporters I'm talking about. Because I don't want Hillary to be nominated I'm a republican mole? How out of touch can you possibly get? Hillary is the closest thing to a republican out of all the frontrunners!

The only defense of her you have is that she was a practicing attorney? haha well stop the presses!! A politician used to be an attorney, HOLY CRAP! haha!

You've obviously completely isolated yourself from reality. Let me clue you in to what I meant, she is easily the most polarizing figure running from both parties. Either people like her (probably because they love her husband), or they absolutely despise her. I think the latter is way too prominent. She can never be a truly great leader because too many people have committed themselves to hating her for life. Not only is that a huge liability in nominating her as a democrat, but even if she happens to win the presidency that's still not nearly the best choice we have before us right now. Also, she is definitely the least principled as an activist, least engaging and least inspiring of a speaker. She's shrill. She doesn't bring anyone together, and she doesn't even stand for what's right in most cases.

At least Bill Clinton, for as centrist and compromising as he was, was overwhelmingly likable to most people and a terrific leader with passionate, moving rhetoric. But at the same time, he sucked out the identity of the party and perpetuated the idea that the democrats should act like slightly more moderate republicans. The party has been struggling for a backbone to define its own identity ever since then. Hillary has all those bad qualities and none of the redeeming ones, besides an occasionally commendable performance in a hearing or two. The DLC type democrats have won a few battles, but have steadily sold us all out in the process. She's like the final nail in the coffin. We can do a lot better.

[godlessclif]

Face facts. Most Americans are not progressive.
Orwell points out in his book 1984 that the Oceana
dictatorship of big brother is not racist like the Nazis. Anyone can become part of the Party or one of the top elite if he has the talent or intelligence.

The key is this elite does not want to improve the standard of living of the whole middle class. They also do not want to establish a chosen master race elite.

They want to cherry pick the middle class for genius and use the rest as worker drones like Orwell's hero Winston Smith, who has a dead end job rewriting history books.

That is what most American's support. A lottery ticket, a chance to be Donald Trump, and screw everyone else, they are on their own. This is a me society, not an us society.

[VSamuels]

And those who silenced the awesome presidency of hope gleaming from JFK, moved us collectively in the direction of 'identity politics' and corporatism and endless marketing of useless gadgets. Johnson's presidency while useful in fullfilling the prophetic dream of MLK, Jr. and others pushed us into the war-like superpower policeman role, which has surplanted any notion that America can resolve her problems.

This credo has replaced and buried the promise of a JFK who believed that America's first obligation is to its people and its domestic future. Perhaps, not out of a sense of morality, as much as out of a sense of pragmatism, JFK realized that this country had to pull itself out its centurys old battle over race and poverty and find some common ground to achieve greatness. It seems light years ago, when a president stood in the Oval Office and spoke of tackling a major project to highlight the ingenuinity of the America spirit. Who today, could imagine Bush speaking about (or believe him) eradicating AIDs during our lifetimes?

The infamous ,day in November '63, not only robbed us and the world of a president, but a leader who called on people to join its government in making the country great. Bill Clinton, often cites seeing JFK as a youth as one of the reasons he sought to enter law school and later local politics, meanwhile Hillary was claiming to be a Goldwater girl.

Big difference, you bet!!

Edwards, although frequently citing 'inspiration' in his message is not natural. Because the reaction of his audiences do not reflect the natural tendencies for some to drop their day-to-day routines and follow his lead. He has the JFK youthful looks and wealth, but not his charm and charisma. Hillary, while I believe would be a functional president, her audiences like Bush II will be staged for effect.

Hillary's handlers realize she does not inspire unity, yet they can not or will not acknowledge that Hillary is not the solution to the climate of political polaration.

Hillary, unlike Bill will win through coercion, not favorability.

[tommygolstch]

Can you imagine if Lieberman won?
The U.S. would be part of Israel by now.

[mikal214]

i guess that arrianna rove didn't want to put this story at the top with a big ugly picture of barack obama. the lady is SO biased. i come to this site all day and this story was NEVER at the top for two days like one about hillary would be.

way to go ms. rove.